It's been clear for 25 years, but today really underscored that the only consistent principle among the court's conservative judges is the desire for conservative outcomes. Federalism, originalism, textualism -- they're all just a means to an end, readily abandoned when inconvenient.
Key question I would love to have answered by SCOTUS justices: list the cases where you voted for an outcome contrary to your policy preferences.
If people were honest, I think it would be illuminating.
At least with Scalia there were a few pretty intense criminal defense rights cases - against pot-sniffing dogs, infrared search of property, child witness, flag-burning. These guys, not so much. Gorsuch might get funky on a few things, but they are his choices.
It was pretty clear Scalia picked things he didn't really care about to burnish his "balls and strikes" credentials. Probably smoked a little pot in college and thought "I'll show those liberals what's what".
Gorsuch has taken Scalia's commitment to making shit up and turned it up to 11.
and some things like say children testifying in abuse cases without being able to be confronted, might be defense-lawyer positive but not liberal. And surprise, about half the decision trumpets textualism rather than the case. www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/8...
Democrats also worked with Republicans to neuter the fuck out of the ACA.
Also, honorable mention to the current top dude in the party for helping Mitch McConnell extend the Bush tax cuts.
They have limited opportunities to do so because there’s another party blocking them, and they’re at a disadvantage in that it’s much easier to block than to legislate.
i honestly believe the same, that's why their arguments are so bad, the rhetoric and facts are not important, what matters is the emotional effect it has on people who already believe sone fucked up things
debunking them does not work because they never cared about being right
Yup. Whether it’s getting an abortion, stepping out on your spouse, being treated for a disease with cells from fetal tissue, or having an addiction problem, conservatives in general are very certain, firm, and outspoken of their beliefs until they are subject to them.
Once Scalia died, any kind of originalism went. None of them would go as far as him on defense or 4th amendment cases. They use the other concepts in a sprinkling, they'll even make fun of Gorsuch sort of when he's too textualist. When they don't want to argue they keep it short.
That one is coming back as soon as the Court changes, but it may be a wait. The "well-regulated" thing also gets me. Yes 18th Cent it meant "good working order" OK then - how do you keep a body of men in good working order? Letting them them do whatever they want, the Judge says.
I almost think because he ruled with majority on the one flag-burning case he felt the could do anything on anything else and hold up flag-burning when someone criticized him.
in order to anticipate any Scalia opinion, you simply had to imagine the worst possible outcome of any case before the court and like magic, that was Fat Tony’s opinion. he was a miserable cunt who damaged a nation for generations with the Heller decision alone
They're barely even means, more like the shredded newspaper or tissue you find in the briefcase you picked up from a con man you thought was full of money.
Yep. In the a book about O'Conner and the Gore V Bush decision, "Scalia privately scoffed that it was, ‘as we say in Brooklyn, a piece of shit’).”
Then he went around telling everyone to 'get over it' meanwhile he was the guy they always put out front as the True Believer.
Which was Leonard Leo's specific project - no more Souters guided by principles that might lead to decisions contrary to the interests of the conservative power project.
It's been clear since SCOTUS inception as an undemocratic body meant to offset the rule of people for the rule of capital.
Which is why justices are only added as oligarchs require despite only 9 still representing 13 Appellate Courts.
bsky.app/profile/radl...
It's been clear for 25 years, but today really underscored that the only consistent principle among the court's conservative judges is the desire for conservative outcomes. Federalism, originalism, textualism -- they're all just a means to an end, readily abandoned when inconvenient.
Biden should assassinate Trump with Seal Team Six then kill the Republican Senators so he can’t get impeached. According to Trump’s attorney, Biden can’t be convicted for any of it.
Kind of interesting subtext is that philosophy here is that the way you get to the outcome is irrelevant, judges are picked to give the judgement donors want, and either properly trained to do so, or defective, the text of the law is essentially a (necessary) impediment to getting things done, etc
Still love the audacity of this footnote from Clarence Thomas's NYSRPA v. Bruen opinion, straight-up admitting that he's fudging the history and doesn't give a sh*t because the whole point is to find a way to his preferred result
bsky.app/profile/saba...
The abjectness of Bruen’s fake-historian game is hidden by Clarence Thomas in a footnote: If the history doesn’t support my preferred view I’ll just say it does
