Patrick G. Eddington: Conservative legal commentators and professors appear to be willing to engage in blatant misogyny when a female justice with conservative leanings but not part of the federal legal pro-Executive branch status quo mob dares to veer from orthodoxy.

Conservative legal commentators and professors appear to be willing to engage in blatant misogyny when a female justice with conservative leanings but not part of the federal legal pro-Executive branch status quo mob dares to veer from orthodoxy.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Independent Streak Marked Supreme Court Termwww.nytimes.com The junior member of the court’s six-justice conservative supermajority often questioned its approach and wrote important dissents joined by liberal justices.

she's with her fellow shitty fascists when it comes to all the shittiest 6-3 decisions so the idea that she's "independent" because of a few irrelevant differences is a joke- like, who cares if she disagrees with part the immunity decision, there are 5 others who still support it

I've noticed there is usually one "breakaway" con who might join the minority, or write a concurring opinion, but when it comes to the biggest issues re crime, regulation, abortion, race, they're all onboard with the shitty result.

this allows the fascist enablers in the media to say "see, they aren't just one monolith" which might make for interesting cocktail discussion among the D.C. legal elites and media, but for all intents and purposes they're the same- the distinctions don't mean anything to a rape victim in Texas

Yeah alt-right women have been complaining about this for years. Why would a SCOTUS justice be immune?

Cool, so she’s the Susan Collins of the Supreme Court expressing concern and doubt, and even voting with the liberals. But never when it would change the outcome.

Was it Josh Blackman? It was Josh Blackman right?

Oh it was Blackman all right

Post