SCOTUS

[frank ryan]

Real-life communists exist too. What on earth does any of this have to do with SCOTUS?

That's a poor comparison. Real life communists aren't dominating the liberal political landscape. In the US it's not much of a thing. Communists are wielding social power and have access to the POTUS.

So my main point of contention with your position is that Christian Nationalists are new overblown phenomenon and nothing to worry about.

It only has something to do with the Supreme Court if it influences justices. I'm worried about Alito, but I'm not completely convinced he has fallen into all that. You may be right that worrying about Alito is unjustified, but that's different from saying Christian Nationalism is a new worry.



Thomas worries me the most. He was been evasive amount massive amount of financial gain he has received by very partisan donors. It's basic psychology that gifts of that magnitude influence people. I also think it's foolhardy to just dismiss the importance of justices' wives being attached to extremist elements.

I think having some or worry is rational. I would love to feel that my fears about Alito are unjustified.

And, maybe it doesn't, but it's stupid to be aware of how problematic

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's a thing. People like Milo Yanninapolis, Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Matt Walsh and Charlie Kirk have a lot of sway and consider themselves Christian nationalists. Proud boys, Oath Keepers also fit that bill. It's not a label these people have had imposed on them. It's a buzzword they use.

It's not ridiculous JL. It's not a new fad to be worried about, it's been a problem for a while.

Real-life communists exist too. What on earth does any of this have to do with SCOTUS?

[frank ryan]

Haha. Lol @ all of that Christian nationalist panic in this thread.

It's a thing. People like Milo Yanninapolis, Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Matt Walsh and Charlie Kirk have a lot of sway and consider themselves Christian nationalists. Proud boys, Oath Keepers also fit that bill. It's not a label these people have had imposed on them. It's a buzzword they use.

It's not ridiculous JL. It's not a new fad to be worried about, it's been a problem for a while.

[BigPiney]

worse than dogs

no, but they are very unpleasant

[Clark Addison]

to be fair, I do hate evangelicals.

worse than dogs

[BigPiney]

Haha. Lol @ all of that Christian nationalist panic in this thread.

to be fair, I do hate evangelicals.

[Jeff Lebowski]

SCOTUS just rejected to hear a case related to the anti-abortion pill. They basically gave a win to the abortion supporters. They did this unanimously even with a supposedly Christian nationalist in their ranks. I do have faith in the court and feel like they rule on the law despite their personal beliefs and opinions. This ruling is just one cog in that belief.

So if Alito is really a Christian nationalist, please tell me why he’d side with abortionists when he could have banned abortion pills nationwide.

Haha. Lol @ all of that Christian nationalist panic in this thread.

[USUC]

SCOTUS just rejected to hear a case related to the anti-abortion pill. They basically gave a win to the abortion supporters. They did this unanimously even with a supposedly Christian nationalist in their ranks. I do have faith in the court and feel like they rule on the law despite their personal beliefs and opinions. This ruling is just one cog in that belief.

So if Alito is really a Christian nationalist, please tell me why he’d side with abortionists when he could have banned abortion pills nationwide.

The majority of SCOTUS rulings are unanimous or mostly unanimous. Sure a few highly contentious rulings are split along ideological lines, but they are the exception. The next controversial ruling will undoubtedly be Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the likely discarding of Chevron deference. But this will be construed to be a court in crisis again.

[Moliere]

That's not reassuring. I respect that you; USUC, moli and JL have a lot of faith in the court. Your default is to trust the court and while I can understand that, we should know by now how fragile previous norms and tradition are.

However, there is no way that the court is automatically immune to Trumpism.

The court seems to be taking its sweet time to rule on Trump's claim he can have king-like dictatorial powers.

SCOTUS just rejected to hear a case related to the anti-abortion pill. They basically gave a win to the abortion supporters. They did this unanimously even with a supposedly Christian nationalist in their ranks. I do have faith in the court and feel like they rule on the law despite their personal beliefs and opinions. This ruling is just one cog in that belief.

So if Alito is really a Christian nationalist, please tell me why he’d side with abortionists when he could have banned abortion pills nationwide.

[tooblue]

That's not reassuring. I respect that you; USUC, moli and JL have a lot of faith in the court. Your default is to trust the court and while I can understand that, we should know by now how fragile previous norms and tradition are.

However, there is no way that the court is automatically immune to Trumpism.

The court seems to be taking its sweet time to rule on Trump's claim he can have king-like dictatorial powers.

The justices don't write law. In the past, activist judges have tried, to a degree, and that is why Roe v Wade was struck down—because the laws do not support it. For me, it is more than a matter of faith. The separation of powers is challenging and messy, but it works.

[frank ryan]

Good thing they are not voting but rather ruling on matters of law.

That's not reassuring. I respect that you; USUC, moli and JL have a lot of faith in the court. Your default is to trust the court and while I can understand that, we should know by now how fragile previous norms and tradition are.

However, there is no way that the court is automatically immune to Trumpism.

The court seems to be taking its sweet time to rule on Trump's claim he can have king-like dictatorial powers.

[tooblue]

A guy who thinks lgbt are subhuman would surely never vote to Block rights to certain groups based on bis religious views. It would never happen .

Good thing they are not voting but rather ruling on matters of law.

[Maximus]

A guy who thinks lgbt are subhuman would surely never vote to Block rights to certain groups based on bis religious views. It would never happen .

[BlueK]

Lol. Yeah. Super likely.

I didn't say it was likely. Of course neither was a sitting president calling for a mob to disrupt the certification of the election.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Sorry, got off on a tangent perhaps. Let's just say if Alito were to suddenly start putting out opinions in SCOTUS rulings arguing for Christians to have greater civil rights than others, then we'll know.

Lol. Yeah. Super likely.