konsequent weiter durchgezogen:

"Trump plans to sign #ExecutiveOrder on Thurs to shut down #Education Dept"
https://mastodon.social/@HistoPol/114191854138931406

In die gleiche Liga gehört auch die Illusion der vermeintlichen #Chatkontrolle:

https://mastodon.social/@HistoPol/116209945213665756

...und zum #Überwachungsstaat:

https://mastodon.social/@HistoPol/115352216165737323

Vielleicht noch ein Zusatzpunkt, der heute evident, damals jedoch für wenige @mastodon.social @peter_koenig

So, finally about that 97-page brief that kicks off the appeal. It was filed by political appointees and not the career lawyers who would normally work at this level. (The same appointees who seemed fine with dismissal on last Monday.) That might account for the tone which is more "judges bad" and less "judges make mistakes."

My summary: "My Executive Orders always begin with a declaration of my personal animus behind this retaliation because I am governed by that and not the law. The courts are clearly wrong because you are not the boss of me. I can too revoke security clearances for this reason, because I'm pretty sure you told me so. Also, if I sic the DOJ on specific individuals I hate, that's not retaliation, that's just the DOJ doing law things. And it's unfair for the judges to stop me from kicking these bad, bad law firms out of court rooms and signed contracts because I didn't do that yet — just a written, signed order to do so. And if it helps to rule in my favor, you can ignore the part where I confessed this is all retaliation for political reasons and my hurt feelings."

See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70694462/perkins-coie-llp-v-doj/ (2026-03-06)

Regarding the security clearance revocation, we have only the #DOJ brief, but it reads a bit more seriously than the rest. #snark #ExecutiveOrder #LawFirms #PerkinsCoie #JennerBlock #WilmerHale #WilmerCutler #SusmanGodfrey #Trump

③ Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C. 25-cv-00917, decided 2025-05-27, amended 2025-06-26) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69807328/wilmer-cutler-pickering-hale-and-dorr-llp-v-executive-office-of-the/

Executive Order 14250

> The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the #Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence. Little wonder that in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted no #ExecutiveOrder has been issued challenging these fundamental rights. Now, however, several Executive Orders have been issued directly challenging these rights and that independence. One of these Orders is the subject of this case. For the reasons set forth below, I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional. Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!

... (There are a lot of exclamation marks in this Opinion.) ....

> The Court has found that the Order is unconstitutional and will issue a declaratory judgment to that effect.

— Judge #RichardLeon, Docket 110

> The Court struck down the WilmerHale Order in its entirety and declared it null and void. This declaratory relief runs as to the United States as a whole, yet according to #WilmerHale, defense counsel has refused to notify all United States agencies and officers of this judgment. .... Thus the Court must amend its Order to ensure that no federal agencies or officers are misguidedly enforcing the null and void WilmerHale Order

— Judge Richard Leon, Docket 120

② Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C. 25-cv-00916, decided 2025-05-23) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69807126/jenner-block-llp-v-us-department-of-justice/

> This case arises from one of a series of executive orders targeting law firms that, in one way or another, did not bow to the current presidential administration’s political orthodoxy. Like the others in the series, this order — which takes aim at the global law firm Jenner & Block — makes no bones about why it chose its target: it picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed. Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the #Constitution. Most obviously, retaliating against firms for the views embodied in their legal work — and thereby seeking to muzzle them going forward — violates the First Amendment's central command that government may not “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” .... More subtle but perhaps more pernicious is the message the order sends to the lawyers whose unalloyed advocacy protects against governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy. This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the #SeparationOfPowers. It thus violates the Constitution and the Court will enjoin its operation in full.

...

> #ExecutiveOrder 14246 violates settled #FirstAmendment law and its operation must be enjoined in full.

— Judge #JohnBates, Docket 138