Because it was garbage.
4 Likes
no, because they chose to duck the issue. its the hallmark of the roberts court.
Because the definitions of liberal and conservative are not static. For example, when I think of liberal Republicans, I think of the neocons who want to keep us in perpetual wars in order to keep the Federal Reserve money printers going brrrrrr. The mainstream media considers guys like Dubya and Dick Cheney to be "ultra conservative"while the country club Republicans consider them to be “true conservatives.”
People like me who want strict adherence to the Constitution are considered “extreme right-wing” by both Democrats and some Republicans. The pro-war wing of the GOP would consider me a leftist because I’m against unjust wars. It’s gotten too complex for things to ever go back.
1 Like
Isn’t the balance of power in the USA SC 6-3 in favour of the Republican side?
If that is the way we are defining authoritarian, then why should the state of Texas get to be authoritarian over the city of Houston?
1 Like
No… it is because it was garbage.
States run their own elections. Other States do not have any business dictating the terms of how that separate state runs things.
It was a garbage lawsuit. Even the dissent said it was garbage. The dissent was about the ability of Texas to file the complaint. Alito and Thomas said that they would have ruled against Texas on the merits.
2 Likes
You failed to point out that he was from the DIMOCRAT party, so you lose two points. Also, how dare you call him the authoritarian! George Wallace was just standing for local control, states’ rights, liberty, and opposition to the big, powerful authoritarian federal government, forcing its ways on the goodly patriots of Alabama. Just listen to him:
Today, this tyranny is imposed by the central government which claims the right to rule over our lives under sanction of the omnipotent black-robed despots who sit on the bench of the United States Supreme Court.
It’s those damn left-wing liberals again!
2 Likes
roberts is a politician in a dress. you can keep score if you want, but its pretty clear that roberts isn’t interested in doing anything that changes anything. he guides the court over and over again to avoid any controversial opinions by finding some technical way out of it.
2 Likes
Trying to hold them to some actual neutral principle (e.g., “states’ rights”) is a fool’s errand. Here’s the only principle you’ll discover after digging about a centimeter: “I want what I want when I want it; if liberals are for it, I’m against it.”
7 Likes
no they didn’t. they said they would not have granted injunctive relief while the case went forward and made no assertions at all about the merrits. once again you prove your very poor understanding of the legal opinions written by the court. there was no commentary from any justice on the merrits, no-one looked at the merrits.
1 Like
Ha ha that’s right he is one of ours because he was a Dixiecrat. And yes how dare the federal government protect the constitutional right to an education for African Americans! The Fed was truly evil for “mandating” desegregation. States rights!!
4 Likes
If that is the case, it sounds like Biden needs to increase the number of SC justices.
2 Likes
Killing themselves to own the libs was a plot twist I didn’t see coming.
9 Likes
I got to admit that the willingness to play Russian Roulette to own the libz was also not something I saw coming.
2 Likes
One can only do a certain amount of mental gymnastics.
1 Like
because the relationship between the state of tx and its cities is not the same as the relationship between the federal government and the states. the federal government got its powers from the states, the states did not get theirs from cities. they are sovereign over them in all aspects, always have been. the federal governments sovereignity is limited to those authorities the states gave them.
3 Likes
I disagree with a lot of this. But one thing I’d point out: I will believe that most of these self-identifying “anti-war” Republicans and conservatives are truly “anti-war” when there’s actually something at stake, and not a second sooner. After the ■■■■■■■■■■■■ in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s easy to be “anti-war.” ■■■■■ in 2000, even George Bush ran on “no nation-building.” Those of us who were here in the early '00s—or out protesting, or whatever—and getting called “traitors” and worse for opposing the Iraq war—should be rightly skeptical of all this easy isolationism.
4 Likes
Where in the USA constitution does one state have control over another state?
Here comes the hand-waving and special-pleading. It’s like a law of the universe.
3 Likes
There were no merits.
There was nothing to argue,
The entire complaint was a fabrication.
1 Like
