Trump's not their leader, he's their stalking horse.
They have their own agendas. If it's convenient to their agenda they enable him, whether there's a good legal argument or not.
When making their ideological (or religious) preference into actual precedent and actual "settled law" happens to suit them, they'll diligently produce an official ruling, one replete with official arguments (whether those arguments are sensible or not).
But when such a "convenient" ruling would set a precedent that could prove troublesomely "inconvenient" when used by a different President and administration, then they issue a shadowy, insubstantial, cryptic ruling from the "Shadow Docket" -- thus avoiding any pressure to concoct some "credible" justification, that won't hinder their future decisions in any way -- they remain free to make a completely contrary ruling when a subsequent President seeks to do the very same thing the court had previously allowed for the furtherance of the Justices own political agendas.
In other words: Trump isn't their boss -- it's just that their interests overlap sometimes.
Question from a Canadian:
Do the judges on the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court bench actually know and understand which country's legal system they live and work in?
"[The] Republicans are selling their soul to win elections. Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. The government won't work without it. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
~ Barry Goldwater
(this version of his observation, in 1994)
Few listened... and America is marching ever closer to implementing the new American Gilead, à la Margaret Atwood's more literary warning in The Handmaid's Tale.
The trend, the "writing on the wall" so to speak, has been clear for decades. And now, time to turn this around is running out.
Actually, I'd be inclined to view "Qualified Immunity" as (arguably) a good thing -- if such a thing actually existed... But what the USA appears to have under that label is something something else, that should more properly be called "Unqualified Immunity."
"The expression comes from a 1975 TV commercial and the full version is American as baseball, hot dogs, apple pie."
Sorry, but that's not true -- I'm old enough to know from personal experience, that the expression is considerably older than the referenced TV commercial (and I'm Canadian).
Anti-vaxxers love to support their position by appealing to untenable "analyses" of VAERS data, while persistently ignoring the well-known and clearly described limitations of that data, and pretend that these analyses are somehow still scientifically valid despite these intrinsic flaws.
This is hardly surprising. After all, citing such arguments and "scientific studies" based on abusing VAERS reports is one of their most persuasive tools for propagandizing a scientifically naive general public.
So to RFK Jr and the rest of the anti-vaxx conspiracy-theorist crowd, the explanation provided by Toxicology Reports for retracting the study in question (that the "data" does not and by its nature can not support the stated conclusions) simply can not and will not be acknowledged as a legitimate explanation , nor as an appropriate, scientific reason for retracting the study.
Therefore, such actions by the scientific community must be portrayed as being motivated by corruption and political motives, rather than by trustworthy scientific judgment.
I wonder what would have happened if the leadership at the ADA had simply admitted the truth, and said something like:
"We panicked... We were afraid of how the Trump regime would react to this criticism -- and in our desire to protect this fine organization and the hundreds of scientists and the millions of Americans that depend on its activities, we overreacted... We panicked and we responded in the worst way possible.
We let you down. Very badly. All the advocacy groups, all the researchers, and the millions of Americans who rely on us, we let you all down.
We were wrong. Very wrong. We lost sight of our principles, and we exercised bad judgement. We should have remembered those principles, that we all share, and acted with more courage. And perhaps most of all, we should have had more faith in our membership. We are ashamed and truly sorry for this failure, and we promise to do much better in the future."
. . .
I don't know how the thin-skinned, authoritarian-minded Trump/MAGA regime would have reacted to this -- maybe even worse than the reaction that the ADA leadership feared and tried to avoid in the first place. But we've seen how complying in advance works out (hint: it doesn't).
Complying in advance is a losing strategy, even counter-productive one. So instead, give the American public something to believe in, and perhaps to rally around. In the longer view, plain speech and principled resistance is the only kind of response that will serve now.
They're running out of native American squirrels to distract the voting public with -- so now they're importing shiny new, Chinese electric squirrels instead?
It seems that these days (especially on the so-called "Right" or "conservative" side of the spectrum) most politicians spend very little time becoming properly informed on issues, or in "governing" as legislators in theory are supposed to do.
Most politicians appear much too busily engaged in kowtowing to powerful (or wealthy) lobbies while performatively acting out rituals of legislative procedure for public consumption, to actually focus on substantive and meaningful "governing".
Oh Lord... You didn't notice that one of Pelley's chief points was that video clearly showed otherwise? That in fact it's clearly visible in the video that ICE agent Ross was actually not directly in front of Good's vehicle, and furthermore that Good's front tires were cranked hard over to the right, away from Ross, to drive past him?
Or maybe, you're the one who has trouble with telling the truth?
(To be fair, there's a small chance that possibly you have trouble even perceiving the truth, when plain, clear evidence happens to conflict with the political narrative you've committed yourself to)?
.
Aside:
You also need to learn not just what 'left' means, but what 'leftist" means. The United States hasn't had left-leaning broadcast media or mass media since before I was born (and I'm evidently much older than you).
Portraying "violence" only by stretching the description of "violence" beyond credible congruence the actual, on-the-ground reality, is journalistic dishonesty.
Things like snowballs and chest-bumps really, quite simply, can't legitimately be compared to:
creating ground fog from prodigious amounts of tear gas and CS gas
pumping tear gas/CS gas directly into protester's inflatable costumes,
shooting pepper ball and more dangerous "less-than-lethal" ammunition from unsafe (much too close) range, (even at journalists, facing away and reporting live on camera),
aiming plastic bullets high and at heads, (rather than at the ground ahead, as designed),
body slamming quietly standing protestors to the ground,
"kettling" tactics against crowds doing nothing wrong except being present,
destroying first-aid stations,
not to mention several shootings -- including several fatal and clearly unjustified homicides, of which Pretti and Good were merely the ones caught in full, clear video.
etc.
The "news from nowhere" false equivalence ends up being propaganda, effectively favoring the side that needs to be held to account.
It's worth noting that press coverage from news organizations based outside the USA (Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Spain, Scandinavia... take your pick) seem to have no trouble keeping this balance in line with reality.
Trump's not their leader, he's their stalking horse. They have their own agendas. If it's convenient to their agenda they enable him, whether there's a good legal argument or not. When making their ideological (or religious) preference into actual precedent and actual "settled law" happens to suit them, they'll diligently produce an official ruling, one replete with official arguments (whether those arguments are sensible or not). But when such a "convenient" ruling would set a precedent that could prove troublesomely "inconvenient" when used by a different President and administration, then they issue a shadowy, insubstantial, cryptic ruling from the "Shadow Docket" -- thus avoiding any pressure to concoct some "credible" justification, that won't hinder their future decisions in any way -- they remain free to make a completely contrary ruling when a subsequent President seeks to do the very same thing the court had previously allowed for the furtherance of the Justices own political agendas. In other words: Trump isn't their boss -- it's just that their interests overlap sometimes.
Question from a Canadian: Do the judges on the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court bench actually know and understand which country's legal system they live and work in?
He was so right...
Actually, I'd be inclined to view "Qualified Immunity" as (arguably) a good thing -- if such a thing actually existed... But what the USA appears to have under that label is something something else, that should more properly be called "Unqualified Immunity."
I don't recall the source of this quote, but it seems decidedly pertinent to the current US administration: "They use the Law to commit their crimes."
I was trying to figure out what made those things "American" in primary grades. When the commercial came out in 1975, I was in high-school. QED.
"Unsupported claims" are not the same thing as "details".
Well, yes... That is one of the biggest problems with draconian enforcement.
But... but... but... those dastardly protestors were disrespecting authority !!!!
Anti-vaxxers love to support their position by appealing to untenable "analyses" of VAERS data, while persistently ignoring the well-known and clearly described limitations of that data, and pretend that these analyses are somehow still scientifically valid despite these intrinsic flaws. This is hardly surprising. After all, citing such arguments and "scientific studies" based on abusing VAERS reports is one of their most persuasive tools for propagandizing a scientifically naive general public. So to RFK Jr and the rest of the anti-vaxx conspiracy-theorist crowd, the explanation provided by Toxicology Reports for retracting the study in question (that the "data" does not and by its nature can not support the stated conclusions) simply can not and will not be acknowledged as a legitimate explanation , nor as an appropriate, scientific reason for retracting the study. Therefore, such actions by the scientific community must be portrayed as being motivated by corruption and political motives, rather than by trustworthy scientific judgment.
What the ADA should have said. (Maybe they still can?)
I wonder what would have happened if the leadership at the ADA had simply admitted the truth, and said something like: "We panicked... We were afraid of how the Trump regime would react to this criticism -- and in our desire to protect this fine organization and the hundreds of scientists and the millions of Americans that depend on its activities, we overreacted... We panicked and we responded in the worst way possible. We let you down. Very badly. All the advocacy groups, all the researchers, and the millions of Americans who rely on us, we let you all down. We were wrong. Very wrong. We lost sight of our principles, and we exercised bad judgement. We should have remembered those principles, that we all share, and acted with more courage. And perhaps most of all, we should have had more faith in our membership. We are ashamed and truly sorry for this failure, and we promise to do much better in the future." . . . I don't know how the thin-skinned, authoritarian-minded Trump/MAGA regime would have reacted to this -- maybe even worse than the reaction that the ADA leadership feared and tried to avoid in the first place. But we've seen how complying in advance works out (hint: it doesn't). Complying in advance is a losing strategy, even counter-productive one. So instead, give the American public something to believe in, and perhaps to rally around. In the longer view, plain speech and principled resistance is the only kind of response that will serve now.
They're running out of native American squirrels to distract the voting public with -- so now they're importing shiny new, Chinese electric squirrels instead?
It seems that these days (especially on the so-called "Right" or "conservative" side of the spectrum) most politicians spend very little time becoming properly informed on issues, or in "governing" as legislators in theory are supposed to do. Most politicians appear much too busily engaged in kowtowing to powerful (or wealthy) lobbies while performatively acting out rituals of legislative procedure for public consumption, to actually focus on substantive and meaningful "governing".
Probably. Though maybe it might have been the mother's decision?
Bobby lies; children die.
Oh Lord... You didn't notice that one of Pelley's chief points was that video clearly showed otherwise? That in fact it's clearly visible in the video that ICE agent Ross was actually not directly in front of Good's vehicle, and furthermore that Good's front tires were cranked hard over to the right, away from Ross, to drive past him? Or maybe, you're the one who has trouble with telling the truth? (To be fair, there's a small chance that possibly you have trouble even perceiving the truth, when plain, clear evidence happens to conflict with the political narrative you've committed yourself to)? . Aside: You also need to learn not just what 'left' means, but what 'leftist" means. The United States hasn't had left-leaning broadcast media or mass media since before I was born (and I'm evidently much older than you).
False equivilence is not "showing both sides
Portraying "violence" only by stretching the description of "violence" beyond credible congruence the actual, on-the-ground reality, is journalistic dishonesty. Things like snowballs and chest-bumps really, quite simply, can't legitimately be compared to:
- creating ground fog from prodigious amounts of tear gas and CS gas
- pumping tear gas/CS gas directly into protester's inflatable costumes,
- shooting pepper ball and more dangerous "less-than-lethal" ammunition from unsafe (much too close) range, (even at journalists, facing away and reporting live on camera),
- aiming plastic bullets high and at heads, (rather than at the ground ahead, as designed),
- body slamming quietly standing protestors to the ground,
- "kettling" tactics against crowds doing nothing wrong except being present,
- destroying first-aid stations,
- not to mention several shootings -- including several fatal and clearly unjustified homicides, of which Pretti and Good were merely the ones caught in full, clear video.
- etc.
The "news from nowhere" false equivalence ends up being propaganda, effectively favoring the side that needs to be held to account. It's worth noting that press coverage from news organizations based outside the USA (Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Spain, Scandinavia... take your pick) seem to have no trouble keeping this balance in line with reality.