The US Supreme Court Thread

Of course, had her vote had been the deciding one, she would have voted for Barrett's nomination.

 

Yep, but she would have been "very concerned" over the vote.

 

It almost makes you wonder if she voted this way just so it could be said that the vote was not 100% along partisan lines, while knowing it would not change the result.

 

"almost"?
I think that is a certainty.

 

But but but #CourtPacking!!!

Did you know that despite all of handwringing about the unprecedented nature of "court-packing," states have court-packed MULTIPLE state supreme courts in the past decade? https://t.co/5WFKQ3LIdI

What an AMAZING piece to hear about on the @wnprcolin show. pic.twitter.com/jbkGu2RsDM

— Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham (@paulgp) October 29, 2020

 

Lawrence O'Donnell went off on Brett Kavanaugh on Tuesday.

I don't usually watch him, but he was smashing Kavanaugh. I had recorded it for something else, but he smashed him

Now, Senator Klobuchar also going after Kavanaugh.

 

All I want to know is:

1. Why Justice Kennedy suddenly retired...
2. Who paid off all of Kavanaugh's debts (both known & unknown)...
3. What connections, if any, are to Deutsche Bank...

 

I hope with all the repairs that need doing and reversals to be made, that they find time to put Kavanaugh and Barr out on their arses.

 

I’m certain your questions were rhetorical but your fans may need clarity.
It is a good read anyway. (The things this orange painted clown has gotten away with.)

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/donald-trump-justice-anthony-kennedy-retirement/amp

 

Oh, come on, cut Kavanaugh, the poor guy, a break.
He meant New Hampshire.
Nobody can tell those states apart, not even the 14 1/2 people who live there.

 

These oral arguments are so stupid.

 

Of course they are. This is why they are stacking the courts. The actual arguments don’t matter. They just need to get in front of the judges to make the arguments to give the judges cover for their decision.

 

Robert's and Kavanaugh appear to be siding with Dems thus far, to my untrained eye of course.

Basically, saying that its not the courts job to rescind laws like the ACA. Thats the job of Congress.

 

My go to source for all things SCOTUS agrees with you.

If you didn’t listen to oral arguments, tl; dr: There is no chance the Supreme Court is going to invalidate Obamacare. At the very least, Justice Kavanaugh will provide a 5th vote for severing the one provision the plaintiffs & Trump Admin attack, leaving the rest in place. https://t.co/K9FWXphYbF

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) November 10, 2020

 

Basically what they are saying is that this is going to be a split ruling. Kavanaugh and Roberts are likely going to agree with the other Conservative justices that the lower court ruling that the removal of the tax penalty invalidates the individual mandate, but they are likely going to join the three Liberal justices to say that this does not invalidate ACA as a whole.

 

Wait, the Republicans are against "activist judges" and are in favor of justices who "call balls and strikes," right?

Please don't tell me that the Republicans are not being completely and totally consistent and 100% honest in those statements.

I am crushed!

 

The most cynical take is that they won't overturn the ACA because the don't want to blow the Georgia senate races.

The whole argument is nonsense on stilts. The argument is that the congress repealed the mandate as a sleight of hand way of repealing the ACA, rather than repealing the ACA directly. It's a ********ing disgrace it ever got this far.

 

Alito went full Nut:

Alito is delivering the keynote speech at this year’s Federalist Society convention. He’s using the occasion to defend the group, claiming its members face “harassment and retaliation for saying anything that departs from the law school orthodoxy.” https://t.co/pmoQazRIof

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) November 13, 2020

 

If you look follow the tweet, you'll see that Alito misstates how Plan B works when he attacks lefties/science. It's pretty shocking that a Supreme Court justice would get that very basic fact wrong.