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.

[Maximus]

lmao what a dumbass

Embedded Tweet

[BlueK]

lmao what a dumbass

Embedded Tweet

Yeah, it's hard for me to see how LGBT being allowed to marry hurts my freedom of religion.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yeah, it's hard for me to see how LGBT being allowed to marry hurts my freedom of religion.

Very misleading headline. His take is more nuanced than that. He is talking about growing sentiment that certain sincere religious beliefs are increasingly being framed as bigotry.

"In dissent from that ruling," he said in the 2018 address, "I expressed my worry that equating the expression of certain views with bigotry -- or, if you like, with dignitary harm -- would drive believers out of public life."

In 2025, Alito said publicly that while he strongly opposes the ruling, he is "not suggesting that the decision should be overruled," even as fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas has openly urged his colleagues to do so.

[LVAllen]

Sincerely held religious beliefs are not immune from being bigoted, merely because they are sincerely held, or because they are related to religion.

The way you (the general you, not the specific JL You) express your belief in God can make you a bigoted asshole. Heaven knows we have plenty of examples of that in our own religious history.

If nothing else, this quote:

Nevertheless, Alito suggests in his book that the marriage decision has effectively silenced Americans whose sincere religious beliefs favor limiting unions to one man and one woman, likening them to Catholics who were sidelined in post-Reformation England.

should immediately cause raised eyebrows and a marked decrease in Alito's credibility. That decision has not silenced Americans who believe in limiting marriage. Those people's voices are just as loud then as they are now.

[falafel]

Sincerely held religious beliefs are not immune from being bigoted, merely because they are sincerely held, or because they are related to religion.

The way you (the general you, not the specific JL You) express your belief in God can make you a bigoted asshole. Heaven knows we have plenty of examples of that in our own religious history.

If nothing else, this quote:


should immediately cause raised eyebrows and a marked decrease in Alito's credibility. That decision has not silenced Americans who believe in limiting marriage. Those people's voices are just as loud then as they are now.

Agreed. Permitting others to exercise their own beliefs does not, and cannot, infringe another's rights to disagree with that belief. These are supposed to be our best legal minds for cripes sakes.