New Studies Show Supreme Courts Imperial Behavior Really Is Unprecedented

[skews13]

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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

 

[Indeependent]

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.

DAILYKOS!

 

[pknopp]

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

The facts are, in the biggest case, Roe V Wade, the court would be COnstitutional in either way they ruled.

It's Constitutional to note the Constitution does not specifically protect it.

It's also Constitutional to note that the court does protect a right to privacy and abortion can not be banned without violating that.

 

[Maxdeath]

Damn you finally found someone as crazy as you

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

Question:

If RGB were still on the Court, would she have ruled to overturn RvW?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The facts are, in the biggest case, Roe V Wade, the court would be COnstitutional in either way they ruled.

It's Constitutional to note the Constitution does not specifically protect it.

It's also Constitutional to note that the court does protect a right to privacy and abortion can not be banned without violating that.

What facts? There is not nor has there ever been any legislation under federal law that protected abortion. It's a state issue. Roe vs Wade ruling was judicial activism an unconstitutional. Putting it back in the hands of the states is constitutional. A concept you fail to grasp

 

[pknopp]

What facts? There is not nor has there ever been any legislation under federal law that protected abortion. It's a state issue. Roe vs Wade ruling was judicial activism an unconstitutional. Putting it back in the hands of the states is constitutional. A concept you fail to grasp

You can read half my argument if you wish..........................

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

It's Constitutional to note the Constitution does not specifically protect it.

Correct.

It's also Constitutional to note that the court does protect a right to privacy

Wrong.

 

[pknopp]

Correct.

Wrong.

Opinion noted.

 

[ReinyDays]

What facts? There is not nor has there ever been any legislation under federal law that protected abortion. It's a state issue. Roe vs Wade ruling was judicial activism an unconstitutional. Putting it back in the hands of the states is constitutional. A concept you fail to grasp

Will someone be able to cross state lines and get an abortion ... or will they be subject to arrest when they return to their home? ...

This was a problem with slaves before the Civil War ... obviously, someone from Mississippi can travel to Indiana without fear of having his donkey taken away ... yet that was a real issue for slaveowners bringing slaves with them to states that had already outlawed slavery ... African-Americans were encouraged to walk away from their masters, and they were given aid and comfort ...

Legislatures can criminalize intent ... the boy and girl conspire to evade their own state laws by planning to travel to another state to get an abortion ... but just on the girl ...

It's still a capital offense to perform an abortion on me ... so I'm good ...

 

[Manonthestreet]

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.

WahHHHHHH they wont countenance every perversity and gimmick we want

 

[22lcidw]

The facts are, in the biggest case, Roe V Wade, the court would be COnstitutional in either way they ruled.

It's Constitutional to note the Constitution does not specifically protect it.

It's also Constitutional to note that the court does protect a right to privacy and abortion can not be banned without violating that.

There have been endless lower court Prog extremist judges who reversed decisions from federal, local and even voting on issues.

 

[White 6]

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.

The article is kind of over the top. Had to blow it off, as just another KOS piece.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

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.

.





AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!! The mean old SCOTUS tried to take away your right to kill your unborn children.

WRONG!

Just resign yourself to the fact that you will have to control your genitals or go to another state to murder the child that you just could not refrain from fucking into existence.







.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Will someone be able to cross state lines and get an abortion ... or will they be subject to arrest when they return to their home? ...

This was a problem with slaves before the Civil War ... obviously, someone from Mississippi can travel to Indiana without fear of having his donkey taken away ... yet that was a real issue for slaveowners bringing slaves with them to states that had already outlawed slavery ... African-Americans were encouraged to walk away from their masters, and they were given aid and comfort ...

Legislatures can criminalize intent ... the boy and girl conspire to evade their own state laws by planning to travel to another state to get an abortion ... but just on the girl ...

It's still a capital offense to perform an abortion on me ... so I'm good ...

It's a states right issue period.

 

[Rogue AI]

Opinion noted.

It's more than opinion. Instances of the alleged right to privacy are drawn from bits and pieces of the Constitution without context. Abortion is a contract between parties, which is why none of Justices who claimed the privacy privilege cited the 4th, which does in fact grant protections from government.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You can read half my argument if you wish..........................

Nope don't need to. Unless you can show me where the courts can constitutionally legislate from the bench. Otherwise your argument has no constitution merit and wasted bullshit.

 

[bripat9643]

The facts are, in the biggest case, Roe V Wade, the court would be COnstitutional in either way they ruled.

It's Constitutional to note the Constitution does not specifically protect it.

It's also Constitutional to note that the court does protect a right to privacy and abortion can not be banned without violating that.

Only a prog could insist that both 'A' and not 'A' can be true.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Will someone be able to cross state lines and get an abortion ... or will they be subject to arrest when they return to their home? ...

This was a problem with slaves before the Civil War ... obviously, someone from Mississippi can travel to Indiana without fear of having his donkey taken away ... yet that was a real issue for slaveowners bringing slaves with them to states that had already outlawed slavery ... African-Americans were encouraged to walk away from their masters, and they were given aid and comfort ...

Legislatures can criminalize intent ... the boy and girl conspire to evade their own state laws by planning to travel to another state to get an abortion ... but just on the girl ...

It's still a capital offense to perform an abortion on me ... so I'm good ...

.




As someone who lives in an abortion free state, I don't care. One more dead leftist.

I just don't want the karma and the tax burden. It's the reason I no longer use Amazon. I don't care if leftist sluts kill their children, as long as I don't have to pay for it.





.





.