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

Oh definitely. It wasn't a "don't worry" post.

 

So you're just talking about Kavanaugh then? Alito was already sitting on the Third Circuit before any of the above happened. Thomas was already on the Court. And I'm not sure why my comment earned your dickish retort. Not like I'm lauding any of these guys, just saying they didn't get on the Supreme Court as part of some painfully obvious quid pro quo like people are speculating Cannon would get. Everything you mention, I'd include as solidifying Kavanaugh's conservative credentials.

 

This needs to be amplified and exposed relentlessly.

I'm sure many on the Right are going to be really pissed off that "Liberty Counsel" couldn't wait until after the election to do this.

 

You will of course not be shocked to learn that right away these kooks' characterization of the opinion is wrong. It was not based entirely on substantive due process. Equal protection in fact was more important in Justice White's analysis. But unfortunately, there are probably four votes to overturn it. Gorsuch and Coney-Barrett are the unknowns.

 

Strict Scrutiny has a new 3 part podcast on Project 2025

every American should hear this.

Content warning. it’s hard going. they make it accessible but it’s terrifying stuff.

 

CrowFlies Miles™

 

Seriously how is this not a huge scandal.

I don't see anything wrong with multiple failures to disclose the most obvious gifts worth millions of dollars to one of the highest courts in the land that determines the rights of the citizens of the most powerful country in the world

— Matty Gregg (@mattygreggruns) August 5, 2024

 

It's appalling. But he's a horrible person, so he won't resign. And most of the Democrats in Congress are more focused on making sure the Orange menace doesn't return than to take steps to do anything---not that they have the votes anyway.

 

Can't Democrats start the impeachment process just to get Republicans on the record as defending corruption and bribery? If it takes a vote in the House to start the process, then never mind, because the Republican Speaker will never let such a vote happen.

 

If you're talking about McDonnell, I understand why that's the take on it, but it's not quite what it said. I don't agree with the decision, but it was essentially a jury instruction case about how to define "official act" under the "honest services" and Hobbs acts. The Court thought the government's interpretation of it under the bribery statute was too broad, as to encompass things that might not be considered official acts.

 

Son.....in case you weren't just being cheeky.