(But my “last decade” point, was not talking about that issue. I got confused about a different points we were discussing.”)

@wrdcsc @JohnQAdams11 @Philip_Huff @jadler1969 Would you describe, for example, the district court in the global warming litigation lawless?

@wrdcsc @Philip_Huff @jadler1969 So you agree with JD! :)

@Philip_Huff @CBHessick @wrdcsc @RickGarnett Oh sorry, I misunderstood your question. Surely there can be District Court opinions where it’s functionally impossible to appeal in sufficient time.

@wrdcsc @Philip_Huff @jadler1969 (Anyways, I’m not hung up on the word lawless. The point is some judicial decisions due in fact themselves violate the law.).

@Philip_Huff @CBHessick @wrdcsc @RickGarnett Yeah, I was mostly focused on district court opinions.

@wrdcsc @RickGarnett @Philip_Huff I really do hear that, and frankly it’s ultimately the only argument for judicial review I’ve ever really found convincing, but, OTOH, basically granting the judiciary supremacy over … everything, strikes me as similarly troubling.

@CBHessick @wrdcsc @RickGarnett @Philip_Huff Sadly, the judiciary has made it timely probably for the last 100+ years, but at the very least for the last decade or so (under both Admins).

@wrdcsc @Philip_Huff @jadler1969 Fwiw, I’m less interested right now in defending the claim that the executive can ignore a judicial decision than defending JD’s entirely correct point that some judicial decisions are themselves lawless.

@wrdcsc @RickGarnett @Philip_Huff Curious: Do you think there is any judicial decision that is such an abuse of power and clearly and obviously wrong that POTUS can/should ignore it?

@wrdcsc @Philip_Huff Does it? Surely you’re aware many leading judges and scholars disagreed.

@RickGarnett @wrdcsc @Philip_Huff Yup.

@KDbyProxy Again, I’m not trying to take a side about this specific issue. I’m just pushing back on over simplistic judicial supremacy, which I do believe is dangerous.

@wrdcsc @Philip_Huff How does the Supremacy Clause say anything about judicial review? By its express terms it doesn’t even mention federal judicial opinions and it speaks to federalism issues, not separation of powers

@Philip_Huff Put another way, the judiciary didn’t “recognize” anything, it’s *claimed* something.

@Philip_Huff Totally.

@Philip_Huff What is?