New Studies Show Supreme Courts Imperial Behavior Really Is Unprecedented

[Cellblock2429]

what did i say that was incorrect? the poster i am responding to is suggesting that child wouldn’t be their or your grandchild

that’s idiotic

/——/ Neither of us said anything incorrect.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The most corrupt court in history.

True.

A blind partisan Court dedicated to following conservative dogma rather than settled, accepted precedent.

A Court no American should have confidence in ruling in a fair, impartial manner – save for conservatives.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes we know how you fascists feel about being constitutional. It is unprecedented to you.

There is no longer equal justice under law.

 

[struth]

There is no longer equal justice under law.

you can say that again…look at the xiden crime syndicate getting a free pass. If hunter were black, he’d be in prison by now

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is no longer equal justice under law.

You're correct you have democrat no justice and everyone else. And you useful idiots don't realize you ain't part of that club.

 

[bripat9643]

ok…would you tell them that it wouldn’t be there kid?

What a sleazy question.

 

[struth]

What a sleazy question.

agreed…it’s sleazy thinking on your part to suggest they wouldn’t be

 

[bripat9643]

agreed…it’s sleazy thinking on your part to suggest they wouldn’t be

Since when are facts sleazy?

It's sleazy for you to ask such a question.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful, we've landed ourselves in a place where nobody's quite sure what is or isn't covered by United States law because court conservatives have been increasingly unwilling to bother with explaining it to us. Or, rather more urgently, to the lower courts who have been trying to piece together their rulings into a consistency that Justice Blackout Drunk or Justice Papal Seance haven't bothered to themselves provide.

It's nice to see judicial experts and reporters alike putting some real numbers to the problem, and The New York Times has a genuinely good(!) examination of the court's eagerness to change even their own internal processes in order to more efficiently arrive at the preferred conservative outcomes without argument or, increasingly, without waiting for lower court decisions in the first place.

We'll have to leave it to legal experts for suggestions on counteracting a Supreme Court that's decided the last 200 years of history was a mistake that needs correcting. Filling the court with a few more justices who haven't been specifically handpicked by the Federalist Society to sabotage human rights and cooperative governance both seems like it'd be a plus, so long as we're talking about correcting past errors. But apparently, doing that would be (checks notes) an insult to the current Court and to the seditionist who created it.

New studies show the Supreme Court's 'imperial' behavior really is unprecedented

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful,...

www.dailykos.com

The most corrupt court in history. Any means by which to change it is justified. And every decision it has made revisited also justified.

It's insane how you loons believe a bunch of shit that isn't in the Constitution are rights but those specifically mentioned are not.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's insane how you loons believe a bunch of shit that isn't in the Constitution are rights but those specifically mentioned are not.

Yep it's amazing

 

[struth]

Since when are facts sleazy?

It's sleazy for you to ask such a question.

it’s not a fact…adopted kids are the kids of people who adopted them. You claiming they aren’t is complete sleaze

 

[bripat9643]

it’s not a fact…adopted kids are the kids of people who adopted them. You claiming they aren’t is complete sleaze

only legally. Not biologically. And it's not an arrangement that resembles what happens in nature.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

MAGAts love them some crooked Justices.

To a bull dyke leftist, a Constitutionalist Justices equal crooked justice. Now that right there is a sick perversion mindset. It's the cancer of this country.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

MAGAts trying to con-trol women thru their bodies.

Bull dyke show me where and when exactly did the supreme court outlaw abortion? Sadly you never did receive the same fate you want to give to others.

 

[Orangecat]

So to prosecute you would have to violate her right to privacy.

Just because you do something in private doesn't mean you are immune from the consequences if you get caught.

 

[scruffy]

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful, we've landed ourselves in a place where nobody's quite sure what is or isn't covered by United States law because court conservatives have been increasingly unwilling to bother with explaining it to us.

It's not their motherfucking job to explain the obvious to you leftard dumbshits.

YOU are supposed to read the Constitution, shit for brains. It's YOUR job to understand it.

Or, rather more urgently, to the lower courts who have been trying to piece together their rulings into a consistency that Justice Blackout Drunk or Justice Papal Seance haven't bothered to themselves provide.

What a whiny pissy bunch of ignorant ingrates these leftard asswipes are.

It's nice to see judicial experts and reporters alike putting some real numbers to the problem, and The New York Times has a genuinely good(!) examination of the court's eagerness to change even their own internal processes in order to more efficiently arrive at the preferred conservative outcomes without argument or, increasingly, without waiting for lower court decisions in the first place.

More leftard astroturfing.

We'll have to leave it to legal experts for suggestions on counteracting a Supreme Court that's decided the last 200 years of history was a mistake that needs correcting. Filling the court with a few more justices who haven't been specifically handpicked by the Federalist Society to sabotage human rights and cooperative governance both seems like it'd be a plus, so long as we're talking about correcting past errors. But apparently, doing that would be (checks notes) an insult to the current Court and to the seditionist who created it.

Leftard Democommies want to counteract EVERY fucking thing they don't like

They re like undisciplined two year old brats.

They need a good spanking.

The most corrupt court in history.

HORSESHIT.

More fucking bullshit leftard lies.

Leftards are STUPID LIARS. They're stupid and they're liars. End of story.

Any means by which to change it is justified.

Bring it.

Bring it, leftard weasel.

We'll be eating leftover weasel for a good long time.

And every decision it has made revisited also justified.

Bring that too, jackbooted leftard Nazi thug.

Bring it. See where it gets you.

 

[pknopp]

Just to note for those who dismissed my Right to Privacy argument.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The South Carolina Supreme Court struck down Thursday a ban on abortion after cardiac activity is detected — typically around six weeks — ruling the restriction violates the state constitution's right to privacy.

South Carolina Supreme Court strikes down state abortion ban

 

[Cellblock2429]

Just to note for those who dismissed my Right to Privacy argument.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The South Carolina Supreme Court struck down Thursday a ban on abortion after cardiac activity is detected — typically around six weeks — ruling the restriction violates the state constitution's right to privacy.

South Carolina Supreme Court strikes down state abortion ban

/——-/ When will the right to privacy extend to my Vaxx status?

 

[pknopp]

/——-/ When will the right to privacy extend to my Vaxx status?

IMO it should have. I was never for that.

 

[justoffal]

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful, we've landed ourselves in a place where nobody's quite sure what is or isn't covered by United States law because court conservatives have been increasingly unwilling to bother with explaining it to us. Or, rather more urgently, to the lower courts who have been trying to piece together their rulings into a consistency that Justice Blackout Drunk or Justice Papal Seance haven't bothered to themselves provide.

It's nice to see judicial experts and reporters alike putting some real numbers to the problem, and The New York Times has a genuinely good(!) examination of the court's eagerness to change even their own internal processes in order to more efficiently arrive at the preferred conservative outcomes without argument or, increasingly, without waiting for lower court decisions in the first place.

We'll have to leave it to legal experts for suggestions on counteracting a Supreme Court that's decided the last 200 years of history was a mistake that needs correcting. Filling the court with a few more justices who haven't been specifically handpicked by the Federalist Society to sabotage human rights and cooperative governance both seems like it'd be a plus, so long as we're talking about correcting past errors. But apparently, doing that would be (checks notes) an insult to the current Court and to the seditionist who created it.

New studies show the Supreme Court's 'imperial' behavior really is unprecedented

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful,...

www.dailykos.com

The most corrupt court in history. Any means by which to change it is justified. And every decision it has made revisited also justified.

Even newer studies show that the new studies are not that new. Two out of three respondents at lias's lemonade stand said so! And that's impressive considering she only had one customer for the day!