They have life terms. Why would they care who approves of what they do?
Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
And yet, they do care, as has been made clear in recent interviews, etc.They have life terms. Why would they care who approves of what they do?
Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
And yet, they do care, as has been made clear in recent interviews, etc.
You seriously believe this guy cares?And yet, they do care, as has been made clear in recent interviews, etc.
Here is one of the Obergefell lawyers with a stiff dose of realism now that deep red states might be inclined to move on gay marriage with an obliging court.
View attachment 50435
So the SCOTUS is feeling some heat. Gee I wonder why. Lowest approval rating since they started tracking in 2004.
The Supreme Court is on defense: Justices speak out to calm growing dissatisfaction | Salon.com
Why is Breyer also making the same claim? That there is a difference of judicial philosophies. Not partisanship or backroom deals.Maintaining the fiction that the court is non-partisan is absolutely essential to the Republican project. That's why people like Thomas and Barrett are out there complaining about their actions being covered accurately and put in context that voters might understand.
Why is Breyer also making the same claim? That there is a difference of judicial philosophies. Not partisanship or backroom deals.
They care a bit. There is such a thing as a legacy and its not something you can buy or talk your way into.They have life terms. Why would they care who approves of what they do?
Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
Funny people acting like it's a new thing. I grew up in Virginia, when you got 30 miles outside of DC, the IMPEACH EARL WARREN signs were everywhere. Of course I was so young I didn't know what the hub bub was all about.weird how minority rule and gross imbalance of minority power is an unpopular thing, right?
Funny people acting like it's a new thing. I grew up in Virginia, when you got 30 miles outside of DC, the IMPEACH EARL WARREN signs were everywhere. Of course I was so young I didn't know what the hub bub was all about.
One of my favorite Onion articles:I too am old enough to remember the controversy over the Warren Court. It mostly had to do with conservatives objecting to that court expanding (or really, finally recognizing), the rights of people accused of crimes by the state. In those days, it was pissing and moaning over "criminals getting off on technicalities." That's how they regarded the Constitution, as a "technicality." And where were the "rights of the victims," they cried.
Which is one of many reasons I groan every time I hear conservatives talking about "the Constitution." Dismissing cases because the police search someone's private residence without a warrant or probable cause was disrespecting the rights of victims, but making you wear a mask violates your Constitutional rights.
These people wouldn't know the Constitution if it crawled up and bit them on the ass.
I've noticed that a republican packed court rarely sides with the nonsensical conservative agenda. So really I dont think its a big deal or a problem.
No, after Roe vs Wade they are going after Obergefell v. Hodges, they have basically said as much.And they aren't done yet. 2023, they'll reverse roe v wade. That paves the way for really fun things like allowing states to ban the sale of contraceptives. Don't think they want to do that? See the hobby lobby case where these christian nut jobs think contraceptives are a sin. That's literally the next thing after they overturn roe.
All they need is someone to file their challenges through the Fifth Circuit, which has no problems whatsoever ignoring existing precedent.No, after Roe vs Wade they are going after Obergefell v. Hodges, they have basically said as much.
If they really want to go after contraceptives, it will be the same ruling as the one that overturns Roe vs Wade, and done under the same premise.
Don't forget it also created a huge multi-factor test for the remaining part of the voting rights act that has no basis in the statute and is pretty much designed to let states fuck over minorities.I can't imagine how you'd feel this way.
The republican packed court has, to date, ruled that:
- Businesses can discriminate however they like so long as they cite religion. Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado
- Businesses don't need to provide minimal health insurance coverage, so long as they cite religion. Burwell v Hobby Lobby
- That gerrymandering was A-OK and not undemocratic or vote diluting. Rucho v Common Cause
- That racism is no longer a thing in the south and thus we should allow them to put in racist voter restrictions and districts. Shelby County v Holder
- Churches are special places where laws can't apply and apparently disease doesn't exist (Pretty much all the COVID-19 cases involving churches)
They've to date resisted siding with the most extreme of the right wing insanity, but they have not resisted extreme new jurisprudence allowing them to overturn and rewrite years of settled law, just because they don't like it.
And they aren't done yet. 2023, they'll reverse roe v wade. That paves the way for really fun things like allowing states to ban the sale of contraceptives. Don't think they want to do that? See the hobby lobby case where these christian nut jobs think contraceptives are a sin. That's literally the next thing after they overturn roe.
No, after Roe vs Wade they are going after Obergefell v. Hodges, they have basically said as much.
If they really want to go after contraceptives, it will be the same ruling as the one that overturns Roe vs Wade, and done under the same premise.
Don't forget it also created a huge multi-factor test for the remaining part of the voting rights act that has no basis in the statute and is pretty much designed to let states fuck over minorities.
20 years ago the Supreme Court said that the most important thing was that the recounts needed to stop and that was before the Federalist society had gotten its dark money web fully set up and integrated into the federal judiciary.
With the 5-1-3 split the Republicans don't really want or need to pack anything. Making the USSC 12 or 13 members would just weaken it's power. We'd be better off to take the Senate in 2022 and replace a retired member in 2024 when a Republican gets elected President.Well now that the idea of court packing is a thing, you can bet republicans will do exactly that as soon as Donald Trump is back in charge. It doesn't matter that republicans control the high court now, they will want even more control. It is not a matter of will they but a matter of when will they. All they need is this Mitch McConnell congress, and a republican president, then the court will be expanded by republicans with installing republican justice after republican justice.
But until that day, republicans will continue to scare the masses with insisting it is the democrats wanting to do this.