SCOTUS

[MartyFunkhouser]

Actually, it’s conservatives who like the textual approach. Conservatives want to read the plain English of the text in regards to the second amendment, but want to be activists in regards to birthright citizenship.

Well, except they want the predatory clause of the 2nd Amendment to be 100% ignored.

[MartyFunkhouser]

And yet four justices disagree.

You might be able to shrug off one or two dissenters as partisan hacks. But an argument that is able to peel off Justice Gorsuch is one to be taken seriously, even if you don't agree with it (as I don't).

Thomas vote doesn’t count. He does whatever Trump wants. He used to have principles. He doesn’t anymore.

[BlueK]

Thomas vote doesn’t count. He does whatever Trump wants. He used to have principles. He doesn’t anymore.

The vote was 6-3. Kavanaugh voted with the majority but said birthright citizenship came from statute but not the Constitution.

[falafel]

And yet four justices disagree.

You might be able to shrug off one or two dissenters as partisan hacks. But an argument that is able to peel off Justice Gorsuch is one to be taken seriously, even if you don't agree with it (as I don't).

I think we can shrug off 8, maybe 9 as partisan hacks. And Justice Gorsuch has made some mind-bottling (see The Life and Times of Cosmo Kramer, 2nd Ed., pp. 98-99) decisions in the last few years, which suggests that even he is not immune to brain rot.

[falafel]

Well, except they want the predatory clause of the 2nd Amendment to be 100% ignored.

There are many paths leading to the top of Mount Fuji.

[BlueK]

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/supr..._copyURL_share



scotus for the win again! Funny how they keep piling up wins even and no one will give them credit for preserving democracy. It’s also funny how it’s trumps selected judges that tend to be more of the swing votes on crucial matters, although it sounds like they were all nine in agreement on this one.

Good decision, and good for them for upholding Missouri law. However, fwiw I think we should remember that they caused this current climate of extreme partisan gerrymandering by refusing to rule a few years ago that it should not be allowed to be how districts are drawn. It would happen before but much less extreme and much more subtle. States used to at least give semi plausible reasons for drawing the lines the way they did and the partisanship wasn't to the ridiculous extent today that scotus opened the door to a few years ago.

Now for my soapbox...gerrymandering is anti-democracy, anti-freedom, and a primary cause of a dysfunctional Congress and the extreme polarization we have today. Because if you represent a district where your party has no chance of ever losing because of how the lines are drawn, you have zero reason to ever listen to a constituent with different view. In fact, being open minded enough to listen to the other side is a great way to be primaried. And that's not what the Founders intended. It's great for advancing demagoguery and authoritarianism though.