Do you think that for the next while the Extremes are going to punt whenever they can till a decision after the election? After all, if Biden wins the chances go way up of court expansion for decisions contrary to what it is clear the populace wants.
So you think if anyone is going to do anything about the court, it is more likely that trump will call it to account than Biden? That was all I was saying. Doesn't matter what YOU think in relation to my question: it matters what the COURT thinks.
Obviously Biden is a better choice than Trump that is a fucking given. That’s not the conversation here. The conversation is the lack of good government and quality policy. And, the citizens consent to our Third World shit hole status by not demanding it. Fucking shut up
Actually it WAS my conversation. You have tried to hijack it. I just wondered if the COURT was going to punt in anticipation of who would be more likely to try to discipline it. I was making no comment at all on government policy.
It helps to be a good political scientist if you actually READ what you are responding to.
So, Heller and Breuner are getting second looks, and perhaps interpretive modifications? And I'm willing to bet that the eventual Mifepristone case ruling will ease the acute abominations of "justice" and of women's health that Dobbs has inflicted upon half the US population. It's called "reading the room", and all - save the Terrible Two - Justices seem amenable to providing off-ramps to barbaric Red-state laws enacted pursuant to Alito's "return abortion issues to the states" dictum.
Two cheers for the original stay of the 5th CA decision, and three cheers if a majority does the right thing and dismisses all challenges to mifepristone access unequivocally.
One often wonders to what extent the justices consider public opinion or reaction when deciding an issue. One argument is that we're supposed to be a democracy, so they should, but the opposing argument is that the federal judiciary has lifetime tenure so that they can do what's right, not what's popular. From my perspective their jurisprudence on both guns and abortion is not only unpopular but also wrong, but obviously they disagree. But the question is do the justices really restrain themselves, not go as far as they'd like to because of the backlash, or do they truly have some sense of moderation in them? If it's the latter, my view is that they've been part of unleashing conservatives to get to the point we're at (and we could certainly throw Citizens United into the mix), and if they think they can maintain control of anything if Republicans do win next year's election, I think they are going to be quite mistaken.
Perhaps the court, or some of them, are taking a closer look at the harm their previous rulings have caused.
Especially where gun rights
are concerned and the Founder's language and intent in the 2nd Amendment
at that time in our country.
They never envisioned an
AR15 in the hands of an 18
year old, blasting away at
little children, or the many
other senseless, brutal
slayings in our communities.
It is Sandy Hook day. 💔
😪
Do you think that for the next while the Extremes are going to punt whenever they can till a decision after the election? After all, if Biden wins the chances go way up of court expansion for decisions contrary to what it is clear the populace wants.
Your political acumen is zero. Not going to happen under this administration. They could give a fuck
Sorry Nostradamus. But as with all omniscient views into the future. , the imprecision of who the hell "they" are mucks with your message.
I’m conveying truth. You are throwing out suppositions that are impossibilities. Just stop
So you think if anyone is going to do anything about the court, it is more likely that trump will call it to account than Biden? That was all I was saying. Doesn't matter what YOU think in relation to my question: it matters what the COURT thinks.
Obviously Biden is a better choice than Trump that is a fucking given. That’s not the conversation here. The conversation is the lack of good government and quality policy. And, the citizens consent to our Third World shit hole status by not demanding it. Fucking shut up
Actually it WAS my conversation. You have tried to hijack it. I just wondered if the COURT was going to punt in anticipation of who would be more likely to try to discipline it. I was making no comment at all on government policy.
It helps to be a good political scientist if you actually READ what you are responding to.
They are the Democratic and Republican parties. Neither one of them represents “we the people”. There’s nothing but donor class tools.
So, Heller and Breuner are getting second looks, and perhaps interpretive modifications? And I'm willing to bet that the eventual Mifepristone case ruling will ease the acute abominations of "justice" and of women's health that Dobbs has inflicted upon half the US population. It's called "reading the room", and all - save the Terrible Two - Justices seem amenable to providing off-ramps to barbaric Red-state laws enacted pursuant to Alito's "return abortion issues to the states" dictum.
Two cheers for the original stay of the 5th CA decision, and three cheers if a majority does the right thing and dismisses all challenges to mifepristone access unequivocally.
One often wonders to what extent the justices consider public opinion or reaction when deciding an issue. One argument is that we're supposed to be a democracy, so they should, but the opposing argument is that the federal judiciary has lifetime tenure so that they can do what's right, not what's popular. From my perspective their jurisprudence on both guns and abortion is not only unpopular but also wrong, but obviously they disagree. But the question is do the justices really restrain themselves, not go as far as they'd like to because of the backlash, or do they truly have some sense of moderation in them? If it's the latter, my view is that they've been part of unleashing conservatives to get to the point we're at (and we could certainly throw Citizens United into the mix), and if they think they can maintain control of anything if Republicans do win next year's election, I think they are going to be quite mistaken.
There’s that old chestnut, “The Supreme Court reads th’ illiction returns.”
Isn't this the law that sheriff's all over rural Illinois are refusing to enforce?
the very same, at least in the Illinois counties near St. Louis