domain:betonit.substack.com
Trump v. CASA, Inc.
So after this decision, what is actually the intended recourse for classes of individuals if the federal government subjects them to putative unconstitutional action (possibly even gish-gallopping different actions to achieve the same unconstitutional outcome)? I can see how the previous arrangement created an asymmetry in favour of case-and-jurisdiction shoppers, but the new one seems like it might equally create an asymmetry in favour of executive obsessions.
I understand that you are happy to see what you saw as an important weapon in your enemy's toolkit denied, but well, the enemy is best presumed to be crafty. If you were a progressive operative, could you imagine a way this decision could be turned against conservatives once you control the executive again?
Did you ever play Breath of Fire Dragon Quarter? That had a really cool meta progression system tied to it, but the gameplay didn't really get fun until you got dragon powers - like 15 hours in. I wish more games did stuff like that though, Dead Rising lost so much charm when it dropped the time limit (although I still enjoyed the fourth game in a mindless way.)
Have there been any notable cases of national injunctions being used to successfully gain value? All the ones I've heard of have been wielded by blues. If this tool hasn't been used by reds, why would removing it put reds in a worse position?
A lot of things seem to work this way lately; if a thing is only of value to one tribe, the other tribe has little incentive to preserve it.
More options
Context Copy link