***Official Scotus decision thread***March 31

4,317 Views | 45 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by will25u
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
2 opinions today, or 1?

8-1 with the ******ed justice the one.
FTAG 2000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not only did they dumbass dissent but her and her clerks wrote a dissent ten pages longer than the majority opinion.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Weird, was intending to include the embedded/re-posted tweet; here's another.

Always good to see KBJ's crayon opinion in the minority. She is still reading her opinion, might have a second one today.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Only opinion for the day. There must be some tensions over VRA and birth-right citizenship decisions, imho.
Logos Stick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There are posters on this board who actually argue that Jackson is more than a Simple Jack ******.

SMH
gtaggie_08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Or the most junior justice is taking her sweet time writing a completely incoherent opinion the length of war and peace to try and rationalize a completely unjustifiable opinion in an effort to "run out the clock" on VRA for midterms
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No RapierAg. Not official.

I'm Gipper
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
gtaggie_08 said:

Or the most junior justice is taking her sweet time writing a completely incoherent opinion the length of war and peace to try and rationalize a completely unjustifiable opinion in an effort to "run out the clock" on VRA for midterms

There are deadlines for concurrences and dissents that are set., and then rebuttals. "Running out the clock" is not how it works.
Jarrin Jay
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jackson bases her rulings / opinions on feelings and how she wants things to be, not the law or legal scholarship. She is a complete moron and has no business on the SCOTUS bench. Poster child for diversity hire and any R that supported or voted for her confirmation is a 100% RINO.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jarrin Jay said:

Jackson bases her rulings / opinions on feelings and how she wants things to be, not the law or legal scholarship. She is a complete moron and has no business on the SCOTUS bench. Poster child for diversity hire and any R that supported or voted for her confirmation is a 100% RINO.

Collins, Murkowski, Romney were the 3 Republicans.
BuddysBud
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ag with kids said:

Jarrin Jay said:

Jackson bases her rulings / opinions on feelings and how she wants things to be, not the law or legal scholarship. She is a complete moron and has no business on the SCOTUS bench. Poster child for diversity hire and any R that supported or voted for her confirmation is a 100% RINO.

Collins, Murkowski, Romney were the 3 Republicans.


Surprised Cornyn was not on the list.
aggie93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The worst thing about Jackson to me is that she epitomizes the negative traits many view black women to have and none of the positive. There are many highly intelligent black women that can speak with reason and scholarship, someone like Condoleeza Rice for instance. Yet having someone like Jackson who's main accomplishment is making Sotomayor look better is unfortunate because many black women will look up to her and see her as the brilliant trailblazer no matter what her opinions. They will see her actions inside and outside the courtroom as the way things should be and any criticism of her as racism and sexism even though she is a complete idiot from an objective point of view. Reading her opinions it is also clear she hires the biggest woke idiots she can find as clerks.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Ronald Reagan
VarkAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggie93 said:

The worst thing about Jackson to me is that she epitomizes the negative traits many view black women to have and none of the positive. There are many highly intelligent black women that can speak with reason and scholarship, someone like Condoleeza Rice for instance. Yet having someone like Jackson who's main accomplishment is making Sotomayor look better is unfortunate because many black women will look up to her and see her as the brilliant trailblazer no matter what her opinions. They will see her actions inside and outside the courtroom as the way things should be and any criticism of her as racism and sexism even though she is a complete idiot from an objective point of view. Reading her opinions it is also clear she hires the biggest woke idiots she can find as clerks.


We can talk about Jackson all day long, and I won't disagree with any of it, but if she's such a moron, we also have to direct that criticism to the 10th Circuit Court which upheld that law, and required a SCOTUS review to begin with.

It should never have gotten to the Supreme Court, and there's something wrong if obvious decisions have to get that far in the first place.
oh no
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jarrin Jay said:

Jackson bases her rulings / opinions on feelings and how she wants things to be, not the law or legal scholarship.

Indeed. But I guess that was the point of putting her on there. That's what activist justices are intended to do. That's why democrats / socialists hate originalist constitutionalist judges.
oh no
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
the lower level courts are all packed with activist socialist judges already. that's the problem.
aggie93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
VarkAg77 said:

aggie93 said:

The worst thing about Jackson to me is that she epitomizes the negative traits many view black women to have and none of the positive. There are many highly intelligent black women that can speak with reason and scholarship, someone like Condoleeza Rice for instance. Yet having someone like Jackson who's main accomplishment is making Sotomayor look better is unfortunate because many black women will look up to her and see her as the brilliant trailblazer no matter what her opinions. They will see her actions inside and outside the courtroom as the way things should be and any criticism of her as racism and sexism even though she is a complete idiot from an objective point of view. Reading her opinions it is also clear she hires the biggest woke idiots she can find as clerks.


We can talk about Jackson all day long, and I won't disagree with any of it, but if she's such a moron, we also have to direct that criticism to the 10th Circuit Court which upheld that law, and required a SCOTUS review to begin with.

It should never have gotten to the Supreme Court, and there's something wrong if obvious decisions have to get that far in the first place.

Oh no doubt there are plenty of Federal judges that are idiots but Jackson is just far more visible. That's actually my point. When you look at Thurgood Marshall for instance he was articulate and made a name for himself with Brown vs Board of Education prior to being on the Court. He was super liberal but was more like Kagan or Breyer where they at least seemed to have read the Constitution and picked their battles while writing well thought out opinions that made them look foolish.

Jackson is the worst of all worlds in that she is a complete idiot who thinks she is brilliant while everyone shakes their head and cringes reading her opinions or listening to her speak. She speaks more than any other Justice and writes the longest opinions as well further exposing her idiocy.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Ronald Reagan
Logos Stick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
More proof that Jackson should not be anywhere near a court:

Quote:

Last year, Justice Jackson dissented in the U.S. v. Skremetti case- in which she argued that states have no right to ban gender transitions on minors.

Today, she was the lone dissent on Chiles v. Salazar, writing that "there is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the power of states."

So, states have no right to pass laws banning children from changing their sex- but states DO have the right to ban counselors from telling boys they are not girls. You truly can't make it up.



Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Im Gipper said:

No RapierAg. Not official.

Yeah, I said something mean and got slapped for it.

Thanks to nortex97 for making the thread while I sat in purgatory.
Logos Stick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ole Gavin has to weigh in and appeals to Science ™

Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Logos Stick said:

Ole Gavin has to weigh in and appeals to Science ™



What is the definition of a woman, Gavin?

Can men have babies, Gavin?

Science wants to know.
aggieforester05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Logos Stick said:

Ole Gavin has to weigh in and appeals to Science ™



Sounds like Gavin wants the Supreme Court to rule on the merits of the bans and not their constitutionality. The governor of the most populous state in the country doesn't understand the purpose and duties of the Supreme Court.

This is why you can not trust progressives in judicial roles.
Gaeilge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So if Alito is writing the majority opinion in the VRA case, that gives me some optimism the Court will get rid of minority/majority districts.
Gaeilge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

So if Alito is writing the majority opinion in the VRA case, that gives me some optimism the Court will get rid of minority/majority districts.

Same. I could see this playing out with him writing the majority and then announcing his retirement to secure his seat with a conservative appointment.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gaeilge said:



They have a lot more cases left to decide. At least one hasn't even been heard yet. The birthright citizenship cases will be argued tomorrow.

The one remaining opinion actually refers to cases from the October sitting, and yes, Alito is the only justice who hasn't written an opinion for the cases heard in October so highly likely he will have Louisiana v. Callais.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gaeilge said:

aggiehawg said:

So if Alito is writing the majority opinion in the VRA case, that gives me some optimism the Court will get rid of minority/majority districts.

Same. I could see this playing out with him writing the majority and then announcing his retirement to secure his seat with a conservative appointment.

If he announces his retirement, it will be on the last day of the term, likely the end of June or early July.

That said, he would likely inform Trump of his plans earlier so the vetting process could start and a nominee could be named the same day.
BonfireNerd04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
8-1?

How bad was Colorado's law for both Obama appointees to vote to strike it down?
oh no
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
oh no
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LOL, that is one of their best yet.
Quote:

"If I like what it says, then that means it should be a law, right?" Jackson reportedly asked her colleagues on the court, according to transcripts. "I mean, laws are just things we like that we want to make everybody do, right? Is that what it means? So, like, if there's something that I think is nice and I want everyone else to agree with me, I just say it's a 'law,' right? That's what I always thought. I don't know. I don't really remember them talking much about law stuff when I went to law school."

The court reportedly took a 15-minute recess during its deliberation so Jackson's fellow liberal justices could give her a rudimentary explanation of what terms like "law" and "unconstitutional" mean. "It's always a great learning opportunity for her," said one court insider. "Every case brings up something else she doesn't understand. Last month, we spent an hour telling her what a 'court' is."

Incredible stuff, had to double check it wasn't 'not the bee.'
ts5641
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nortex97 said:

2 opinions today, or 1?

8-1 with the ******ed justice the one.


She's really not even a judge at this point. She's a left wing activist on the bench...for life...
aggiedata
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
P.H. Dexippus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not sure how I feel about Trump sitting in. Will it help the cause or be viewed negatively by members of the Court, especially the chief?
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
P.H. Dexippus said:

Not sure how I feel about Trump sitting in. Will it help the cause or be viewed negatively by members of the Court, especially the chief?


I don't think it will have any effect one way or the other.
oh no
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BMX Bandit said:

P.H. Dexippus said:

Not sure how I feel about Trump sitting in. Will it help the cause or be viewed negatively by members of the Court, especially the chief?


I don't think it will have any effect one way or the other.
it will make liberal minds explode though
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.