Congratulations, your pod has once again motivated me to waste my time, this go around to see where the "no, no" quote might have come from. I searched around in old newspaper databases, as well as some of the Gale ones, and it's all over the place when someone wants to dramatically state that they're against something or that it will never happen. Oldest I found was 1726. More here:
Additional thoughts about your concluding conversation about whether there was another case that overturned such an important Presidential initiative. I think Dan offered Boumediene, and I agree that’s not quite up there, but I do think the tetralogy of Rasul, Hamdan, Hamdi, and Boumediene was a major judicial rebuke to a central component of GWB’s war on terror. As with the tariff case, the rulings were pretty quickly side-stepped, but not entirely. Perhaps these cases are distinguishable because the Court struck down legislation, not executive orders, but there’s not much question that the legislation was implementing Presidential initiatives. I think the judicial intervention is all the more striking because it clearly related to the “foreign affairs” power, where the courts are supposed to be deferential to the political branches. Perhaps if we can’t find very many instances of such a pure confrontation between the Executive Branch and the Judiciary it is because Congress has, of late, mostly taken itself out of the game.
But based on my most recent comment, I may be confusing the actual case with a film version . . . .
I agree that those are an important example, although one thing that Youngstown and Learning Resources have in common, and the tetralogy does not, is that the President lost the votes even of his own appointees. See today's post: https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/learning-resources-and-youngstown
It is hard to understand how the three dissenters could say the language in the statute supports the president imposing these broad, ever changing tariffs, when the word tariffs isn't mentioned in the statute. Yet in Biden v. Nebraska these same dissenters ruled that the terms "waive or modify' doesn't give the president the power to waive or modify at the scope he wanted to.
I hope that the “no, no” quote is a reversal of Jane Bennet’s response to Mr. Bingley, in Pride and Prejudice, when he finally gets around to proposing to her: “Yes. A thousand times, yes."
Unfortunately, that is only a film adaptation line. In the novel the proposal and response occur off stage. "But on her returning to the drawing-room, when her letter was finished, she saw, to her infinite surprise, there was reason to fear that her mother had been too ingenious for her. On opening the door, she perceived her sister and Bingley standing together over the hearth, as if engaged in earnest conversation; and had this led to no suspicion, the faces of both, as they hastily turned round and moved away from each other, would have told it all. Their situation was awkward enough; but hers she thought was still worse." https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1342/1342-h/1342-h.htm
Congratulations, your pod has once again motivated me to waste my time, this go around to see where the "no, no" quote might have come from. I searched around in old newspaper databases, as well as some of the Gale ones, and it's all over the place when someone wants to dramatically state that they're against something or that it will never happen. Oldest I found was 1726. More here:
https://x.com/IJSanders/status/2025686627578716570
You mean interim episode.
Additional thoughts about your concluding conversation about whether there was another case that overturned such an important Presidential initiative. I think Dan offered Boumediene, and I agree that’s not quite up there, but I do think the tetralogy of Rasul, Hamdan, Hamdi, and Boumediene was a major judicial rebuke to a central component of GWB’s war on terror. As with the tariff case, the rulings were pretty quickly side-stepped, but not entirely. Perhaps these cases are distinguishable because the Court struck down legislation, not executive orders, but there’s not much question that the legislation was implementing Presidential initiatives. I think the judicial intervention is all the more striking because it clearly related to the “foreign affairs” power, where the courts are supposed to be deferential to the political branches. Perhaps if we can’t find very many instances of such a pure confrontation between the Executive Branch and the Judiciary it is because Congress has, of late, mostly taken itself out of the game.
But based on my most recent comment, I may be confusing the actual case with a film version . . . .
I agree that those are an important example, although one thing that Youngstown and Learning Resources have in common, and the tetralogy does not, is that the President lost the votes even of his own appointees. See today's post: https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/learning-resources-and-youngstown
It is hard to understand how the three dissenters could say the language in the statute supports the president imposing these broad, ever changing tariffs, when the word tariffs isn't mentioned in the statute. Yet in Biden v. Nebraska these same dissenters ruled that the terms "waive or modify' doesn't give the president the power to waive or modify at the scope he wanted to.
I hope that the “no, no” quote is a reversal of Jane Bennet’s response to Mr. Bingley, in Pride and Prejudice, when he finally gets around to proposing to her: “Yes. A thousand times, yes."
Unfortunately, that is only a film adaptation line. In the novel the proposal and response occur off stage. "But on her returning to the drawing-room, when her letter was finished, she saw, to her infinite surprise, there was reason to fear that her mother had been too ingenious for her. On opening the door, she perceived her sister and Bingley standing together over the hearth, as if engaged in earnest conversation; and had this led to no suspicion, the faces of both, as they hastily turned round and moved away from each other, would have told it all. Their situation was awkward enough; but hers she thought was still worse." https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1342/1342-h/1342-h.htm
I love the cover art for these new episodes!