10 Comments
User's avatar
Jaimie Hileman's avatar

Kavanaugh was not qualified for the high court, as LITERALLY EVERYONE KNEW.

Michelle Belmont's avatar

Supreme Court justices having a fight over whether people and their legislatures have to "ah ah ah, say the magic word!" like a five year old before being allowed access to basic human rights... how much more infantilizing can they possibly get???

Lucy D's avatar

Have you written anything about Judge Allison Riggs from NC? The Republican candidate continues to challenge her November win which has twice been upheld in recounts. If the Republicans are successful in their attempt to reverse her win, you will see them using their “after the election” arguments all over the country. Have no doubt Trump and the Republican Party are closely watching this voting case. This needs to be extensively aired widely.

Jack Jordan's avatar

This stumbling discussion of the rights of Americans evinces a stunning (willful) ignorance of our Constitution and shocking incompetence--by SCOTUS justices who repeatedly have proved that they know the truth. There is a magic word, and these justices have used (or acknowledged) it repeatedly.

The magic word is "sovereignty." See, e.g., "Why Are SCOTUS's Originalists Awful at Originalism?" https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/why-are-scotuss-originalists-awful?r=30ufvh. See also "A Tale of Two Sovereignties (or Two Tales of Sovereignty)" https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/a-tale-of-two-sovereignties-or-two?r=30ufvh

Just look at what nearly (or actually) every current SCOTUS justice wrote about the sovereignty of the people in "SCOTUS Justices' Own Words Prove Extreme Deceit (and Irrelevance) of Trump Immunity Decision (Part I)" https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/scotus-justices-own-words-prove-extreme?r=30ufvh

eah's avatar

Wow. Imagine the SC parsing the language of the Second Amendment like this!

Jordan Thayer's avatar

I wonder if this could be the start of the destruction of arbitrary certificate of need laws.

jk's avatar

Can you explain that to a non-lawyer?

Edit: this is a good non-partisan explanation

https://www.ncsl.org/health/certificate-of-need-state-laws

Jordan Thayer's avatar

Just came to my mind when counsel for SC said the state determines who is a qualified provider. In other words, state putting up barriers to healthcare providers who are capable but state doesn't want them around.

Joy B's avatar

This sounds like a bunch of English teachers discussing a paper, not the Supreme Court deciding a case. Being sidetracked by the word Rights or May is stupid.

MissNumbersNinja's avatar

May I PLEASE see your storage facility Mr. Kavanaugh?