Ankush Khardori is a senior writer for POLITICO Magazine and a former federal prosecutor at the Department of Justice. His column, Rules of L
aw, offers an unvarnished look at national legal affairs and the political dimensions of the law at a moment when the two are inextricably linked.
BEFORE U BLURT...IT'S POLITICO...HERE R THE CREDENTIALS.....NOT JUST SOME HACK WRITER.
WAIT AND WATCH.BECAUSE IF THE SCOTUS IS SUBMISSIVE TO TRUMP....THEN THE NAIL IS IN THE COFFIN FOR THE CONSTITUTION
Now tell me how this is in any material way different from the gloom and doom that emerged from the Biden administration on the economic consequences of a negative ruling when his student loan forgiveness scheme was being challenged in court and how that wasn't blackmail but this is. Or how this is materially different from what came out of the Obama administration when the (un)Affordable Care Act was being challenged in the courts.
The answer, of course, is that, once again, Trump is behaving in the same manner as his predecessors did when their actions were challenged in court, but while the pundits at Politico were more than happy to allow Obama and Biden to blackmail the courts with their actions, they draw the line at Trump doing the same and seek to advance the nonsense that this behavior has never before been seen and the harbinger of a constitutional crisis.
You want to know who blackmailed the Supreme Court? FDR, and more recently, collectivists of all stripes who called for a "packing of the court" unless it started ruling as they wished on certain cases. Why is that blackmail OK, but what Trump is doing so monstrous? Riddle me that HA . . . where was Ankush Khardori's story on blackmailing the Supreme Court when Democrats by and large were calling for a packing of the court to obtain the desired outcomes.
This should all be seen for what it is — a tacit admission that the administration is on very weak footing as a legal matter. The most charitable interpretation of the effort is that the administration is lobbying the Supreme Court to engage in the sort of outcome-driven judicial activism that conservatives have long claimed to hate. A less generous read of the situation is that this is an effort to politically blackmail the court into giving Trump what he wants even if it is clearly unlawful or unconstitutional.
NAILED IT....THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.....IT IS CLEAR,CONCISE AND OH SO
CORRECT. U CAN SPIN IT ANYWAY U WOULD LIKE....FDR DID IT....BUT AS FOR YOUR OTHERS I BELIEVE THAT IS A STRETCH.
There's another historical term for what's happening, since every administration does the same thing, and that's using the "bully pulpit".
And oh, by the way, "bully" when Teddy Roosevelt coined the term, meant "superb" and "wonderful", meaning the presidency is a wonderful pulpit from which to advocate for one's policies.
