Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
moose47
Oct 11, 2006

Alito chiding Breyer for bringing up mass shootings is hilarious. I wonder if he has the same problem with Thomas recounting the gory details of every crime in his opinions.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

moose47
Oct 11, 2006

ilkhan posted:

So, objectively, they struck down may issue and increased the level of scrutiny on 2A violations. Not far enough, but about what I expected.

I sincerely want to know what an opinion that went "far enough" would look like. States can't pass laws containing the word "gun"? This isn't a typical Roberts wishy-washy chipping away at rights kind of decision. It's a full-throated win for the NRA and its ilk.

moose47
Oct 11, 2006

Liquid Communism posted:

Deeply unlikely.

The liberal Justices actually tend to have legal experience, and believe in things like due process and precedent.

They have the luxury of saying that they believe in those things because they are in the minority. If they had gained the majority in 2016 I have no doubt that Heller, Citizen’s United, and Shelby County, would have been in just as much danger as Roe.

moose47
Oct 11, 2006

I assume the outcome of this case would have been the same if the coach had been performing a satanic ritual on the 50-yard line, right?

moose47
Oct 11, 2006

Crows Turn Off posted:

Do we know who is writing the majority opinion for the EPA case?

Sucks the Republicans on SCOTUS want a polluted hellscape.

They try to equally distribute opinions within each argument sitting. The EPA case was heard in the February sitting and it looks like Alito, Roberts, Kagan, and Sotomayor haven’t authored any opinions from that sitting. So it’s a good guess that one of them has it.

moose47
Oct 11, 2006

This whole conversation reminds me of a hilarious cert petition from several years back. I went and dug it up and it's even more on-point than I remembered.

Some highlights:

quote:

Will John Robert$ admit that he already Denied Reviewing 10 criminally- proven Writs because each proved to criminal standards that judge$ like him routinely sell their orders to special interests in what are acts of treason against the United States and its 319,000,000 real, flesh-and-blood, non-corporate People?

LIST OF PARTIES
All interested parties do not appear on the cover’s caption. Well over 100 state & federal judge$ who already sold decisions, rigged hearings, railroaded actions, or otherwise scuttled a case, appeal, or writ should now be terrified of going to prison for at least Honest Services Fraud, 18 USC §201 Corruption, §1962 Racketeering, and §2381 Treason & Overthrow of Government.3

And of course listed in footnote 3: John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2455857/scotus-s226199-8-8-15.pdf

So hey, at least someone tried to hold them accountable.

moose47
Oct 11, 2006

As bad a decision as Bush v. Gore was, the decision to grant the stay three days earlier was even worse. At least with the main opinion, if you squint hard enough you can kind of see the equal protection violation alleged (as even two of the liberals did). But granting a stay solely because the ongoing counting of legal votes might flip the count to Gore and cause irreparable harm to Bush’s legitimacy was asinine.

moose47
Oct 11, 2006

Evil Fluffy posted:

Remember how Kennedy kept insisting that he'd totally look at Gerrymandering if people could give evidence of it, and when he received it with the Wisconsin gerrymander we got the totally shocking result of the SCOTUS deciding it was ok and there was nothing they could do about it since it's outside the judiciary's control and if the people don't like it they can just vote out the politicians who have given themselves something like an 11 point advantage in the state?

Can't wait for round 2 with the ISL lawsuit where we're going to get a ruling that state legislatures have sole control over elections and we can just stop pretending the US has any sort of open and fair elections and get on with this country burning in nuclear hellfire.

I wouldn't be surprised if Kennedy had ultimately ruled that way, but that decision came after he retired so we have Kavanaugh to thank for it.

Though there was a Wisconsin gerrymander case a few years before that one that was kicked back to the lower court for lack of standing. I think that decision was unanimous, which makes me think the liberals went along with it because they didn't trust Kennedy to vote with them if they reached the merits.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

moose47
Oct 11, 2006

Bizarro Kanyon posted:

18 year old me voted for Nader because he made fun of both Bush and Gore. But I live in Illinois and my vote did not matter with the electoral college.

18 year old me didn’t vote at all because I didn’t care about politics at that time. But I live in Florida so my vote…oh poo poo. Sorry everyone.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply