Sadly, they'd probably do exactly this. What is this supposed to imply???? Liking beef jerky, sports and titties is somehow homophobic? What's next? Attacks on camo?
Among other things, Moore v. Harper is a stark illustration of how fringe legal theories on the right move into the mainstream. Republican politicians and lawyers endorse it. Scholars launder it into a more respectable form. Conservative judges turn it into constitutional law.— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) December 7, 2022 Four justices have endorsed the independent state legislature theory: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh.Four justices likely oppose it: Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson. Moore v. Harper thus comes down to Amy Coney Barrett. It's really the ultimate test of her originalism.— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) December 7, 2022
Dicks & Pussies Only Wedding Invites No Gay, But Child Brides A-OK Hey - This Federalist Society Cash is Friggin' Awesome, Ain't It? Inc.
Not gonna click that at work, nosirree. But if he's written a whole song about denying it, he probably is. Either that or somebody said he was and the ladies believed it.
Lonely Island is a parody rap group led by Andy Sandberg. They did "Dick in the Box" with Justin Timberlake. "I'm on a boat" with T-Pain. But yes, NSFW all the same.
No discussion of originalism in this case. Weird, huh? Oh wait, that's right. An originalist view would say that the First Amendment only prohibits prior restraint and that wouldn't really get them to the result they want.
Heard that the legal community think it's a farce that this one even made it to the SC. But with this SC...
About the ethics code y’all want… Lawmakers have just added a provision to the National Defense Authorization Act protecting Supreme Court spouses from having to reveal any outside employer, in the name of security. If it passes, Ginni Thomas’s professional entanglements would effectively be state secrets.— Jane Mayer (@JaneMayerNYer) December 8, 2022
The highest court in the land is supposed to hand down Solomon type verdicts. Or at least Daniel Dravot Solomon verdicts. But no they’re a partisan sly bunch of sleeze bags with an agenda. That’s what happens when you elect a dick waving drunk, a handmaiden and a “judge” led by his insurrectionist wife to the said highest court in the land.
This misreads the provision, @JaneMayerNYer. I wish you’d read it with your usual care. I helped write it, so I know EXACTLY what it would do and it would NOT have the unfortunate effects you forecast. https://t.co/O1KcB2Q12f— Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ (@tribelaw) December 8, 2022
Caveat: I have not read the full text of the bill. But what it was designed to do (and why Democrats like Booker support it) was prevent making it easy to find addresses and other personal information about members of the judiciary. It stems from the murder of the son of federal judge in New Jersey. I have yet to see Professor Tribe expound on why it doesn't do what Mayer claims, so we'll see. But I thought it was worth mentioning that there was some pushback.
Yeah, as someone who helped draft the bill, I'd think it strange if this was something Tribe overlooked---especially given the fact that just this week he was tweeting about Ginni Thomas's work for Heritage Foundation and how it's such a conflict in many cases.
Despite the fact that you all have been posting about him all day, my brain's first reaction when I see this is to think about these guys.