SCOTUS

[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

[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.

[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.

[falafel]

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

1. "A place of Godliness" is an incredibly vague statement. I don't think you can draw any conclusions from that.

2. There is absolutely no way to divorce personal religious beliefs (or any personal beliefs) from a person's inherent bias. Not only that, but go read S.Ct. cases from the 1800s and 1900s and you'll see references to God all over the place.

[Jeff Lebowski]

SCOTUS rules 6-3 on the social media censorship case.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/..._term=35842956

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Biden administration in a landmark case dealing with government involvement in social-media censorship, finding that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue.

Justice Barrett wrote the majority opinion asserting that two states and five social-media users do not have standing to contest the level of coordination between government agencies, nonprofits, and tech platforms in restricting content on social media.

They sided with the Biden administration. LOL @ the notion that they are mindless partisan hacks.

[Goatnapper'96]

SCOTUS rules 6-3 on the social media censorship case.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/..._term=35842956



They sided with the Biden administration. LOL @ the notion that they are mindless partisan hacks.

Alito believes in God so he is clearly a Christian Nationalist! Down with Trumpism and his use of mindless impugning rhetoric of those with whom he views as enemies!

[Maximus]

SCOTUS rules 6-3 on the social media censorship case.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/..._term=35842956



They sided with the Biden administration. LOL @ the notion that they are mindless partisan hacks.

why arent they ruling on trumps immunity? should be an easy no right?

[BlueK]

why arent they ruling on trumps immunity? should be an easy no right?

It's probably the 6 conservatives being far apart, with Thomas and Alito pretty close to wanting to grant close to everything Trump wants with the other four all at some place on the scale of granting former presidents some level of immunity but also working out what to tell the lower courts how to apply it to this case.

[frank ryan]

why arent they ruling on trumps immunity? should be an easy no right?

This is the big thing specter. I don't think all the conservative justices are hacks but I don't think it's paranoia to want more scrutiny of Thomas and Alito. Being a Supreme Court justice doesn't make someone immune to being corrupt. Basic psychology informs us that showering a person with millions and millions in gifts brings influence. Legal or not, that is what happened with Thomas.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The immunity ruling will be interesting. There is no way they grant complete immunity. At the same time, zero immunity is equally unlikely. Coming up with a standard for where the balance should lie will be tricky.

[BlueK]

The immunity ruling will be interesting. There is no way they grant complete immunity. At the same time, zero immunity is equally unlikely. Coming up with a standard for where the balance should lie will be tricky.

This would be called legislating from the bench. Both sides do it.

The Constitution says nothing about a president not being subject to the law in some circumstances when anyone else would be, but Congress could write a law about that. Absent such a law and strictly following the Constitution there shouldn't be a question here or a roadblock toward letting the trial proceed to determine if Trump broke laws or not.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This would be called legislating from the bench. Both sides do it.

The Constitution says nothing about a president not being subject to the law in some circumstances when anyone else would be, but Congress could write a law about that. Absent such a law and strictly following the Constitution there shouldn't be a question here or a roadblock toward letting the trial proceed to determine if Trump broke laws or not.

I don't think it is that simple.

[USUC]

It's probably the 6 conservatives being far apart, with Thomas and Alito pretty close to wanting to grant close to everything Trump wants with the other four all at some place on the scale of granting former presidents some level of immunity but also working out what to tell the lower courts how to apply it to this case.

I don't think you really know what you are talking about with the jurisprudence of either Alito or Thomas. It's laughable you see them as merely stooges for whatever whims Trump may hold in the moment. Their record clearly shows this isn't the case. It's undeniable that they are the most socially conservative justices, but they are consistent in their philosophies (where Trump is not) and have gone against Trump as well. I'd much prefer Gorsuch clones to either of them but it does your argument no favors to be untruthful.

[BlueK]

I don't think you really know what you are talking about with the jurisprudence of either Alito or Thomas. It's laughable you see them as merely stooges for whatever whims Trump may hold in the moment. Their record clearly shows this isn't the case. It's undeniable that they are the most socially conservative justices, but they are consistent in their philosophies (where Trump is not) and have gone against Trump as well. I'd much prefer Gorsuch clones to either of them but it does your argument no favors to be untruthful.

I'm being a little facetious. But Thomas was the 1 in the 8-1 ruling in the case about whether Congress had the right to executive branch emails and such for investigating Jan 6th.

Thomas' and Alito's dissenting or concurring opinions on this one will likely be very interesting.

[Maximus]

Thoughts on this?

https://www.vox.com/scotus/357170/su...tes-corruption

Snyder turns on a distinction between “bribes” and “gratuities.” As Kavanaugh writes, “bribes are payments made or agreed to before an official act in order to influence the official with respect to that future official act.” Gratuities, by contrast, “are typically payments made to an official after an official act as a token of appreciation.” (Emphasis added.

As Jackson writes in her dissent, the most natural reading of this statute is that it targets both bribes (payments that “influenced” a future decision) and gratuities (payments that “rewarded” a past decision). As Jackson writes,

Everyone knows what a reward is. It is a $20 bill pulled from a lost wallet at the time of its return to its grateful owner. A surprise ice cream outing after a report card with straight As. The bar tab picked up by a supervisor celebrating a job well done by her team. A reward often says “thank you” or “good job,” rather than “please.”