Oh and for what it’s worth, strategically this ruling was a blunder by the five far righters. Killing your base to own the libs is not so bright. Making shitty rulings with a pretty obvious body count is not so bright.
But they’ve got such a massive advantage it just isn’t going to matter anytime soon. If they do something similar to ACA and Roe, they might fuck around and find out though.
I think Roberts actually is a guy who stands on principle to be honest. He’s sided with the liberal justices plenty of times, often on important cases. Obviously I can’t remember every decision he’s ever made but I remember that I agreed with his dissent in Obergefell v Hodges, which I thought was an overreach by SCOTUS.
You should listen to the 5-4 podcast. They do an effective job of dispelling this myth.
Got an episode in particular? I’ve been meaning to give that podcast a shot.
Hmm, others might be able to give a more definitive episode that talks about Robert’s, specifically, but going off memory, Shelby County episode or maybe the Citizen’s United episode talk about How Robert’s is a savvy ideologue. Really it’s a recurring theme throughout the podcast.
Alright thanks, will give the Citizen’s United ep a go.
Agree but this is all exactly why it’s going to backfire. Americans are becoming less religious each year. A reactionary SCOTUS forcing themselves on people is not going to help the cause. Short of a Handmaids Tale (which is sadly possible) this seems like net negative for religion.
Ehh, I don’t know. My estimate for the percentage of Americans who don’t even know about this ruling and never will is in excess of 90%.
Also agree but imagine being one of the “spiritual but not religious” who owns a business on the same street of some church and wondering why you can’t pay your bills when 300 people get to cram into a church several times a week.
Not sure why you’d say this, Cato is a libertarian thinktank, their guys are intensely hostile to theocracy. I’d expect them to be a huge critic of SCOTUS going forward.
Is pretty snark like this common in official decisions by the highest court in the land? I couldn’t even take a newspaper columnist seriously who tried to argue like that, let alone someone who is supposed to be an objective judge.
The example I gave was reading Gonzalez v. Raich (allowing the Federal government to ban the growing of medicinal marijuana, legal under state law, in the defendant’s own home and for his own use) in light of U.S. v. Morrison (striking down parts of the Violence Against Women Act) and U.S. v. Lopez (striking down a Federal law banning guns in school zones).
These are all commerce clause cases. Scalia essentially said the Federal government can prosecute someone for growing pot in their own house for their own medical use, but can’t prosecute someone for carrying a gun in a school zone. I was considered an unsophisticated rube for saying the only difference between the cases was Antonin Scalia’s political preferences.
Id rephrase to say less than the Beckett Fund religious reactionary lawyers but more than your average liberal
Because the mean anti-American SOCIALIST Dems won’t open up the economy!
Hey listen, when it comes to religion in the age of COVID, who are you going to listen to? A real American Patriot like Neil Gorsuch or some liberal clown who knows nothing about religion or God like this Francis guy? What a socialist!
Can the pope excommunicate Amy and whatever other catholic conservatives on the supreme court? He should do that.
It depends on the Justice (and it often comes out in dissents more than majority opinions), but, especially if you read between the lines a bit, there can be a surprising amount of sniping. Scalia was pretty famous for it, and Sotomayor has dropped some bombs.
That being said, 30 years of Gorsuch, Kav, and ACB is sure to yield some impressive petty.
Time to kill off some more republican voters.