14 Comments
User's avatar
Tina's avatar

The Supreme Court is CORRUPT!

David J. Sharp's avatar

And its passive aggressive chief justice rules from the dark.

Tim Tucci's avatar

They’ve aided and abetted and been accessories after the fact in service of crimes against humanity against everyday Americans with their casual desecrations of the Rule of Law in the United States

Jacobs-Meadway Roberta's avatar

Barrett is there doing just what she was elevated to the SCOTUS bench to do. Merits? We don’t need to consider no stinkin’ merits.

David J. Sharp's avatar

Of course! Now sunlight is no longer the best disinfectant … and in shadows partisanship thrives.

joe alter's avatar

nothing to do with Virginia at all, loud and clear, totally believe you Cheif , got it .. just balls and strikes

Joe From the Bronx's avatar

Some "reasonable" conservative law professor referenced the "hysteria" over the shadow docket. This is where people are getting "hysteria" (i.e., reasonably p-od) over the issue, JA.

Scalia wrote an opinion once blocking thermo-imaging, in part raising talk of ladies in baths and stuff. Might want to keep out of the home there, Trump guy.

David J. Sharp's avatar

Lordy me—the vapors!

Jeff Luth's avatar

I would love to see an expanded Supreme Court with all justices having to abide by strict ethics and term limits.

BE Anderson's avatar

And they wonder why their approval rating is so low. Just outrageous. There is absolutely no reason for them to step in and not hear full arguments at a later date.

Peter Gerdes's avatar

To all those upset about the TX redistricting case, are you really saying you think it would be fine for the court to overturn just TX of just CA redistricting at this point in time? Would you really think it was ok -- even if the court pointed to a really good formalist legal reason -- to strike down the CA gerrymander but not the TX gerrymander? I know I wouldn't -- sometimes equitable concern does need to come first.

And given that context surely it is *better* not to issue a long deciscion given that they couldn't reasonably reach either result.

---

And yes the TX legislature said various things about being motivated by the DOJ letter but in reality it was obviously a political gerrymander in spirit ... but it would be bad to allow this situation to create potentially incorrect precedent,

Victoria Brown's avatar

Why does the gov't need to know what you're doing in any space of your home?And does this apply to them as well and SCOTUS?

Barry Grau's avatar

Why isn't this a simple case of there's no presumption of privacy in a public space?