Honestly sounds like they plan on being somewhat moderate and super political and careful like Roberts wants them too.
They probably wont do anything insane to cause backlash but will instead just slowly chip away at voting rights, abortion rights, and labor rights, healthcare rights, and personal freedoms. Which honestly might be worse long term. We really needed them to outrage the base and get them to show up in 2022 so we could crush the Senate and maybe do some court reform.
Dred Scott v. Sandford tho
āPutting the Chief Justiceās question in today terms: I assume that in most places there is no penalty for wearing a face mask or a mask during Covid, but there is some degree of opprobrium if someone does not wear it in certain settings. What if someone violates that command ā letās say itās in similar terms to the mandate here, but no penalty ā would they have standing to challenge the mandate to wear a mask?ā
Thomasā mask question
https://twitter.com/stevenportnoy/status/1326193027556106240
But the VRA and campaign reform passed by congress - definitely our job.
Yep, itās this. They seem to be playing their hand properly. Striking down the whole law would lead to a blue landslide and court packing. If they stay within sight of moderation on healthcare, donāt mess with gay rights, and only chip away at Roe around the edges, theyāll be able to keep their 6-3 edge and make a slew of terrible rulings that donāt smack people right in the face and catch their attention.
So lawbros say nothing to worry about ACA and election. Well now I can sleep at night.
Sigh
Maybe totally unrelated, but the premium for my high deductible, Obamacare Anthem plan is dropping by 10% beginning on January.
Did ACB give a leaning with her Qs today?
are you suggesting Q is her husband/PoP leader?
Law boy really is the absolute fucking GOAT. He cracks me up constantly on the podcast.
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1327056955626708994
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1327057402181668864
Science-based policy decisions = dangerous trend.
Some small consolation at least.
https://twitter.com/fedjudges/status/1327146499696963588?s=19
Serious question: why is this stunning? I guess I assumed that all judges would decline to donate to campaigns just to avoid unnecessary headaches. Is this just another example of my being incredibly naive?
Iām not sure what % were judges before being appointed to the court of appeals. I assume less than 50%. Generally, there are district court judges who are elevated, and then some law profs and lawyers whoāve shown some loyalty (eg, former McConnell staffers; law partners whoāve hosted fundraisers). I would have expected more of the conservative law profs and lawyers to have donated.
that Alito speech was bizarre. It was a straight up political speech. Maybe he feels bulletproof because Dems arenāt gonna take the Senate but man, in the long run that speech is certainly going to be used as evidence that we need to pack the court.
Alito has done more damage to this country than Scalia
Alito has been waiting his whole career to take off the straight jacket of norms. He has always been a pure deplorable. Trump has just unlocked him and now he gets to let his freak flag fly.
One thing Mitch has realized is that politicizing the courts further divides the country, gets everyone voting for their side in Senate races and this helps him wafflecrush the Senate due to its strong natural R skew (because low population rural states get same representation as dense states).
And wafflecrushing the Senate just gives him the power to stack the courts even moreā¦
I understand, I just wonder if they are overplaying their hand. I mean, what happens if the president refuses to follow a SCOTUS order, either saying the Court was improperly political on the issue or just outright rejecting judicial review? Remember that the Constitution says absolutely nothing about judicial review, and the Courtās power depends on believing they are legitimate.