Supreme Court Worship Wins

[biggestal99]

@WuWei

What did they say? Are you talking about Hawke v Smith?

Did they overturn it?

No, United States v Sprague and Howley.

Here is an article about it.

Validity of the Eighteenth Amendment

Allan

[gooddad409]

@Eagle-Keeper

@gooddad409

Court is 5-4 at the moment not 6-3. Imo.

I made a thread on this point not that long ago. Can someone see what percent of the time he sides with Thomas and Alito vs Sotomayor and Kagan?

I have the impression that he only sides with Thomas and Alito when it involves small things that don’t really matter.

He seems to go with Sotomayor and Kagan on the big headline catching cases.

I could be wrong but that’s my impression.

[WuWei]

Same kind of complaint. It wasn’t ratified properly.

Not what I’m talking about. Try the constitutionality of prohibiting alcohol.

[WuWei]

@gooddad409

@Eagle-Keeper

@gooddad409

Court is 5-4 at the moment not 6-3. Imo.

I made a thread on this point not that long ago. Can someone see what percent of the time he sides with Thomas and Alito vs Sotomayor and Kagan?

I have the impression that he only sides with Thomas and Alito when it involves small things that don’t really matter.

He seems to go with Sotomayor and Kagan on the big headline catching cases.

I could be wrong but that’s my impression.

He’s trying to give @biggestal99 his “balance” to preserve his own legacy. He’s ignoring the law.

[WuWei]

By the way as I said in the other thread, this may be the worst reason for dissent I’ve ever seen.

Roberts is doing everything he can to avoid opining on major issues.

[gooddad409]

@WuWei

@gooddad409

@Eagle-Keeper

@gooddad409

Court is 5-4 at the moment not 6-3. Imo.

I made a thread on this point not that long ago. Can someone see what percent of the time he sides with Thomas and Alito vs Sotomayor and Kagan?

I have the impression that he only sides with Thomas and Alito when it involves small things that don’t really matter.

He seems to go with Sotomayor and Kagan on the big headline catching cases.

I could be wrong but that’s my impression.

He’s trying to give @biggestal99 his “balance” to preserve his own legacy. He’s ignoring the law.

I think there’s a lot of truth in that sadly enough.

He needs to be following the constitution instead of what he is doing.

[DougBH]

Barrett and Gorsuch votes counted here. Thank you Trump.

[gooddad409]

@DougBH

Barrett and Gorsuch votes counted here. Thank you Trump.

Thank the Good Lord above that Trump got to pick 3 SC justices rather than Broom Hillary.

[WuWei]

Now, if I was the leaders of those churches, I would talk to my congregations and convince them that we need to limit attendance and exercise every precaution.

[STODR]

That’s what I think. He seems to always try and find an out and not make a decision

[Guvnah]

@biggestal99

There are a myriad of opinions on what SCOTUS actual function is.

No.

The Constitution spells it out. And it’s not an opinion.

All opinions that differ from the Constitutional definition are simply wrong.

[conan]

Keeping it narrow as possible.

Meanwhile left leaning justices try to take large bits when they can.

[WuWei]

You notice how the media keeps mentioning Justice Barrett?

[conan]

Yup…

[WildRose]

Yet he’s doing just the opposite in destroying any hope of having a positive legacy by such decisions.

[WildRose]

Close contact is not required.

[WildRose]

That would require fundamentally changing not only the court but The Constitution as well.

Start your drive for a constitutional amendment to that effect.

[WildRose]

“Balance” should never be a consideration. The duty of the justices is to know both The Constitution and Law and apply it without bias or prejudice when hearing/deciding cases.

There is nothing to “balance”.

[PurpnGold]

This is fantasy land

[WildRose]

Read your constitution. Cite where it says the court should be “balanced”.