Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

SCOTUS battles


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, mr6666 said:


As I have posted before I believe a case can be made that the law is unenforceable because of its vagueness as to who can be sued and who can do the suing.  More importantly how can the woman getting the abortion be excluded as she is the very central aspect of the "crime."  If she had not actively, knowingly pursued an abortion nobody else could have committed a "crime."

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, mr6666 said:


Read an article about this.  When questioned about the Court's decisions on not placing an injunction on the TX anti-abortion law and supporting a lower court decision to force Pres. Biden to reinstate the Trump policy on Stay in Mexico, she said it would be "inappropriate" to comment on specific cases.   She is an extremist conservative Catholic Republican and her votes prove this.  She and the other 4 extremist conservative Catholic Republicans have made the court very partisan.  Just as everyone expected.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accelerating tempo of self-praise by Supreme Court justices recently.
Quote Tweet
Ann Marimow
· Sep 16
NEW: Justice Thomas adds his voice in defense of the Supreme Court’s independence and warns of ‘destroying our institutions’ in a speech @NotreDame https://washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/justice-clarence-thomas/2021/09/16/d2ddc1ba-1714-11ec-a5e5-ceecb895922f_story.html?tid=ss_tw
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Supreme Court sides with police officers in two qualified immunity cases

".......Under existing precedent, an officer is not liable, even if he or she violates the Constitution, unless it was "clearly established" by prior cases that the conduct at issue was unconstitutional. Critics say that bar is too high and forces those claiming excessive force to search for a prior case with nearly identical facts.

....Last term, there were two instances where the court wiped away lower court opinions that had granted qualified immunity to government officials, leading some to believe the court was moving in a new direction to chip away at the doctrine.

But on Monday, the justices made clear that last term's cases were outliers, and that the traditional framework could stand.
"Monday's cases are further evidence that the Supreme Court is not going to reconsider the fundamentals of the doctrine and the justices are reaffirming the general idea that in most cases plaintiffs still need to find a nearly identical precedent to make their case," said Jay Schweikert, a research fellow the Cato Institute who studies the issue.
ns that until and unless Congress addresses qualified immunity, public officials can continue to violate people's rights with impunity"............
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Supreme Court appears skeptical of New York law limiting handguns in public

How they rule could affect the ability of state and local governments to impose a wide range of firearms regulations.

The court repeatedly ducked the issue of the Second Amendment's application in public after ruling in 2008 that it guarantees an individual right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense. A decision in the current case could affect the ability of state and local governments to impose a wide range of firearms regulations.

The two sides differed strongly during Wednesday's argument on the kinds of limitations that were historically allowed because the Supreme Court's landmark 2008 ruling said the Second Amendment does not prohibit long-standing, traditionally accepted regulations of firearms.

All states allow carrying a concealed gun in public, though 34 require a state-issued permit. New York and seven other states provide local officials with more discretion to deny requests for a permit, and they are most likely to be affected by the outcome of the case.......



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

There is no doubt any more: the US supreme court is run by partisan hacks

".......Until the last few years, there was no realistic prospect of overruling Roe. But Donald Trump vowed to name justices who would do so. And courtesy of the machinations of then Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, Trump got an opportunity to appoint three justices – who have now created a six-justice conservative supermajority.

During Wednesday’s argument, the three justices appointed by Democratic presidents warned that overruling Roe so soon after a change in the court’s membership would undermine the court’s legitimacy.....

As the framers of the US constitution well understood, the supreme court is the one branch of government with neither the power to command obedience by force nor to gain it by doling out money. It relies totally on its moral authority. If the public begins to see it as just another political branch, it will lose that authority.........

SEE: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/03/no-doubt-us-supreme-court-partisan-hacks


  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mr6666 said:


Read an article in the paper and watched news on TV and this one has me totally confused.   What was the case about to begin with if the law can stand, but those opposed can sue again?

Regardless, abortion is about to be ruled illegal in much of US.  The Republican, Conservative, Catholic Supreme Court has ruled it so (or will shortly).

Next step is for anti-abortion states to pass laws stating that any woman who travels out of state for an abortion will be arrested and charged under that state's anti-abortion laws upon return

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, mr6666 said:

During Arguments Over Roe’s Fate, Justice Breyer Played Right Into the Conservatives’ Hands

The most senior liberal justice showed why it’s time for him to retire.



First, stare decisis also would have upheld the Dred Scott decision protecting slavery.  So, at some point prior decisions can appropriately be overturned.

Second, while Breyer obviously is too old or mentally limited to continue on the Supreme Court, consider the alternatives.  In Jan 2023, the Republicans will likely resume control of the US Senate and Mitch McConnell will become Majority Leader again.  At that point, no Biden nominee will be approved for the Supreme Court.

Even if Breyer were to retire now and Biden got to nominate someone, it is possible that McConnell and the Republicans would  find some way to block a vote on the nominee.   You would need suspension of the filibuster and then for all 50 Dems and Harris to vote for the nominee - after a brutal hearing process.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...