U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

Do you mean he actually spoke from the bench?

In today's opinion on abortion, Clarence Thomas focuses on the racism of Margaret Sanger's movement, particularly her work in Harlem & the South. He deals w/ DuBois & the NAACP's concerns about the "ghetto approach" of Planned Parenthood. What's going on? https://t.co/7pwbsM4pPs

— corey robin (@CoreyRobin) May 28, 2019

Adam Cohen, whose book on Buck v. Bell (a bestseller a couple years ago) got cited by Thomas in a footnote, has responded:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/clarence-thomas-used-my-book-argue-against-abortion/590455/

Clarence Thomas needs to go back to investigating pubic hairs on his cola cans and die already.

Is there an RIP thread for him yet? because dreaming is free.

just bumped it :)

darling

no deaths on the Supreme Court until February 2021 at the earliest, please

and even then why wouldn’t the senate just repeat the Garland episode

Because the Republicans control the Senate as of today and they only require 50 votes plus Pence to confirm any damn young fool of a conservative to keep that seat warm for another 25 to 30 years. Why would McConnell ever do anything but that?

love that cohen article title

highly probable the senate doesn't change hands for several election cycles. they could keep this shit up for years regardless of who's in the WH.
if it's a Dem then that person is clearly 'illegitimate'

I'm sure Biden and Mitch will work something out. Probably a pro-life Democrat.

How will the RBG cult deal? https://t.co/CdFEIpaXYy

— Doug Henwood (@DougHenwood) June 9, 2019

More important.

If Kavanaugh hired an all-female group of law clerks, why wouldn't RBG approve of that, even if it was done for motives that have more to do with Kavanaugh openly preening himself on his liberality and open-mindedness than the actual presence of liberality or open-mindedness in his judicial thinking? At least those women have been given a chance to actively demonstrate their ability.

*future alien historians* "it's a little weird but very human. these x-x females wrote tons of pieces for this x-y male boss, named ka-va-nah, in support of overturning that "Roe" opinion. and later, in recognition of fetal personhood."

🐦[How will the RBG cult deal? https://t.co/CdFEIpaXYy🕸
— Doug Henwood (@DougHenwood) June 9, 2019🕸]🐦

#Morbsbait

He hired Tiger's Mom's daughter too. Tiger Mom defending him pays off.

these people are going to kill us

Good news:

Finally: A 5–4 decision ruling that the Virginia House lacks standing to defend its racial gerrymander in court. That effectively means its gerrymander is toast.

Majority: Ginsburg, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Thomas, and Gorsuch. Fun!https://t.co/7iA2rRb24r

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 17, 2019

Check out who joined the majority!

gorsuch seems like more of an ideologue, like thomas, than apparatchik, like alito/kavanaugh

https://i.imgur.com/OG8GqtO.gif?noredirect

do we know why breyer didn't vote in the majority?

the alliances among the justices seem odd in this case but maybe that is because it is largely a process decision about standing rather than about gerrymandering itself. apparently it is the first incarnation of this particular line-up

according to Adam Feldman

Yes, it's about standing. This means, though, that the lower court's decision will hold.

so, a good outcome!

Good outcome for VA, don't think it has implications for gerrymander in other states.

Breaking Coverage Updated 06/27/2019 14:16 GMT
Supreme Court

The Supreme Court says federal courts have no role to play in policing political districts drawn for partisan gain.
Location: Washington, DC, USA

christ

it's cool, james madison would have wanted it this way

The drafters of the Constitution, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority, understood that politics would play a role in drawing election districts when they gave the task to state legislatures. Judges, the chief justice said, are not entitled to second-guess lawmakers’ judgments.

“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” the chief justice wrote.

Judges/justices second guess lawmakers' judgments all the time.

#SCOTUS is living in a straight up fantasy land where there's a difference between racial and partisan gerrymanders pic.twitter.com/mMrAmu7RsT

— Robinson Woodward-Burns (@rwbdc) June 27, 2019

I might have to unbookmark this thread for the next 20 years for my sanity

we need a fuckin general strike in this country right now

fuck, I know I'm not breaking any news here but if the Dems don't win the Senate then winning the presidency is almost useless. if they can take both then yeah, they absolutely have to pack the everloving fuck out of the Court.

And also abduct Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh first

I am livid

There should be demonstrations at every courthouse all over the nation. Anger at the court system, the Roberts court, should be a loud part of the left wing anger. Imo.

meanwhile:

Wow: #SCOTUS, in an opinion by Roberts, says the Trump administration's stated reason for adding a citizenship question to the 2010 "seems to have been contrived." The court stops just short of accusing the administration of lying. pic.twitter.com/5r6MZnvaGd

— Brad Heath (@bradheath) June 27, 2019

Re the census case: I guess the Court was offended by how brazen the GOP was; next time, the GOP will just burn every document.

So: Roberts blinked on the census question case b/c he doesn't want two bombshell decisions favoring his side out on the same morning.

roberts taking this swing vote role to heart!!!!

Not surprised: it’s open season on gerrymandering; say goodbye to your blue swing states.

Dems reaction will be to clutch pearls rather rather than gerrymander states they currently control into permanent majorities.

otm:

Wow: #SCOTUS, in an opinion by Roberts, says the Trump administration's stated reason for adding a citizenship question to the 2010 "seems to have been contrived." The court stops just short of accusing the administration of lying. pic.twitter.com/5r6MZnvaGd

— Brad Heath (@bradheath) June 27, 2019

oops:

This seems like the same “unring the bell” logic of the Muslim ban decision. “Come back and lie to us about your motives more convincingly, please.” https://t.co/LjgGeyc6Xx

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) June 27, 2019

NC is lost. The hope of turning any red states purple is gone.