SCOTUS

[All-American]

does lack of standing equate the same thing as ruling against it? maybe it does. but to me seems a case with standing would go differently

Some cynics would suggest that the Court finds a lack of standing only where they want to find a lack of standing, and that if they wanted to issue a ruling, they would find a way to check the standing box.

I'm not THAT cynical, but even if you think there are justices ideologically driven to root out the anti-Christian practice of abortion and drive it from the shores of this Christian nation, we at least know that drive isn't enough to overcome what they think about Article III standing requirements.

[Moliere]

does lack of standing equate the same thing as ruling against it? maybe it does. but to me seems a case with standing would go differently

But wouldn't a Christian Nationalist find a way to take a court case that would allow them to ban the abortion pill nationwide? Are you telling me that a Christian Nationalist passed up that opportunity, an opportunity that might not present itself again?

AA is correct, we know who Alito is. He's been on the SCOTUS for almost two decades and he's been in law since the 1980s. He's a Christian and like all Christian he probably feels compelled to promote Christianity in his personal life. I'm sure his personal beliefs spill over into how he views the world and how he views the law, but I haven't seen any solid evidence that he is a Christian Nationalist.

[Maximus]

You are making the assumption that he bases his legal decisions on his religious beliefs. I just showed an example that is clearly wrong since I’m fairly positive his religious belief is that abortion is wrong.

does lack of standing equate the same thing as ruling against it? maybe it does. but to me seems a case with standing would go differently

[All-American]

I am no more concerned that Alito and Thomas are Christian Nationalists hell- (or heaven-) bent on imposing Christianity even at the cost of disregarding the Constitution than I am that Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are communists.

We know who Thomas and Alito are. They've been the way they are for decades. There's a reason all this is coming out now, when there is a 6-3 conservative majority on the bench, and not years earlier when the swing vote was Kennedy.

[Moliere]

what exactly do you think " to return our country to a place of Godliness" as a scotus means?

SCOTUS justice should, in no situation, be using his religious believes to base his legal decisions on

You are making the assumption that he bases his legal decisions on his religious beliefs. I just showed an example that is clearly wrong since I’m fairly positive his religious belief is that abortion is wrong.

[Maximus]

what exactly do you think " to return our country to a place of Godliness" as a scotus means?

SCOTUS justice should, in no situation, be using his religious believes to base his legal decisions on

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

Believe me, I know a ton of people that think Biden is beholden to socialists/communists. And/or is one himself.

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

Identifying christian nationalism as a new and potentially worrying thing is rational.

Claiming that Alito and Thomas are likely christian nationalists is not rational.

[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.