Search Results
6/29/2025, 7:11:56 PM
Why is no one talking about how despite every Democrat screeching about how the conservative supreme court will destroy democracy and create a fascist dystopia in actuality they just SAVED Democrats from that exact outcome despite Liberal justices trying their best to ensure Republicans ruled this nation for decades to come?
If they had simply agreed with the Liberal justices about random federal Judges being able to block the president it would have enabled any right-wing justice in the nation to any future Democrat president from doing anything at all, while on the flip side the (majority conservative) Supreme Court could simply strike down any lower court ruling by a Democrat trying to stop Trump or any future Republican president.
What am I missing here? How does this not, unequivocally prove to any Democrat that Conservatives Justices care about morals and the future of this country while their own Liberal Justices are so unbelievably retarded that they FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL TO GIVE THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY IN THE LAND TO CONSERVATIVES FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL DECADES AT A MINIMUM.
I really wish this would spread so that Democrats have to deal with even more cognitive dissonance than they already were. They need to be confronted by basic, undeniable facts, that prove they're genuinely mentally ill.
If they had simply agreed with the Liberal justices about random federal Judges being able to block the president it would have enabled any right-wing justice in the nation to any future Democrat president from doing anything at all, while on the flip side the (majority conservative) Supreme Court could simply strike down any lower court ruling by a Democrat trying to stop Trump or any future Republican president.
What am I missing here? How does this not, unequivocally prove to any Democrat that Conservatives Justices care about morals and the future of this country while their own Liberal Justices are so unbelievably retarded that they FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL TO GIVE THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY IN THE LAND TO CONSERVATIVES FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL DECADES AT A MINIMUM.
I really wish this would spread so that Democrats have to deal with even more cognitive dissonance than they already were. They need to be confronted by basic, undeniable facts, that prove they're genuinely mentally ill.
6/29/2025, 1:31:06 AM
> Justices’ nerves fray in Supreme Court’s final stretch
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/27/supreme-court-acrimony-00430590
> The Supreme Court’s nine justices often like to tout their camaraderie, hoping to dispel public perceptions that they are locked into warring ideological camps.
> But the final rulings of the current term — issued from the bench during a tense 90-minute court session Friday — revealed some acrimonious, even acidic, exchanges.
> Most of the rhetorical clashes pitted the court’s conservative and liberal wings against each other in politically polarized cases. But not all of the spats fell squarely along ideological lines.
> On the whole, they paint a picture of nine people who are deeply divided over the law and the role of the courts — and who also may just not like each other very much.
> The most acerbic feud Friday came in the biggest ruling of the year: the justices’ 6-3 decision granting the Trump administration’s bid to rein in the power of individual district court judges to block federal government policies nationwide.
> Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court’s entire conservative supermajority, responded sharply to a pair of dissents, one written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the other written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. But Barrett reserved her most pointed barbs for Jackson.
> Barrett, a Trump appointee and the second-most-junior justice, accused Jackson, a Biden appointee and the court’s most junior member, of mounting “a startling line of attack” not “tethered … to any doctrine whatsoever.” According to Barrett, Jackson was promoting “a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,” and she was skipping over legal issues she considers “boring.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/27/supreme-court-acrimony-00430590
> The Supreme Court’s nine justices often like to tout their camaraderie, hoping to dispel public perceptions that they are locked into warring ideological camps.
> But the final rulings of the current term — issued from the bench during a tense 90-minute court session Friday — revealed some acrimonious, even acidic, exchanges.
> Most of the rhetorical clashes pitted the court’s conservative and liberal wings against each other in politically polarized cases. But not all of the spats fell squarely along ideological lines.
> On the whole, they paint a picture of nine people who are deeply divided over the law and the role of the courts — and who also may just not like each other very much.
> The most acerbic feud Friday came in the biggest ruling of the year: the justices’ 6-3 decision granting the Trump administration’s bid to rein in the power of individual district court judges to block federal government policies nationwide.
> Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court’s entire conservative supermajority, responded sharply to a pair of dissents, one written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the other written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. But Barrett reserved her most pointed barbs for Jackson.
> Barrett, a Trump appointee and the second-most-junior justice, accused Jackson, a Biden appointee and the court’s most junior member, of mounting “a startling line of attack” not “tethered … to any doctrine whatsoever.” According to Barrett, Jackson was promoting “a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,” and she was skipping over legal issues she considers “boring.”
6/28/2025, 9:04:51 PM
>>508976980
it's not even bunday yet but I still got you
it's not even bunday yet but I still got you
6/28/2025, 6:40:22 PM
Black fatigue in the Supreme Court
Page 1