aaaaand here we go:
President Obama is to confer in the Oval Office on Tuesday with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, and Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, about filling the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. If everyone maintains previously stated positions, it might be a very short meeting.
Mr. Obama is adamant that he will name a nominee to the court, most likely in the next few weeks. Republicans remain just as adamant that they will not even meet with Mr. Obama’s nominee, let alone hold confirmation hearings.
Then again, the meeting on Tuesday will bring together six men who have rarely been accused of keeping their remarks brief. Besides Mr. Obama, Mr. McConnell and Mr. Grassley, the invited participants include Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader; Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee; and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 12:33 (four years ago) link
“Ms. Eisenstein, one question,” he started, according to a transcript released by the court. “This is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
After some back and forth, Ms. Eisenstein said she could not think of one, though she added that First Amendment rights could be affected in comparable settings.
“O.K.,” he said. “So, can you think of a First Amendment suspension or a suspension of a First Amendment right that is permanent?”
Here again, Ms. Eisenstein offered a concession. “Your Honor,” she said, “it’s not necessarily permanent as to the individual, but it may be permanent as to a particular harm.”
The barrage of sharp, pointed questions continued, with Justice Thomas seeming to have the better of several of the exchanges.
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 12:35 (four years ago) link
Chris Christie says there should be hearings. So you can all exhale now.
― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 13:16 (four years ago) link
“Ms. Eisenstein, one question,”
wish I could see video of Eisenstein's reaction to this
― crüt, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 13:29 (four years ago) link
Ha! Yeah, jaw must've hit the floor.
― Ⓓⓡ. (Johnny Fever), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 13:49 (four years ago) link
"Shit, I thought this was going well - I'm dreaming, aren't I?"
― Andrew Farrell, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:05 (four years ago) link
Dust and cobwebs covering Thomas' mike.
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:18 (four years ago) link
"Wha? Who said that!"
― pplains, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:21 (four years ago) link
and of course the motherfucker asks a question to which any non-lawyer could have given a reasonable answer: yeah, many constitutional rights have had court-imposed limits.
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:32 (four years ago) link
The cause that inspired Thomas to break a ten year silence: men convicted of domestic violence who wish to own guns.
Voisine v. United States involves a fairly technical question of whether two men with previous domestic assault convictions are subject to federal law prohibiting individuals convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from possessing firearms. Justice Thomas, however, appeared deeply troubled by the idea that these men may not be able to carry a firearm.
Noting that the right to carry a gun is ordinarily “a constitutional right” under existing law, Thomas began his questioning by asking if Ilana Eisenstein, the attorney arguing the case on behalf of the federal government, could “give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right.”
There are many possible answers to this question. The Supreme Court has long recognized that U.S. citizens have a constitutional right to travel within the United States, yet a person convicted of a misdemeanor could be arrested and jailed for up to a year. Similarly, the First Amendment protects a right of “expressive association” with other individuals, but such an association may be difficult to maintain while an individual is incarcerated. The Constitution also provides fairly robust protections for property rights, but someone convicted of a misdemeanor may lawfully be fined.
In any event, Thomas continued to press Eisenstein for several pages of the argument transcript. At one point, he appeared bothered by the fact that domestic abusers have their right to own a gun suspended indefinitely. At another point, he seemed to suggest that the particular domestic abusers at issue in this case should not lose their ability to carry guns because they’ve never actually “use[d] a weapon against a family member.”
Thomas appeared unmoved when Eisenstein pointed out that “individuals who have previously… battered their spouses, pose up to a sixfold greater risk of killing, by a gun, their family member.”
Justice Thomas has a record of near absolutism on the Second Amendment. Last December, while the nation was still mourning the mass killing of more than a dozen people at a facility for the developmentally disabled in San Bernadino, California — a crime that was committed with assault rifles — Thomas penned a dissenting opinion suggesting that assault rifle bans are unconstitutional.
Indeed, it now appears that Thomas believes that the Second Amendment should be read so broadly that even domestic abusers must be allowed to own guns. And that he is so committed to this cause that it is the only thing that he’s spoken about in ten years of Supreme Court hearings.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:42 (four years ago) link
The Notorious RBG at work:
That’s odd that you point to the New Mexico facility,” Ginsburg said, in a clear and firm voice. New Mexico, after all, doesn’t force abortion clinics to meet the same standards that Texas would—standards which, Texas claims, are absolutely critical to protect women.
“So if your argument is right,” Ginsburg continued, “then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas, because Texas says: To protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to New Mexico,” to clinics with more lenient standards, “and that’s perfectly all right.”
“Well,” Ginsburg concluded, with just a hint of pique in her voice, “If that’s all right for the women in the El Paso area, why isn’t it right for the rest of the women in Texas?”http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 3 March 2016 16:14 (four years ago) link
However, per the NY Times, if the court deadlocks 4 to 4, the stringent Texas law upheld by the conservative Appeals Court could stay in effect:
Although Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last month may have muted the prospect of truly bold action in the case, even a 4-to-4 tie would have enormous consequences because it would leave in place the appeals court decision, which challengers say could drive down the number of abortion clinics in Texas to about 10 from roughly 40. On the other hand, Justice Scalia’s death means the court is very unlikely to weaken constitutional standards affecting abortion in the rest of the nation, as the four liberal justices would not go along.
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 3 March 2016 16:19 (four years ago) link
yeah this is not a good outcome
― Οὖτις, Thursday, 3 March 2016 17:39 (four years ago) link
TPM publishes one of those speculative pieces:
The current situation has put the chief justice in an awkward position. Senate Republicans have picked this fight with the White House in the hopes that a future GOP president can ultimately pick a Scalia successor, restoring the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. But in doing so, they also embroiled the court in the very partisan contentiousness from which Roberts tries to insulate the court.
“He’s in an interesting place, personally, because on the one hand, I’m sure he would like a reliable conservative vote, and on the other hand, I can’t imagine he wants to operate with a court of eight for two terms, which is what it effectively would be,” Barry Friedman, a professor at the New York University School of Law, told TPM. “My guess is he would rather have the position filled and get the court out of this particular spotlight.”
Unless Roberts makes the unlikely decision to speak out about the hardball Senate Republicans are playing, we won’t know how he feels about it. And even if he did object to their refusal to restore the full bench, at least for another year, saying so publicly might only make matters worse. But a review of Roberts’ record suggests the current standoff presents competing interests for the chief justice, and legal experts argue, at the very least, he would be torn.
“In his heart of hearts, he probably has views on these things. It would be very hard not to,” Arthur Hellman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, said in an interview with TPM. "He really is very concerned about preserving the court’s legitimacy and its stature as an institution.”
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 March 2016 17:44 (four years ago) link
the TRAP laws case is so very infuriating to me; these fuckers trying to pretend their objection is not entirely moral but is about "helping women" is the most hypocritical load of bullshit
― ulysses, Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:31 (four years ago) link
"He really is very concerned about preserving the court’s legitimacy and its stature as an institution.”
Well, what fun is it to be the Chief Justice of a despised and disrespected institution? People just spit on you in public or chant your name in a funny voice.
― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:32 (four years ago) link
once you determine on a bone level that fetuses are children and abortion is murder, whatever machiavellian notions you put to bear in support of anti-abortion laws are totally self justifying to these pontificating assholeshousing/feeding/clothing the child and the mother however is SOCIALISM and not the state's business. these bastards are willing to put actual lives in danger in practice rather than risk their principals not being fully executedso angry
― ulysses, Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:34 (four years ago) link
Don't we all do that? I mean, don't some of us trade security for freedom/privacy?
― schwantz, Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:44 (four years ago) link
it's a bit different when you're risking lives of people that you're not even remotely connected to because you want to save their miraculous soul babies but don't give a damn about what happens post partem
― ulysses, Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:48 (four years ago) link
Sadly, George Clinton can no longer make Richard Pryor minister od education
― Check Yr Scrobbles (Moodles), Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:51 (four years ago) link
Oops, wrong thread
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:55 (four years ago) link
once you determine on a bone level that fetuses are children and abortion is murder, whatever machiavellian notions you put to bear in support of anti-abortion laws are totally self justifying to these pontificating assholes
OTM -- these people see themselves as fetus Harriet Tubmans and John Browns.
― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Thursday, 3 March 2016 19:29 (four years ago) link
with respect to the case, it's not a "good outcome" but it doesn't strike me as a worse outcome than you'd likely get if Scalia were alive.
― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Thursday, 3 March 2016 19:30 (four years ago) link
i saw this a few weeks ago and some of the actual cases these laws impact are utterly heartbreakinghttp://www.trappeddocumentary.com/
Same director as the outstanding 'Gideon's Army'; she spent months at the clinics in question to see what the actual work that they're doing is about and it's utterly damning to the "for the safety of women" argument.
― ulysses, Thursday, 3 March 2016 19:33 (four years ago) link
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Saturday, 5 March 2016 01:58 (four years ago) link
― i like to trump and i am crazy (DJP), Monday, 7 March 2016 15:43 (four years ago) link
omg the bunk as Clarence Thomas, so much would watch
― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Monday, 7 March 2016 15:49 (four years ago) link
Fuck. Fuck fuck fucking fuck. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 7 March 2016 16:04 (four years ago) link
that actress looks like Ginny!
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 March 2016 16:09 (four years ago) link
that parent's rights case djp cites upthread is some bullshit
― ulysses, Monday, 7 March 2016 16:29 (four years ago) link
I am so much less terrified of SC thread revives post-Nino
― Οὖτις, Monday, 7 March 2016 16:34 (four years ago) link
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 March 2016 16:37 (four years ago) link
― Οὖτις, Monday, 7 March 2016 23:03 (four years ago) link
that is the same story that DJP linked, no?
― micro brewbio (crüt), Monday, 7 March 2016 23:04 (four years ago) link
― Οὖτις, Monday, 7 March 2016 23:11 (four years ago) link
One of my wife's classmates from undergrad (Ketanji Brown Jackson) made the shortlist.
― i like to trump and i am crazy (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 15:24 (four years ago) link
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal by an anti-Muslim group who wanted to post ads on buses in Washington state showing photos of wanted terrorists
― the 'major tom guy' (sleeve), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:17 (four years ago) link
the Scalia Effect in full effect
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:19 (four years ago) link
hahaha wait, why didn't they just resubmit the ad without the claim of a reward
were they THAT enamored of the wild west aesthetic that they couldn't take out the patently false info that made their shitty ads unlawful to print?
― i like to trump and i am crazy (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:22 (four years ago) link
I would assume the identities of the people in the "photos of militants" are also legally problematic (that link doesn't say if all 16 people were actually wanted by the FBI or not)
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:25 (four years ago) link
you can't just throw up a photo of anybody on a bus w/a "WANTED TERRORIST" caption, that seems p blatantly illegal
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:26 (four years ago) link
I would bet a dollar that if he nominates a woman, there will be mindbendingly stupid hot takes from Nat'l Review types saying that a man should be nominated in place of a man
― tremendous crime wave and killing wave (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:28 (four years ago) link
*crumples sketch, fumes*
― micro brewbio (crüt), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:29 (four years ago) link
The article pretty clearly states that it was rejected because the claim of a reward was false; I'm not going to speculate on the rest of it without knowing who these alleged "militants" are.
― i like to trump and i am crazy (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:30 (four years ago) link
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, March 8, 2016 2:26 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
So out of curiosity I looked it up, and apparently a majority of states do not have criminal defamation laws (seventeen states and two territories do). However you'd have a pretty strong civil case because in nearly all states falsely accusing someone of criminal activity is a level of defamation you don't have to prove damages for. As a result, it's unlikely that any public bus system would allow such ads or that anyone could successfully sue them for refusing to display such ads.
― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:37 (four years ago) link
(and presumably a court would uphold the right of a public bus company to refuse to display blatantly defamatory ads).
― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:42 (four years ago) link
It appears that the FBI Puget Sound office came up with the ads originally but their version didn't include 16 profile pics - it wasn't until this other group picked up the ball and put up altered versions of the ads (including adding the pics and the false award claim) that legal challenges arose.
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:49 (four years ago) link
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said Monday that President Obama's yet-to-be-named Supreme Court nominee would be like a "piñata.""I think they will bear some resemblance to a piñata," Cornyn told reporters on Capitol Hill, according to CNN.
"I think they will bear some resemblance to a piñata," Cornyn told reporters on Capitol Hill, according to CNN.
When pressed, Cornyn clarified, "I believe that the nominee will be covered in papier-mâché and decorated with many colorful bits of paper and fringe. I also believe that the nominee will be filled with delicious candy and wonderful toys that I will grasp with both fists after he or she bursts open on the Senate floor."
"It's my birthday!" Senator Cornyn added excitedly.
― i like to trump and i am crazy (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 20:11 (four years ago) link
gotta say, gorsuch can write
― k3vin k., Monday, 15 June 2020 23:08 (three weeks ago) link
Yeah, the paragraphs I quoted and the way he (or his clerks) wrote crystalline prose throughout meant he had non-lawyers in mind.
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 15 June 2020 23:09 (three weeks ago) link
This Gorsuch decision is not originalist in any way; he acknowledges as much. It is simply a bad, outcome-driven legal decision. And it throws religious liberty, free speech, and employment law into complete turmoil.— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 15, 2020
― Dig Dug the police (Neanderthal), Monday, 15 June 2020 23:32 (three weeks ago) link
mmmmmm delicious tearx
Gosh what are plainspoken decent Americans going to do if they can't discriminate against gay and trans people?? Such turmoil, so upheaval
― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Monday, 15 June 2020 23:35 (three weeks ago) link
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Monday, 15 June 2020 23:44 (three weeks ago) link
Well there's obviously going to be turmoil the instant a gay person needs to be fired for being gay and their employer has to invent some other excuse. It'll be chaos!
― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Monday, 15 June 2020 23:47 (three weeks ago) link
cynically, at-will employment laws in many states mean all gay/trans people will now just be documented as "lazy"it's still a great ruling and good step
― mh, Tuesday, 16 June 2020 00:47 (three weeks ago) link
Tossing out at-will laws is a whole other battle that needs to happen.
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Tuesday, 16 June 2020 02:04 (three weeks ago) link
Having not yet read the opinion, I can say this seems to bring Title VII in line with California law. So, Mr. Shapiro, no real turmoil here.
― TrumpPence a Bag (B.L.A.M.), Tuesday, 16 June 2020 02:04 (three weeks ago) link
wait hang on a second
The question came to the court in three different cases, all argued on the same day last October. Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor, and Gerald Bostock, a child-welfare-services coordinator for Clayton County, Georgia, filed lawsuits in federal court alleging that they were fired because they were gay, which violated Title VII. In Zarda’s case, which was continued by his estate after he died in a base-jumping accident in 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit agreed with Zarda that Title VII bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Tuesday, 16 June 2020 04:03 (three weeks ago) link
a very good decision by his executor. the costs of the suit, plus damages, will probably be awarded to his estate.
― A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 16 June 2020 04:09 (three weeks ago) link
Intentionally burning down a neighbor’s house is arson, even if the perpetrator’s ultimate intention (or motivation) is only to improve the view.
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Tuesday, 16 June 2020 04:29 (three weeks ago) link
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Tuesday, 16 June 2020 04:32 (three weeks ago) link
i made that for u guys
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 16 June 2020 09:54 (three weeks ago) link
NY Times op-ed by U. of Texas Law Professor re one of the things the majority of the current court is doing--
But for all of the attention that we pay to these “merits” cases on the court’s docket, the Trump administration, with a majority of the justices’ acquiescence, has quietly racked up a series of less visible — but no less important — victories by repeatedly seeking (and often obtaining) stays of lower-court losses.
Such stay orders are generally unsigned and provide no substantive analysis. But they nevertheless have the effect of allowing challenged government programs to go into full effect even though lower courts have struck them down — and often when no court has ever held them to be lawful in the first place.
Until the Trump administration, they were exceptionally rare. But they have become almost commonplace in the past three years, clearing the way for the president to proceed with many of his most controversial policies without a final determination of their legality.
during the 16 years of the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, the government asked the justices for such emergency relief only eight times — and the justices granted half of the applications. Moreover, none of the eight decisions to grant or deny such relief was 5-4.
But in just three years, the Trump administration’s Justice Department has sought 29 emergency stays from the Supreme Court — including 11 during the court’s current term alone. And the justices, or at least a majority of them, have largely acquiesced, granting 17 of the applications in full or in part, rulings that have had significant and lasting ramifications on the ground — and that have often been quite divisive on the court.
It was a partial stay from the Supreme Court that allowed President Trump to put much of his travel ban into effect until the policy was revised in late 2017. A stay from the Supreme Court allowed the president to divert military construction funds to help build his border wall. And stays from the court have allowed the administration to keep enforcing an array of asylum policies — like the “Remain in Mexico” program and the public-charge rule — that have come under fierce legal criticism.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 17 June 2020 13:21 (two weeks ago) link
At the very least, if the justices mean to change the rules for when government litigants should be allowed to obtain emergency relief, they should say so. Otherwise, the court’s behavior in these cases gives at least the appearance of undue procedural favoritism toward the government as a litigant — a “disparity in treatment,” as Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned in February, that “erodes the fair and balanced decision making process that this Court must strive to protect.”
Especially when that disparity seems to repeatedly favor conservative policies over progressive ones, it gives at least the appearance that the court is bending over backward to accommodate a particular political agenda — a message that, now more than ever, all of the justices should be ill inclined to send.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 17 June 2020 13:22 (two weeks ago) link
court rules against Trump’s plan to end DACA!
― (•̪●) (carne asada), Thursday, 18 June 2020 14:09 (two weeks ago) link
BREAKING Court invalidates Trump Administration's recission of DACA— Todd Zwillich (@toddzwillich) June 18, 2020
― Dirty Epic H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 18 June 2020 14:12 (two weeks ago) link
(It bore repeating.)
Well the ruling was against how he went about it, so I guess they can take another run at it if he wins in nov
― (•̪●) (carne asada), Thursday, 18 June 2020 14:14 (two weeks ago) link
Second (and *not* last) #SCOTUS decision is in June Medical. Court *strikes down* Louisiana abortion ban.4-1-4, with Chief Justice Roberts concurring in the judgment:https://t.co/4VQgovHgjK— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 29, 2020
Money quote from Roberts' concurrence in the judgment, which goes on for 16 pages: pic.twitter.com/1s5D2d0VhJ— Cristian Farias (@cristianafarias) June 29, 2020
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 29 June 2020 14:22 (one week ago) link
I think I actually feel a trace of optimism for this country for the first time since Reagan was elected
― sleeve, Monday, 29 June 2020 14:27 (one week ago) link
has someone awakened Susan Collins from her faint
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 29 June 2020 14:27 (one week ago) link
You're saying because she voted for him, thinking abortion safe? I'd love to have her gone, but didn't she spike up in her polling again? You think people will be sophisticated enough to turn this against her again?
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 29 June 2020 14:41 (one week ago) link
She’s like nine points behind her democratic challenger according to what I just read
― sound of scampo talk to me (El Tomboto), Monday, 29 June 2020 16:23 (one week ago) link
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 29 June 2020 16:33 (one week ago) link
oh I see Roberts has now gotten back to destroying the country
― sleeve, Wednesday, 1 July 2020 03:52 (six days ago) link
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 1 July 2020 03:57 (six days ago) link
he's only interested in preserving the reputation of the court as being free from outside influence. in these lower public profile cases, he's more than fine with shitting out these garbage rulings.
― I hear that sometimes Satan wants to defund police (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 1 July 2020 03:59 (six days ago) link
really didn't need to read this before it was time to sleep but thanks for sharing, cos I would have otherwise missed it tomorrow.
"Thomas, joined by Gorsuch, asserted that the very concept of separating church and state “communicates a message that religion is dangerous and in need of policing, which in turn has the effect of tilting society in favor of devaluing religion.”
you're saying that like it's a bad thing, guys.
― I hear that sometimes Satan wants to defund police (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 1 July 2020 04:07 (six days ago) link
does he not know what happened in europe after… the reformation
― j., Wednesday, 1 July 2020 04:16 (six days ago) link
the Cerberos of SCOTUS needs to choke on a chicken bone.
― I hear that sometimes Satan wants to defund police (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 1 July 2020 04:30 (six days ago) link
After reading my latest Post report, @hughhewitt tells his radio audience this morning that he hears from several leading conservatives that Justice Alito, 70, is considering retirement, and adds that he also hears the Alito family is ready to leave Washington, D.C.— Robert Costa (@costareports) July 1, 2020
― but also fuck you (unperson), Wednesday, 1 July 2020 13:42 (six days ago) link
make way for Justice Pirro
― shout-out to his family (DJP), Wednesday, 1 July 2020 13:48 (six days ago) link
I heard on MJ this morning the news about a potential vacancy.
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 1 July 2020 14:02 (six days ago) link
If the Republicans push through a replacement between now and January I will go insane.
― Tōne Locatelli Romano (PBKR), Wednesday, 1 July 2020 14:06 (six days ago) link
No, of course McConnell wouldn't, duh.
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 1 July 2020 14:06 (six days ago) link
At least it would be swapping a conservative for a conservative
― shout-out to his family (DJP), Wednesday, 1 July 2020 14:10 (six days ago) link
And, some speculate, a man for a woman. (LOL, pundits.)
― Juanita was robbed (Eric H.), Wednesday, 1 July 2020 14:11 (six days ago) link
Maybe NOW is Harriet Miers' time
― shout-out to his family (DJP), Wednesday, 1 July 2020 14:14 (six days ago) link
Alito just leave in January man
― I hear that sometimes Satan wants to defund police (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 1 July 2020 14:18 (six days ago) link
― time is running out to pitch in $5 (Karl Malone), Wednesday, 1 July 2020 14:37 (six days ago) link
poor Sonia has to breathe in his farts
― I hear that sometimes Satan wants to defund police (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 1 July 2020 14:48 (six days ago) link
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 1 July 2020 14:52 (six days ago) link
The 538 people who cast the actual votes for president in December as part of the Electoral College are not free agents and must vote as the laws of their states direct, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.
― brooklyn suicide cult (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 July 2020 15:33 (yesterday) link
Would take an American history class from Justice Kagan https://t.co/iwiB06PoKe pic.twitter.com/Cu94ohrJVp— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) July 6, 2020
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 July 2020 15:54 (yesterday) link
Did the media articles have misleading titles earlier today? Saw a bunch of people celebrating, thinking SCOTUS was requiring electors to vote for the winner of the Federal popular vote, then blaming a confusing headline, but every article I've seen clearly says state popular vote.
Note though it really just ruled states with laws on the books against faithless electors can punish the electors, but not mandating that they have to, or that any of the states with no such laws must follow suit
― I hear that sometimes Satan wants to defund police (Neanderthal), Monday, 6 July 2020 21:20 (yesterday) link