SCOTUS

[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.