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

Grilled or sauteed?

 

My favourite "Italian" Belgian, Adamo

 

Roberts can't even get the Oath of Office right. He's a fool leading fools.

 

SCOTUS under fire for political decisions.

‘Tarnished image’: Gallup releases devastating SCOTUS poll – as conservative Justices snipe at Kagan’s warning

Partial:
“The very worst moments [in the court’s history] have been times when judges have even essentially reflected one party’s or one ideology’s set of views in their legal decisions," Justice Kagan saidrecently, sparking anger from the right. "The thing that builds up reservoirs of public confidence is the court acting like a court and not acting like an extension of the political process.”

“Judges create legitimacy problems for themselves when they don’t act like courts,” she also said, and “when they instead stray into places that looks like they are an extension of the political process or where they are imposing their own personal preferences.”

“If, over time, the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that is a dangerous thing for democracy,” Kagan warned.

 

You thought last term was bad? Wait - there's more! Long and depressing article about the upcoming shitshow.

https://wapo.st/3BWTMsS

 

But her emails!!

 

Not Supreme but 5th circuit funk shite

The Fifth Circuit reverses and grants judgment *for* a judge who does a prayer ceremony in his courtroom before hearing cases.

Judge Jolly dissents in relevant part. His description of what the scene in Court is like is below. 1/ https://t.co/u9ocV8tpeC pic.twitter.com/5rxi4WebIc

— Raffi Melkonian (@RMFifthCircuit) September 29, 2022

 

Justice is supposed to be blind, or so we've been told. No doubt someone who refuses to pray to his deity could not get a fair hearing.

 

Weaponizing "religious freedom" is Samuel Alito's entire reason for existence, it seems.
That and the related task of subjugating women.

 

And the negroes, no doubt.

 

I guess no one should be surprised with the decisions coming down with all the rightwing judges & SC justices. Because the Federalist Society and Republican pols have been saying for decades "we're gonna fight back against all those lib'rul, civil liberties decisions you hippie jurists have rammed down our throats for years" So it's kinda hard to take some law school professors being shocked that there's gambling up in here.

Khiara Bridges remembers the exact moment she lost faith in the Supreme Court. At first, at the start of Donald Trump’s presidency, Bridges—a professor who now teaches at UC–Berkeley School of Law—held out hope that the court might be “this great protector of individual civil liberties right when we desperately needed it to be.” Then came 2018. That June, the justices issued Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld the president’s entry ban for citizens of eight countries, six of them Muslim-majority. Suddenly, Bridges told me, she realized, “The court is not going to save us. It is going to let Trump do whatever he wants to do. And it’s going to help him get away with it.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...t-scotus-decisions-law-school-professors.html

 

"Are the still here?"

--Claremont Institute think tanker.

 

Fed society folks may be getting what they want, but it's still nice to see KBJ make a mark.

So much going on here. But yeah, conservatives really, really won't like the "originalist" 14th amendment. https://t.co/f2qnSqtP3R via @TPM

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) October 4, 2022

 

Guaranteed Alito would be demanding protection from discrimination if someone called him a "Papist Guido"

 

I read a blog post on the last few days that kind of eviscerated Ms. Bridges. Basically making the argument that only someone with terminal law school galaxy brain could have just noticed this in 2018. As a history major, I completely concur.

Case in point...KBJ apparently went into the congressional record when they were debating and drafting the 14th and pointing out that THEY didn't think they were passing a race-neutral amendment, so for justices today to pretend it was race neutral is stupid. Only a person hopelessly cloistered in legal academia could pretend otherwise.

 

We all know those sorts of things are a one-way street. If anyone refused to sell cakes to someone wearing a crucifix because they believe it violates the Ten Commandments, Alito would not hesitate to throw the book at them.

 

Originalist court that respects precedent says what?

I’d imagine that if SCOTUS throws out Garmon, it could open up a huge avenue for states to give a green light for employers to go after unions during labor disputes.

— C.M. Lewis (@thehousered) October 3, 2022

 

Alito then winks at Thomas and says "not you Clarence, you are one of the good ones. I would make you the head of them all.

 

Let's just wait and see about that - as soon as an interracial marriage case comes before the court, Alito's true colors could appear.

 

Clarence lives in Liberal Maryland, I believe they just moved from Virginia. He will gladly vote to return it to the States know he is in a state that won't annul his marriage.

 

Real justice would be a heavy-duty reaffirmation of Loving where Clarence has to stay married to Ginni. She's lost the plot.

 

I was hesitant to post the Jackson tweet yesterday for this reason. This also ties into my point about RBG.

The cult of "dissenting" justices, which goes back to Oliver Wendall Holmes even before RBG, says so much about how liberals think about politics & power. https://t.co/TQqhH9ppwS

— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) October 5, 2022