Beginning 1 September, we will need to geoblock Mississippi IPs

Our legal system is a shambles that is clearly not prepared to handle this kind of thing, even setting aside the situation with the supreme court. It's become clear that the "shadow law" of simply passing unconstitutional statutes, filing frivilous lawsuits, etc., is operating independently of the real legal system moves too slowly and does not have adequate mechanisms to prevent what is essentially a DDoS attack. All justice is delayed and so all justice is denied.

> passing unconstitutional statutes > independently of the real legal system

The former is literally the real legal system, nothing shadow about it. Shadow would be some hidden deal to drop charges or something.

It's also not DDOS when a huge part of what you call "real" is exactly the same, so not unwillingly overloaded but willingly complicit.

the real legal system is slow by design, to carefully review cases and ensure fairness. It should also be based on good faith. The vulnerability comes from one bad faith party flooding the system with bad faith cases and appeals (as trump is doing). Even when he fails, the process becomes the punishment for the opposing side (journalists, political opponents...). When he wins, he wins.

> flooding the system with bad faith cases and appeals (as trump is doing).

Trump is winning most of these fights in the appellate courts and the Supreme Court. Activist groups are flooding the system with a bunch of weak cases, getting weak, poorly reasoned district court rulings, then getting overturned on appeal.

I feel like you're unfamiliar with the Supreme Court rulings, which are almost unilaterally terrible. The Court has made some very torturous interpretations of procedure and precedent to justify rubber-stamping operations that even the conservative justices will admit are unconstitutional, preferring to instead punt the issue and allow the harm to continue, completely circumventing the merits of the cases. Several of the recent shadow docket decisions regarding injunctions have brought up the equities of the suits in question, making the bizarre claim that enjoining the Executive Branch from doing whatever it wants pending a full trial harms it in greater proportion than the harms being actually inflicted on ordinary people.

> Activist groups are flooding the system with a bunch of weak cases, getting weak, poorly reasoned district court rulings, then getting overturned on appeal.

Trump's > 90% success rate at the Supreme Court should be read as an indictment of the Supreme Court, not of the lower courts.

> I feel like you're unfamiliar with the Supreme Court rulings

I feel like you are unfamiliar with who you are replying to. That doesn't make it any less amusing.

I am unfamiliar with who I'm replying to, but I don't really care; are they some sort of legal expert? If so, I'd expect them to understand that recent decisions such as Trump v. Casa and McMahon v. New York are pretty flimsy.

> are they some sort of legal expert

Yes.

> If so, I'd expect them to understand that recent decisions such as Trump v. Casa and McMahon v. New York are pretty flimsy.

That's what makes it extra interesting.

Well in that case, that is amusing.

What makes you say Trump v. Casa is “flimsy?” The Supreme Court addressed injunctions against the executive in Marbury in 1803. Wikipedia’s write up cites scholars that say federal courts issued between 0 and a dozen nationwide injunctions in the first 175 years of the republic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_injunction. The wikipedia write up is actually quite good on this.

McMahon v. New York is obviously correct. A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic” remedy requiring a showing that the plaintiff is likely to succeed in the merits: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/civil-resource-manual-21.... The argument that federal courts can supervise a reduction in force where the individual firings aren’t themselves illegal (e.g. race based) is a tenuous argument. Besides, what’s the irreparable harm? Being fired is one of the classic examples of something that can be remedied by after a trial with reinstatement and backpay.