|
Federal Appeals Court Judge Amul Thapar is enjoying quite a moment of popularity in conservative circles, following his recently published paean to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Thapar’s book — “The People’s Justice: Clarence Thomas and the Constitutional Stories that Define Him,” — makes the adulatory case that Thomas’s originalism, which purports to interpret the Constitution according to its public meaning at the time of ratification, “more often favors the ordinary people who come before the court.” Although Thapar does not address the ethics issues currently confronting Thomas, it turns out that his book raises ethics questions of its own. Appointed to the federal district court by President George W. Bush in 2008, and elevated to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals by President Donald Trump in 2017, Thapar is a frequent speaker at Federalist Society events and was shortlisted for nomination to the Supreme Court seat ultimately taken by Justice Neil Gorsuch. His prominence has helped attract considerable attention to his book in conservative circles and mainstream media. Many judges and justices have written books, of course. This is encouraged as an “extrajudicial activity” under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, adopted by the lower federal courts in 1973. Thapar’s ethical problem, however, is that he appears to have made extensive use of his publicly funded judicial clerks for his writing, which is specifically prohibited by the code. In his acknowledgments, Thapar thanked by name his five “current law clerks” who “volunteered their time and provided me with essential help in researching, editing, and, perhaps most important, thinking about the cases.” Such assignments to judicial employees could violate Canon 4G of the Code, which provides that, “a judge should not to any substantial degree use judicial chambers, resources, or staff to engage in extrajudicial activities.” The five clerks’ involvement can certainly be seen as “substantial,” given that, as Thapar put it, “When emergencies arose or I just needed some advice, all five would volunteer to help, day or night.” Thapar has described his favored writing times as “7:00 to 11:00 at night, and 3:00 to 7:00 in the morning,” consistently outside any clerk’s regular working hours. The U.S. Judicial Conference’s Formal Advisory Opinion 79, issued in 2009, is yet more explicit. Although the “minor or limited” use of law clerks “for one or two days for ‘blue-booking,’ cite-checking, editing, or discrete research assignments” is permissible, Thapar’s admitted “day or night” use of five clerks “throughout the process” seemingly exceeded the maximum allowed by the advisory opinion. Lest there be any doubt, the advisory opinion explains that the “use of law clerks for extensive research for, or drafting of, a substantial scholarly article ordinarily will not satisfy the requirements” of the code. But Thapar’s misuse of his staff was worse than that. “The People’s Justice” is not a scholarly article. It is a widely marketed book, published by a commercial press, from which Thapar stands to receive significant income. The deployment of clerks on such projects is absolutely barred per the Judicial Conference advisory opinion, which states unequivocally, “the use of judicial personnel to assist the judge in performing activities for which extra compensation is to be received raises too great a risk of abuse to permit.” The amount of Thapar’s compensation is unknown because his mandatory financial disclosure reports for 2021 and 2022 have not yet been posted on the U.S. Courts website. A source in the publishing industry told me that advances from Thapar’s publisher, Regnery Gateway, are typically in the $10,000-$50,000 range. Thapar acknowledged in a Federalist Society interview that “The People’s Justice” was ranked Amazon’s “number one new release” on the day of publication. The latest figures I could locate suggest that the book has already sold around 5,000 copies. It is irrelevant that Thapar called his clerks volunteers. As recognized in the Judicial Conference advisory opinion, the power imbalance between the judge and his clerks — who are dependent on their boss for future references — makes true volunteering impossible: “The danger exists that a judge may pressure current or potential staff members to work on the judge’s projects, and this danger is compounded by the difficulty of distinguishing between a staff member’s official and unofficial time.” Imagine the unspoken pressure on the fifth clerk after the first four had “volunteered” to work overtime for the judge. Although Thapar doesn’t say whether he paid his clerks for their extra work, “a judge may not avoid these restrictions on the use of judicial personnel for compensated activities, even if the judge offers to share this compensation with his or her staff.” Moreover, the current unavailability of Thapar’s financial disclosures makes it impossible to tell whether he included any of the clerks’ uncompensated time in his reported gifts. Thapar did not reply to my requests for comment on his use of the five clerks’ time, but he has revealed his views on financial disclosure in response to questions about Justice Thomas’s non-disclosure of many luxury vacations as the guest of real estate mogul Harlan Crow. “What we don’t want to do is over-disclose,” he told the New York Times. That was a strange answer from a judge whose job includes applying the many federal tax and securities regulation statutes, among other laws, requiring detailed disclosures. In my former practice as a consultant to judges and law firms, I always advised my clients to err on the side of disclosure. But it turns out that Thapar had something very specific in mind. In an interview with The Daily Caller, Thapar further explained, “The reason we don’t over-disclose is because then it becomes a game of gotcha. If I disclose, for example, that you bought me coffee, then everyone asks, ‘Why didn’t you disclose that Joe brought you coffee, and Diane bought you coffee?’” I guess he has a point. If you disclose one all-expense paid mega-yacht cruise, or a trip on a billionaire’s private jet, pretty soon you might have to disclose all of them.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
get fired for football prayers > spend years going through courts to overturn it > SCOTUS rules in your favor > get reinstated > resign after one game > leave for florida > book coming out in november lmao  quote:After winning a U.S. Supreme Court case to get his coaching job back and igniting a firestorm over praying in public schools, Joe Kennedy resigned after only one football game with Bremerton High School. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/praying-bremerton-football-coach-joe-kennedy-quits-after-one-game/
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2023 18:07
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:get fired for football prayers > spend years going through courts to overturn it > SCOTUS rules in your favor > get reinstated > resign after one game > leave for florida > book coming out in november Good 5-4 Podcast about this one https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/kennedy-v-bremerton-school-district/
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
The Supreme Court has some truly dangerous cases teed up as it starts its new term this week, but none threatens a more repugnant outcome than U.S. vs. Rahimi, the latest gun case the court has taken up. As if the country’s gun laws weren’t absurd enough already, the court could make them even more so. In fact, if it wants to uphold the precedent established by Justice Clarence Thomas’s outrageous ruling in the 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, it would have no choice but to declare that the government can’t take guns out of the hands of abusive husbands and boyfriends. The court’s conservatives have two choices: Tell violent abusers everywhere they can keep their guns, or strike a blow against their beloved principle of “originalism,” the idea that the Constitution must be applied today by divining the original intent of the men who wrote it and the values of the world they lived in centuries ago. While oral arguments will give us a better idea of where the justices stand, for now most legal observers believe the plaintiff, Zackey Rahimi, is going to lose. The consequences of him winning — for both the court and the Republican Party — are just too grave. Rahimi argues that the Bruen decision means that law must be struck down. In Bruen, Thomas wrote that laws regulating guns are presumptively unconstitutional unless they are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” which he defined as meaning that they must have an “analogue” to regulations from the time of the country’s founding up until the passage of the post-Civil War amendments in the mid-1800s. In the strictest terms, says Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor and author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” Rahimi is right. “We didn’t have restraining orders that took guns away from anyone in the 1700s and 1800s,” Winkler told me. While there were some laws punishing men for beating their wives and children, none involved confiscating guns. “So it’s very hard to say the domestic abuser ban is consistent with the history and tradition of American gun regulation.” It’s important to understand that Thomas invented this unique test for gun regulation out of thin air. “There’s no other constitutional right that’s governed by an exclusive ‘history and tradition’ test,” Winkler says. It’s originalism taken to a surreal extreme. But given the damage that overturning Roe v. Wade did to both the court’s credibility and the Republican Party’s political fortunes, siding with domestic abusers might not be a stance the justices want to take. The practical consequence of this case is obvious: If Rahimi prevails, more women will die. More than half of female homicide victims are killed by current or former intimate partners. Every month, about 70 American women are shot and killed this way. One meta-analysis of 17 separate studies found that male domestic abusers who had access to guns were 11 times more likely than abusers without access to guns to kill their victims. As the authors wrote, “The risk factor that increased the likelihood of [intimate partner homicide] the highest was if the male perpetrator had direct access to guns” — more than whether he had threatened her, strangled her, stalked her, had a criminal record, had a substance abuse problem or any other variable researchers could identify. Guns turn abuse into murder. The justices might realize that, rather than providing clarity and preventing judges from imposing their own beliefs on the law, Bruen has created widespread confusion in lower courts as judges play amateur historians, with results varying dramatically depending on which court hears each challenge to a regulation. “The current Bruen test is a total mess,” Winkler says. So it’s possible the court’s less extreme conservatives are looking for a way out. That could mean loosening the Bruen test to say a regulation doesn’t need a directly analogous law from two centuries ago, just a general justification — say, that sometimes guns were taken from certain people deemed dangerous, so it’s fine to take them from domestic abusers. If Rahimi wins, laws on everything from carrying guns on planes to background checks to licensing gun dealers might have to be struck down. Even the court’s conservatives (apart from Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.) are probably hesitant to go that far. Which is why, Winkler told me, “This case is the best case for gun-safety advocates that could come along.” The result might dial back Bruen and strike a blow against originalism, showing that when justices imprison the country in 18th- and 19th-century ideas and values, even this conservative court can’t live with the results. It would be a partial victory. But at the Supreme Court these days, that’s about the best one can hope for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 00:05
|
|
|
the supreme court hearing 2nd amendment cases like a broken record while the country is unofficially bankrupt and 90% homeless
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 00:09
|
|
|
dont worry the democrats are on the case theyre giving up on gun control to focus on the issues people really care about like funding the war in ukraine
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 00:32
|
|
|
they can't give up on gun control! you have to have something to give up first like trying
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 00:42
|
|
|
Private Cumshoe posted:they can't give up on gun control! The Bourgeoisie are still fully hypnotized by Autopilot, even at this late hour
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
Dems saw the fundraising money they got after roe was repealed and they think they can repeat that after they lose on their other issue
Shear Modulus has issued a correction as of 04:04 on Oct 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 04:00
|
|
|
if the founding fathers had HIMARS it would be unconstitutional for me not to also have it
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 07:08
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:dont worry the democrats are on the case theyre giving up on gun control to focus on the issues people really care about like funding the war in ukraine in a level of bipartisanship rarely seen, the democrats and republicans reached an accord wherein firearms confiscated from domestic abusers are directly sent to the frontlines of Ukraine
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2023 21:21
|
|
|
In 2000, a rider was attached to an appropriation bill without much fanfare. The rider would allow federal judges to earn money — called “honoraria” — for speeches, supplementing their public salary. According to two reporters, Tony Mauro and Sam Loewenberg, some on Capitol Hill called that proposal the “Keep Scalia on the Court” bill because Justice Antonin Scalia had complained about how much more money he could have earned as a lawyer in private practice as compared to a justice (though he strenuously denied that he was contemplating leaving because he wasn’t being paid enough in a letter to the editor published by the Legal Times). Judges had been prohibited from receiving honoraria or any other gifts since the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. The statutory ban covered all judges, members of the Supreme Court and district judges, like me. When I gave speeches in China, or Vietnam, or Italy, organized by law schools, I was barred from receiving any compensation for it. The statute’s proponents were concerned that private benefactors might influence official decision-making or, at least, give the appearance of doing so. One congressman equated receipt of an honorarium with “legalized bribery.” Leading the charge against repealing the ban in 2000 was then-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) who asked: “Are Americans comfortable allowing federal judges to accept $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000 speaking fees from corporations and other wealthy interests that may have cases pending in the federal court?” After a public outcry, the proposal was defeated. But Leonard Leo, the man largely responsible for building the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court and filling the lower courts with Federalist Society judges, figured out a way around the statute. According to ProPublica, George Conway, a conservative lawyer (now a “Never Trumper”) said that Leo “saw it as his responsibility to help take care of judges even after they had made it to the highest court in the country.” Conway is quoted, saying: “There was always a concern that Scalia or Thomas would say, ‘F--- it,’ and quit the job and go make way more money at Jones Day or somewhere else.” Leo wanted to keep them happy so they would stay. I call Leo’s work the “Keep Justice Thomas on the Court” campaign. Leo’s efforts to keep Thomas happy meant 38 destination vacations, a voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas, 26 private jet flights (plus eight by helicopter), a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events (typically sitting in a box), two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica, and a standing invitation to an exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast. Most of these were arranged by Leo and paid for by conservative billionaires. While recent debates center on enacting an ethics code for the Supreme Court, the statutory honoraria ban has been in place for decades. No new ethical rules need to be promulgated, or codes enacted on this subject. It exists right now, as it has since 1989. But Thomas and Leo are doing an end run around it, accomplishing indirectly what the law prohibits them from doing directly. And no one is stopping them. In effect, Thomas is saying, No, I may not take a fee for speaking at a dinner sponsored by the Koch brothers; heaven forbid I violate the 1989 honorarium ban! But of course: Nothing stops you, Koch brothers, from lavishing me with a trip to Palm Springs in a private plane, sumptuous accommodations, and fabulous meals, as ProPublica reported he received. According to Leo and Thomas, there is nothing wrong with conservative billionaires enabling Thomas to have a lifestyle far beyond what his judicial salary allows. If history is any indication, the version of Congress we had 23 years ago might have gone ballistic in response to recent discoveries about Thomas. If they were concerned about federal judges getting money for honoraria, they surely would’ve been concerned about judges evading the honoraria ban with luxury vacations. If they were worried about rich benefactors paying judges for their speeches, they would surely be concerned about rich benefactors providing judges with private planes and high-end accommodations. But this time, unlike 1989, Thomas and Leo didn’t bother to ask. Consider that Thomas just didn’t bother to disclose any of it. It took investigative reporters to find out the scope of his lavish lifestyle, and the conservative benefactors who supported it. True, travel expenses, defined in the statute as those that are “actual and necessary” are excluded from the honorarium ban. A private Gulfstream jet was apparently “necessary” to get Thomas to speak at the Koch brothers’ dinner (a speech that is itself problematic, if it was a fundraiser and Thomas the draw.) The federal judges I know travelled economy. What about the private jet to speak at Yale Law School in New Haven? Amtrak was good enough for me and every other judge I invited to my Yale Law School class. Ordinary (non Supreme Court) judges are bound by ethical rules that clarify what “actual and necessary travel expenses” entail, although I would be surprised if other judges needed the clarification. Those rules provide that a judge may accept reimbursement limited to the “actual cost of travel, food and lodging reasonably incurred by the judge.” Anything above that amount is considered “compensation,” which is barred (and of course, those rules already prohibit judges from associating themselves with entities that are publicly identified with controversial legal, social, or political positions, like the Kochs.) These ethical rules don’t bind the Supreme Court. Not even the statute that’s been on the books since 1989 seems to hold sway anymore. In 2000, then Chief Justice William Rehnquist, assured the public in his year-end report on the federal judiciary that “any honoraria would be governed by the strict standards of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.” Oh, really?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 03:06
|
|
|
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/justices-to-consider-multi-pronged-constitutional-attack-on-sec/ they’re gonna kill federal agencies this year hell yeah
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
When Sandra Day O’Connor arrived at the Supreme Court in the fall of 1981, she found it to be a cold place. The other justices were not entirely welcoming to the first woman in their midst. At her first lunch with the justices, half of them did not show up. At her investiture, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger paraded the newly robed O’Connor down the court’s front steps, exclaiming to reporters, “You’ve never seen me with a better-looking justice.” She smiled gamely; she was used to this sort of thing. Over the course of her long ascent from ranch girl to the first female justice on the Supreme Court, she had come to understand that self-restraint and civility would make her more, not less, powerful. As a new justice, O’Connor soon bonded with Lewis F. Powell Jr., a courtly gentleman who enjoyed dancing the foxtrot with her at Washington social events. She felt a bit cold-shouldered by her fellow Arizonan, Justice (and later Chief Justice) William H. Rehnquist, who, unbeknownst to the other justices, had proposed marriage to his law school classmate and moot court partner Sandra Day in 1952. (The other justices knew only that the two had “gone to the movies.” Still, when O’Connor came on the bench, Harry A. Blackmun teased Rehnquist, “Now, no fooling around.”) O’Connor, who died Friday at age 93, had a strong ego, and she could be, to use her word, “bossy.” She relished putting together majorities in close cases; her husband, John, wrote in his diary that it made her feel “like she was in the catbird seat.” But she never showed off, and she knew when to let others take the glory. She was initially assigned the majority opinion in U.S. v. Virginia, the landmark case giving women the right to attend Virginia Military Institute and other formerly all-male public institutions of higher learning. In an act of self-abnegation unusual among justices, she demurred. “I think this should be Ruth’s case,” O’Connor said, because Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had come to the court 12 years after O’Connor, had devoted her career to women’s rights. “I loved her for that,” recalled Ginsburg. O’Connor’s law clerks were sometimes intimidated by her no-nonsense approach to work and life, but most of them came to revere her. “She was actually modeling a balanced life,” said Lisa Kern Griffin, now a Duke Law School professor. “Make time for your family. Take care of yourself. Experience the outdoors and get some exercise. Have a sense of the wider culture. Enjoy lively dinner parties and a varied circle of friends. Never be above taking care of people. It was really unusual. We were getting not just an apprenticeship in law but an apprenticeship in life.” A Supreme Court law clerk can get easily swept up in the rivalries between the justices. Antonin Scalia could be caustic, once writing that O’Connor’s opinion in an abortion case “cannot be taken seriously.” But whenever one of her clerks tried to snipe back at Scalia with a clever line in a draft opinion, O’Connor cut it out. She never carried grudges; she moved on. Her worst criticism of anyone, her husband noted in his diary, was: “He has a pretty high opinion of himself.” But when she chose to make a stand, she could be direct. As majority leader of the Arizona state Senate in the early 1970s, she confronted a lawmaker named Tom Goodwin for being a drunk. He snarled, “If you were a man, I’d punch you in the nose.” O’Connor responded, “If you were a man, you could.” But she also knew how to deflect and disarm. In 1987, listening to Scalia rail against affirmative action, she riposted, “Why, Nino, how do you think I got my job?” (President Ronald Reagan had chosen O’Connor, who held the relatively low-ranking position of state court of appeals judge, partly because so few women were Republican federal court judges; getting picked for the Supreme Court, O’Connor once said to a friend, was “like getting struck by lightning.”) O’Connor, who cast the decisive vote in 330 cases over 24-plus years on the court and wrote the controlling opinions on major social issues such as abortion and affirmative action, understood that power and influence should be wielded with good humor and decency. When Clarence Thomas arrived at the court in 1991, he felt lonely and isolated — “hammered,” as he put it, by his confirmation hearings. After the court’s conferences, O’Connor began walking with him back to his chambers, saying, “You should come to lunch.” Thomas sulkily resisted. But “one day,” he recalled, “she looks at me, ‘Now, Clarence, you need to come to lunch!’” Thomas laughed as he recalled the scene. “So then I said, ‘Yes, ma’am!’” Thomas soon learned that O’Connor made all the justices come to lunch. “She was the glue,” said Thomas. “The reason this place was civil was Sandra Day O’Connor.” Scalia knew. He scrawled her a note when, in 2005, she decided to retire to care for her husband, John, who had Alzheimer’s disease. (In announcing O’Connor’s death Friday, the court said she suffered “complications related to advanced dementia, probably Alzheimer’s, and a respiratory illness.”) Scalia’s note said: “I have (despite my sometimes sharp dissents) always regarded you as a good friend — indeed, as the forger of the social bond that has kept the Court together.” He wondered: “Who will take that role when you are gone?”
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 08:13
|
|
|
What the heck happened here Did everybody just get tired of how lovely the Supreme Court is and how little we can do about it or what
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
next decision release is a few months off and thomas aint getting impeached probably
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 18:37
|
|
|
Real hurthling! posted:next decision release is a few months off and thomas aint getting impeached probably Makes sense I guess but drat if I'm not mentally tearing myself apart at every potential speed bump ahead this year
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 18:39
|
|
|
Yeah this thread goes dormant when the court is out of season. Don’t worry, spring training starts in a couple months!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 18:39
|
|
|
wasnt there some new clarence thomas crimes or something last week
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 18:54
|
|
|
page 69 nice
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 19:38
|
|
|
tokin opposition posted:page 69 nice In a 6-3 ruling, 69 declared not nice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 19:55
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:wasnt there some new clarence thomas crimes or something last week tax evasion for all the "gifts" yeah
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
ok FINE ill post content https://twitter.com/JRubinBlogger/status/1743277959606051119
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 01:03
|
|
|
he'll never wriggle his way out of this one!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 01:13
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:ok FINE ill post content It's gonna be easy as gently caress, Jennifer
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 03:02
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:It's gonna be easy as gently caress, Jennifer It might in fact be 9-0 in trumps favor which will be hilarious
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 03:05
|
|
|
Dameius posted:In a 6-3 ruling, 69 declared not nice. finally
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 03:06
|
|
|
current Supreme Court, known for loving the 14th amendment
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 05:46
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:It might in fact be 9-0 in trumps favor which will be hilarious 7-2, Scalia dissenting to point out that, actually, the founders intended for the president to be selected directly by the supreme court, otherwise they wouldn't have called it "supreme", and therefore there shouldn't be a ballot for Trump to be excluded from
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 07:08
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:It might in fact be 9-0 in trumps favor which will be hilarious im honestly having trouble seeing how any intellectually honest ruling could go any other way even if you accept that trump did an insurrection and is now constitutionally ineligible to be president theres no precedent whatsoever for state courts and state elected officials to be the ones making this determination
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 09:20
|
|
|
Max Peck posted:7-2, Scalia dissenting to point out that, actually, the founders intended for the president to be selected directly by the supreme court, otherwise they wouldn't have called it "supreme", and therefore there shouldn't be a ballot for Trump to be excluded from scalia's been dead for nearly 10 years
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 10:09
|
|
|
why do you think his dissent will be so shocking?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 10:17
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:intellectually honest now, let me stop you right there
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 12:55
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:scalia's been dead for nearly 10 years I'm assuming he meant Alito, the designated Scalia clone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 14:30
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:im honestly having trouble seeing how any intellectually honest ruling could go any other way even if you accept that trump did an insurrection and is now constitutionally ineligible to be president theres no precedent whatsoever for state courts and state elected officials to be the ones making this determination states run the elections though. as an L1 thought experiment it makes sense but yeah I'm expecting 6-3 to reject disqualification
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 15:03
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:states run the elections though. as an L1 thought experiment it makes sense but yeah I'm expecting 6-3 to reject disqualification I think if it comes down 6-3 they’ll just put it out through the shadow docket and be done. This is one where they’re going to want a 9-0 united court for decorum purposes, and I think there’s a good chance they’ll get it, and I’m here for that because the lib hand wringing will be incredible
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 18:25
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:states run the elections though. as an L1 thought experiment it makes sense but yeah I'm expecting 6-3 to reject disqualification by state law tho if anyone was trying to disqualify trump from running for office based on local legislation that would be blatantly undemocratic but it wouldnt be a constitutional crisis because the constitution gives states the power to select electors by whatever means they want different states interpreting the same constitutional amendment in radically different ways flies against basically everything the supreme court stands for and any dissenting opinion that even implies the colorado supreme court and the maine secretary of state had standing to make these decisions is effectively arguing that john c calhoun was right and that nullification is real and our friend
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 19:17
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:scalia's been dead for nearly 10 years jfc, that's what I get for trying to shitpost sick in bed but yeah, 9-0 is both the obvious route, and already incredibly funny, I suppose I shouldn't hope for more
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 19:22
|
|
|
Der Meister posted:current Supreme Court, known for loving the 14th amendment also the 4th 10th and 15th lol goddamn the roberts court really is racking up quite a killcount
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
hears donald trump's ballot issues, refuses dateguy's somethingawful's freedom of speech issues (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 09:17
|
|