CNN: "Roe leak may impact how Supreme Court decides gun rights, climate and immigration cases this spring" (silent part added within)

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Roe leak may impact how Supreme Court decides gun rights, climate and immigration cases this spring | CNN Politics

When Supreme Court justices gather on May 12 for their next closed-door conference to discuss pending petitions and outstanding opinions, everything will have changed.

amp.cnn.com

Comment:

Excluded Silent Part:
...so you better vote for Democrats.

 

[1srelluc]

After the current shit-show of threats and doxxing I expect the right-leaning justices to live by the feud on the dems.....If they don't they damn well should.

The majority opinion could, and should, be summed-up in five words....."Because **** you, that's why".

 

[Dekster]

Really the only way they could keep it from happening again is to have all their clerk's write opinions going both ways on everything and nobody know what they are deciding until they sit in a room together.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

After the current shit-show of threats and doxxing I expect the right-leaning justices to live by the feud on the dems.....If they don't they damn well should.

The majority opinion could, and should, be summed-up in five words....."Because **** you, that's why".

I have something similar I like to sing to anyone trying to tell me what to do. It's a simple tune with easy to remember lyrics.
It's set to America the Beautiful & the only words are "Go and **** yourself"
It's wildly unpopular with the lefties

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

...."Because **** you, that's why".

That right there is some sound legal reasoning.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Landmark Holding:

Since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief. Because **** you, that's why.

 

[task0778]

The SC justices have a lifetime appointment, so they don't have to give a damn about what anybody thinks. I would be very disappointed if any of them allowed themselves to be bullied into altering their opinions about any case before them. And we'd probably never know if that was the case anyway.

 

[PinktheFloyd88]

...so you better vote for Democrats.

Well said

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The SC justices have a lifetime appointment, so they don't have to give a damn about what anybody thinks. I would be very disappointed if any of them allowed themselves to be bullied into altering their opinions about any case before them. And we'd probably never know if that was the case anyway.

Thus, each opinion should close with....

Finally, we hold....because **** you.

 

[task0778]

Thus, each opinion should close with....

Finally, we hold....because **** you.

LOL, fine by me. I'm thinkin' about making that my sig.

 

[mudwhistle]

Thus, each opinion should close with....

Finally, we hold....because **** you.

 

[Esdraelon]

The SC justices have a lifetime appointment, so they don't have to give a damn about what anybody thinks. I would be very disappointed if any of them allowed themselves to be bullied into altering their opinions about any case before them. And we'd probably never know if that was the case anyway.

No, we couldn't "KNOW" but it will certainly lead to a belief that if they change their vote now, they are reacting to the intimidation efforts of the Left. If that happens, a huge number of Americans will begin to see that court as hyper-politicized and having lost its credibility. Ultimately, states may simply follow Cali, NY, IL, Or and others in simply ignoring the laws they disagree with. I can GUARANTEE that any ruling that weakens 2A substantially will be ignored in the South and Midwest and probably others. Sanctuary states will spring up everywhere.

 

[task0778]

No, we couldn't "KNOW" but it will certainly lead to a belief that if they change their vote now, they are reacting to the intimidation efforts of the Left. If that happens, a huge number of Americans will begin to see that court as hyper-politicized and having lost its credibility. Ultimately, states may simply follow Cali, NY, IL, Or and others in simply ignoring the laws they disagree with. I can GUARANTEE that any ruling that weakens 2A substantially will be ignored in the South and Midwest and probably others. Sanctuary states will spring up everywhere.

FWIW, here in San Antonio TX the DA said he would not prosecute an abortion case if the state passes an abortion ban.

 

[1srelluc]

Because **** You, That's Why.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The SC justices have a lifetime appointment, so they don't have to give a damn about what anybody thinks. I would be very disappointed if any of them allowed themselves to be bullied into altering their opinions about any case before them. And we'd probably never know if that was the case anyway.

It's simple. Decide this case the way we tell you or we will hurt your family.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Roe leak may impact how Supreme Court decides gun rights, climate and immigration cases this spring | CNN Politics

When Supreme Court justices gather on May 12 for their next closed-door conference to discuss pending petitions and outstanding opinions, everything will have changed.

amp.cnn.com

Comment:

Excluded Silent Part:
...so you better vote for Democrats.

There will certainly be some procedural and security changes but I don't see this at all affecting how they come down on those cases.

The conservatives will come down on the side of The Constitution, the rest will come down on the side of political activism.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

After the current shit-show of threats and doxxing I expect the right-leaning justices to live by the feud on the dems.....If they don't they damn well should.

The majority opinion could, and should, be summed-up in five words....."Because **** you, that's why".

No, unless it's shown that the leaker was a member of the court they need to do as always and treat each other with respect and hear/decide the case on the merits and in line with the original meaning and intent of the applicable parts of The Constitution.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

so they don't have to give a damn about what anybody thinks.

Well we certainly know that not to be true, we were flat told so in Bush v Gore and other cases through the years where one or more justices worried about their decision eroding faith in the court because people will think the rulings were made ideologically rather than based on the merits of the cases, the law, and The Constitution.

Numerous times we've heard them say they had a duty to act in a way that best protected the courts image of political neutrality as well.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

No, we couldn't "KNOW" but it will certainly lead to a belief that if they change their vote now, they are reacting to the intimidation efforts of the Left. If that happens, a huge number of Americans will begin to see that court as hyper-politicized and having lost its credibility. Ultimately, states may simply follow Cali, NY, IL, Or and others in simply ignoring the laws they disagree with. I can GUARANTEE that any ruling that weakens 2A substantially will be ignored in the South and Midwest and probably others. Sanctuary states will spring up everywhere.

Or they'll see it as the court simply being compromised because of fear of such retaliation against themselves and their families.

In the lower courts such threats would lead to judges having to call for a mistrial and recusing themselves if the case was refiled.

 

[1srelluc]

No, unless it's shown that the leaker was a member of the court they need to do as always and treat each other with respect and hear/decide the case on the merits and in line with the original meaning and intent of the applicable parts of The Constitution.

Well I'm not some ***** that cares more about decorum than principle so I tend to take a much harsher view.