The next SCOTUS target won’t be gay marriage. It will be…

Where did he say that exactly?

 

He would dispel with the longstanding tradition that government institutions like the US Department of Justice operate independently from the president

Ron DeSantis is going after Donald Trump like never before | CNN Politics

those are his words quoted in the linked article. it is what he has done in the state of Florida.

he has 51% of the vote which gives him 100% of the power and will yield it to force his beliefs on 100% of the people. his words. quoted. no respect or use for the 49% and their opinion.

 

Who does the US Department of Justice answer to?

 

No, those are not his words quoted. He said 51% of the vote gives him 100% of the executive power. That is simply a statement of fact.

He didn't say he had no respect or use for the 49% of their opinion.

 

they are an independent body under the executive branch, just like the FBI. should they be weaponized to enforce political agendas as determined by POTUS or should they pursue the rule of law?

 

he has clearly demonstrated that he has no respect or use for dissenting opinions and will sue the power of the executive branch, and then some, to punish any opposition. How can you not see that?.

 

They answer to somebody... who do they answer to? The head of the Department of Justice? Who appoints the head of the Department of Justice?

No, and I wouldn't support DeSantis doing this. But:
1. That's not what he said.
2. That's already happening with a notable example being the FBI's reliance on the Steele Dossier (basically a Clinton campaign plant who as was closely tied to the Obama Administration) to launch an investigation into Trump. Then there's also discretion at what federal crimes to target and which ones not to target which is something that both parties already do and is politically motivated. But that's not really quite the same as "weaponizing" the Department of Justice. That would be more like using the Department of Justice to target your political opponents... oh wait...

 

If you think DeSantis punishes any dissenting opinion then you really don't know what a regime like that looks like.

 

Do you consider the UK a failure? They have a supreme court, but it cant nullify legislation and its powers of judicial review are limited. Most parlaimentary systems have parlaimentary sovereignty in fact, and I would say those are far more stable than our system.

 

He governs Florida for only the right. In FACT, he has used his position of power to attack those that do not blindly follow him. His attack on unions that do not support him while leaving alone unions that do is a perfect example of the damage he would do nationally. Thankfully, people outside of FL see this daily. We are not blind. Make America Florida is a joke. People outside Florida think that state is crazy. The leader of crazy wants to bring his circus to America. HELL NO.

 

We're just the Republican version of California... and frankly, we're a lot more hospitable to Democrats in this state than Democrats are to Republicans in California.

If that's not your thing, there's a state with nice beaches on the West coast that has your name on it.

 

Get this redcoat the Hell out of here!

 

The ordinary meaning of the term “adjacent” has not changed since Congress amended the Clean Water Act in 1977 to expressly cover “wetlands adjacent” to waters of the United States. 91 Stat. 1601; 33 U.S. C. §1344(g). Then as now, “adjacent” means lying near or close to, neighboring, or not widely separated. Indeed, the definitions of “adjacent” are notably explicit that two things need not touch each other in order to be adjacent. “Adjacent” includes “adjoining” but is not limited to “adjoining.” See, e.g., Black’s Law Dictionary 62 (rev. 4th ed. 1968) (defining “adjacent” as “Lying near or close to; sometimes, contiguous; neighboring; . . . may not actually touch”); Black’s Law Dictionary 50 (11th ed. 2019) (defining “adjacent” as “Lying near or close to, but not necessarily touching”); see also, e.g., Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 26 (1976) (defining “adjacent” as “to lie near, border on”; “not distant or far off ”; “nearby but not touching”).

By contrast to the Clean Water Act’s express inclusion of “adjacent” wetlands, other provisions of the Act use the narrower term “adjoining.” Compare 33 U.S.C. §1344(g) with §§1321(b)–(c) (“adjoining shorelines” and “adjoining shorelines to the navigable waters”); §1346(c) (“land adjoining the coastal recreation waters”); see also §1254(n)(4) (“estuary” includes certain bodies of water“ having unimpaired natural connection with open sea”);§2802(5) (“‘coastal waters’” includes wetlands “having unimpaired connection with the open sea up to the head of tidal influence”). The difference in those two terms is critical to this case. Two objects are “adjoining” if they “are so joined or united to each other that no third object intervenes.” 1968 Black’s 62 (comparing “adjacent” with “adjoining”); see ibid. (“Adjoining” means “touching or contiguous, as distinguished from lying near to or adjacent”); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 38–39 (5th ed.1979) (same); Webster’s Third 26–27 (similar). As applied to wetlands, a marsh is adjacent to a river even if separated by a levee, just as your neighbor’s house is adjacent to your house even if separated by a fence or an alley.

In other contexts, this Court has recognized the important difference in the meaning of the terms “adjacent” and “adjoining” and has held that “adjacent” is broader than “adjoining or actually contiguous.” United States v. St. Anthony R. Co., 192 U.S. 524, 533 (1904). As an example, the St. Anthony case concerned a federal statute granting railroads the right to cut timber from “public lands adjacent” to a railroad right of way. Id., at 526, n. 1, 530. The Court held that timber could be taken from “adjacent” sections of land that were not “contiguous to or actually touching” the right of way. Id., at 538. The Court explained that if “the word ‘adjoining’ had been used instead of ‘adjacent,’” a railroad could not have taken the relevant timber. Ibid.

In short, the term “adjacent” is broader than “adjoining” and does not require that two objects actually touch. We must presume that Congress used the term “adjacent” wetlands in 1977 to convey a different meaning than “adjoining” wetlands. See Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983).

 

Mid 19th century? Bro, state governors (segregationists) were doing that in the mid 20th century.

Actual democracy sounds nice. How are you going to make that happen?

 

I'll believe it when I see it. As long as they continue to attack precedent and issue one-sided decisions, people are going to see them as partisans enacting a political agenda.

 

I need to read the book. Next up.

 

I just finished chapter 5 of The Shadow Docket. You may have already read it. If not you should really try to get to it.

He shows undisputedly how completely lawless the Supreme Court's shadow docket decisions were in completely expanding, indefensibly, the concept of religious liberty, using covet as a backdrop.

Amazing how they used emergency injunctions and just transforming the procedural postures of the case to imply a new rule of law which they never announced till at the end, and then never in a merits decision despite having numerous merits decisions on the docket, which they could not craft majorities for.

Now they have the most favored nation status view of the Free Exercise Clause that border on theocracy

 

[

That isnt what he said at all.