The Court members of the far-right majority are going to cling to their seats no matter how infirm or in ill health they may become, and will only resign when there's a Repub president ready to put forward a Federalist Society/Len Leo- approved nominee in the wings. A President Harris can do NOTHING about the Supreme Court unless one or …
The Court members of the far-right majority are going to cling to their seats no matter how infirm or in ill health they may become, and will only resign when there's a Repub president ready to put forward a Federalist Society/Len Leo- approved nominee in the wings. A President Harris can do NOTHING about the Supreme Court unless one or more of the radical-right Justices keel over from a fatal myocardial infarction or massive cerebral stroke. She is stuck with these Justices, and why pretend otherwise.
I don't think anything in here is "pretending" anything. Many of them are old. We've had a rapidly shifting court in recent years. They are, I believe, responsive to public pressure. Accountability journalism matters.
In short: I think pretty much everything about this comment is either wrong or irrelevant to what I wrote.
Well, sorry you feel that my comment was - in today's mot du jour - "weird", just color me skeptical, right? Bit prickly about the "pretending" remark also, nothing personal was intended, please. But I really must demur regarding the assertion of the Court and "public pressure"...I mean, Thomas and Alito just seem to double down every time there is any reporting calling out their lack of ethics and/or shocking opinions, and Roberts seemed to have gone way over his skis in his "immunity" opinion, writing for the majority.
I just don't see where "public pressure" is making any difference in this runaway Court's opinions, as the majority appears to dedicate itself to issue nrulings since Dobbs that deliberately run afoul and athwart of the will and the opinion of the majority of the public...that's MY opinion, and I'm sticking with it.
I redrafted and fixed because I was intentionally *not* wanting to equate my comment with the "mot du jour." See elsewhere, where I reposted.
In any event, I feel pretty strongly about this. Thomas and Alito are lost causes. They don't care about ethics or appearances. We know. I've written about 20 pieces on it. And yet, there are four other Republican appointees. And, you're just wrong if you don't see the public pressure — accountability and political — having any effect.
The Fifth Circuit was reversed or vacated six times in merits cases this term. Does that happen in a vacuum? No, it does not. Just as I think the opposite is true — that the court's able to use those while still allowing through other extreme rulings — I think it's clear that accountability matters and has led to the court being well aware of public perception.
Do you really think the mifepristone and EMTALA cases turn out how they did in an election year were it not for the public response to Dobbs?
I'll leave it there for now, but I think you're way off-base here.
OK, final comment...let's just see how the Court's votes break out when the mifepristone and EMTALA cases work their way back up for final review.
IF in fact EMTALA provisions are later fully supported and the Idaho challenge rejected on merit, AND if the latest FDA guidelines for mifepristone use remain law, no exceptions, THEN your thesis holds water and I'm wrong, full stop.
The Court members of the far-right majority are going to cling to their seats no matter how infirm or in ill health they may become, and will only resign when there's a Repub president ready to put forward a Federalist Society/Len Leo- approved nominee in the wings. A President Harris can do NOTHING about the Supreme Court unless one or more of the radical-right Justices keel over from a fatal myocardial infarction or massive cerebral stroke. She is stuck with these Justices, and why pretend otherwise.
I don't think anything in here is "pretending" anything. Many of them are old. We've had a rapidly shifting court in recent years. They are, I believe, responsive to public pressure. Accountability journalism matters.
In short: I think pretty much everything about this comment is either wrong or irrelevant to what I wrote.
Well, sorry you feel that my comment was - in today's mot du jour - "weird", just color me skeptical, right? Bit prickly about the "pretending" remark also, nothing personal was intended, please. But I really must demur regarding the assertion of the Court and "public pressure"...I mean, Thomas and Alito just seem to double down every time there is any reporting calling out their lack of ethics and/or shocking opinions, and Roberts seemed to have gone way over his skis in his "immunity" opinion, writing for the majority.
I just don't see where "public pressure" is making any difference in this runaway Court's opinions, as the majority appears to dedicate itself to issue nrulings since Dobbs that deliberately run afoul and athwart of the will and the opinion of the majority of the public...that's MY opinion, and I'm sticking with it.
Cheers
I redrafted and fixed because I was intentionally *not* wanting to equate my comment with the "mot du jour." See elsewhere, where I reposted.
In any event, I feel pretty strongly about this. Thomas and Alito are lost causes. They don't care about ethics or appearances. We know. I've written about 20 pieces on it. And yet, there are four other Republican appointees. And, you're just wrong if you don't see the public pressure — accountability and political — having any effect.
The Fifth Circuit was reversed or vacated six times in merits cases this term. Does that happen in a vacuum? No, it does not. Just as I think the opposite is true — that the court's able to use those while still allowing through other extreme rulings — I think it's clear that accountability matters and has led to the court being well aware of public perception.
Do you really think the mifepristone and EMTALA cases turn out how they did in an election year were it not for the public response to Dobbs?
I'll leave it there for now, but I think you're way off-base here.
OK, final comment...let's just see how the Court's votes break out when the mifepristone and EMTALA cases work their way back up for final review.
IF in fact EMTALA provisions are later fully supported and the Idaho challenge rejected on merit, AND if the latest FDA guidelines for mifepristone use remain law, no exceptions, THEN your thesis holds water and I'm wrong, full stop.