The US Supreme Court Thread - Post Roe v. Wade reversal edition

Let's just remember Republican logic and that, most likely, of this Supreme Court: a 12 year old girl is old enough to carry her ra**** baby to term and be a mom, but not old enough to read books about gay people, or have sex ed. Or be given vaccines.

 

Seems terrifying:

I figured the Supreme Court's Alexander would be bad. But it's so much worse than I expected. Alito loaded his majority opinion with traps to make it nearly impossible for any plaintiff to prove racial gerrymandering in court. A full-on gutting of the equal protection clause. https://t.co/KxnZVh14TC

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) May 23, 2024

 

It sounds like the blue states should stop listening to SCOTUS decisions.

 

I’ve said it before…that’s a crop that will only thrive if the Dems are willing to make this an issue, year after year, until it’s mainstreamed.

It can’t happen today because it’s impossible to keep this kind of things behind the curtain, but the Dems need someone to write their own version of the Powell Memorandum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell_Jr.#Powell_Memorandum,_1971

 

The Louisiana case isn't done. The 6-3 ruling says it's too late to change the map for the 2024 election, but the lawsuit (filed by the discriminated against white people) can proceed after that. The liberals on the court were OK with the districts so voted against that decision. When the legislature made the new map, the old map ceased to exist, so there is nothing to go back to - so the map with 2 majority black districts will be used for this election (then probably thrown out).

 

I may be the last person in this forum to connect the dots but…the whole point of the VRA was because the apartheid South couldn’t be trusted. The bill’s reason for being was to take this stuff out of the hands of state legislatures.

Good grief

 

Don’t you know that racism is over and a legislature wouldn’t act with racist motives?

 

We elected a black guy as president! Cops kill so few black people these days! They're even getting into Harvard.

Racism is over in America

By the by, that was sarcasm.

 

California doesn't listen to their voters, so why listen to a far away court. (Many Republican states also ignore their own voters on things like Medicare expansion)

If this is true, how is it legal? California voters banned affirmative action at state schools - of which UCLA is one - almost 30 years ago. https://t.co/ThWefXkB9W

— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) May 23, 2024

 

James writes for the new Yorker (used to?) but he is quoting the free Bacon story, that is true.

What a weirdo he is. https://t.co/Xy2hOkMjhE

— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) May 24, 2024

 

What is better than owning a SCOTUS justice? Writing the expenses off!!!

Still feels like it should be a bigger story that Clarence Thomas’ billionaire benefactor appears to have committed pretty serious tax fraud https://t.co/7MzDMtd02b

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) May 27, 2024

 

It's only tax fraud if the SC says it is. They already made bribery a crime that can't be committed (9-0 to boot). What's one more law that affects them and their buddies?

 

Three years from now we’re going to learn that Martha was the ringleader, not Gini:

Martha-Ann Alito allegedly harassed her anti-Trump neighbors so aggressively—including spitting at their car—that they called the cops and begged for legal intervention. https://t.co/Q6SR5rppJc pic.twitter.com/31HDvsXTx9

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) May 28, 2024

 

And Sam lied about the dates:

by the way, in case you're wondering: It takes fewer Senate votes to expand the Supreme Court and dilute the voting power of the SCOTUS insurrectionists than it does to remove them from the Court via impeachment. https://t.co/96uJ3paKQ1

— Jamison Foser (@jamisonfoser) May 29, 2024

 

And that the media sat on it for three years.

 

What the ******** is wrong with the right wing SC justices and their spouses?

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s husband is currently representing Fox Corporation, the parent company of Fox News, in a defamation lawsuit, Rolling Stone reports.

 

Nothing. They are doing exactly what they were selected to do.

 

Thanks to SCOTUS not having any real ethics rules (they set them for themselves, after all), a spouses activities do not require a Justice to recuse from any cases. I'm not even sure ACB would be required to recuse if her husband was the one presenting to SCOTUS.

 

SC Justices are not required to recuse themselves for anything.