Last
night,
the
Supreme
Court
authorized
the
Trump
administration
to
dismantle
the
Education
Department,
using
the
shadow
docket
to
block
efforts
to
temporarily
halt
the
action.
When
the
dust
settles,
the
administration
should
lose,
but
by
then
all
that
will
be
left
of
the
Department
of
Education
will
be
three
raccoons
in
a
trenchcoat
calling
in
student
loans.
That’s
assuming
the
raccoons
survive
the
layoffs
and
aren’t
reassigned
to
monitor
library
books
for
gay
thoughts.
The
decision
makes
no
sense
in
any
world
where
Congress
has
a
seat
at
the
checks
and
balances
table
and
even
less
when
you
remember
this
same
Court
ruled
the
exact
opposite
way
when
Biden
tried
to
forgive
a
few
student
loans.
It’s
a
betrayal
of
basic
principles
of
equity.
Lawyers
understand
that
“equity”
in
this
sentence
means
the
body
of
law
that
governs
stuff
like
stays
and
injunctions.
There
are
a
lot
of
people
who
are
not
lawyers
—
most
of
them
self-identifying
as
“textualists”
naturally
—
who
do
not
understand
this
and
they
are
very
eager
to
share
their
sense
of
how
the
law
works
with
people
orders
of
magnitude
smarter
than
them.
Professor
Kries
—
a
law
professor
at
Georgia
State
University
College
of
Law
and
the
official
“AMK”
since
he’s
not
the
one
responsible
for
Justice
Keggy
McFratboy
—
continued,
“There’s
no
way
the
equities,
when
balanced,
favor
the
Administration.”
Which
seems
accurate
since
even
if
these
justices
are
inclined
to
upend
the
separation
of
powers
on
the
merits,
that’s
only
one
factor
and
avoiding
the
irreparable
harm
of
firing
thousands
of
people
while
the
case
leisurely
winds
its
way
through
the
court
system
would
more
than
outweigh.
In
any
event,
the
replies
had
thoughts
in
much
the
same
way
squirrels
in
traffic
have
a
transportation
policy:
This
particular
account,
which
took
a
break
from
defending
the
non-release
of
the
Epstein
files
for
this,
might
want
to
check
out
Article
III:
“The
judicial
Power
shall
extend
to
all
Cases,
in
Law
and
Equity….”
But
even
at
that,
I
also
suspect
that
he
didn’t
actually
“just
read”
any
of
the
Constitution
here.
The
Constitution
is
like
a
gym
membership
for
these
people:
they
talk
about
it
constantly,
it’s
mostly
aspirational,
and
they’re
winded
after
the
Preamble.
Again…
you
just
need
to
open
the
Constitution
and
hit
Cntrl-F.
It’s
right
there.
Boundless
clean
energy
to
be
had
if
we
could
just
harness
the
unearned
confidence
of
someone
without
a
law
degree
to
talk
about
law
without
even
consulting
the
very
short
document
they’re
talking
about!
What
is
it
with
this
theory
that
the
Preamble
should
hold
controlling
sway
over
everything
that
comes
after
it?
I
mean,
I
know
what’s
up
with
it:
vague,
aspirational
language
is
more
amenable
to
disingenuous
textualist
nonsense
so
someone
can
act
like
“Domestic
Tranquility”
in
the
opening
paragraph
means
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
doesn’t
have
to
exist
several
pages
later.
But
it
is
weird
that
“well-regulated
militia”
is
the
only
prefatory
language
that
doesn’t
earn
any
force
given
that
it’s
actually
in
the
same
sentence.
This
account
describes
itself
as
a
“Constitutional
and
fiscal
conservative….”
The
Federalist
Society
is
doubtless
already
in
touch
about
the
federal
bench.
A
YouTuber
that
claims
to
be
an
attorney
but
somehow
missed
civil
procedure.
But
at
least
he’s
on
top
of
his
Cntrl-F
game,
so
doing
better!
Here
we’re
leveling
up
from
“I
don’t
see
that
in
the
Constitution”
to
elevate
Marbury
v.
Madison
as
though
it
actually
is
in
the
Constitution.
An
account
called
“Small
Government”
arguing
for
unbridled,
monarchical
power…
HOOK
IT
TO
MY
VEINS!
Just
fabulous.
But
also
this
misses
the
point
because
even
IF
the
Supreme
Court
wants
to
reward
kingly
powers
to
the
executive
it
has
to
wait
its
turn.
The
case
has
to
work
its
way
to
them
and
until
that
juncture,
the
Supreme
Court
—
like
all
other
courts
—
are
bound
by
principles
of
equity
to
maintain
the
status
quo
until
such
time
that
the
matter
is
fully
briefed
and
argued
and
through
all
the
congressionally
established
tiers
of
inferior
courts.
Just
hundreds
and
hundreds
of
very
dumb
people
arguing
passionately
for
what
they
imagine
the
Constitution
to
say.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.