SCOTUS

[BlueK]

The opening lines of the dissent is particularly hilarious:

"Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic “No,” but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned."

Leaving aside the jurisdictional question (why bring it up if you aren't going to address it?), isn't that what the judicial branch is supposed to do? Lol. How dare a federal district judge interpret the law and making decisions with the force of law. How DARE he do it to the US GOVERNMENT (what, exactly, is the federal judiciary again?)!

Proving again that Alito is a FAKE originalist.

[Shaka]

This is fun. A lot of people are making fun of it on Twitter, but I think it's cool. Pretty wild that she was in a drama class with Matt Damon.

Embedded Tweet

That is fun! Her exuberance is great to behold.

[falafel]

Yeah! How dare the court . . . [checks notes] rule against Trump?

Here's the decision, by the way.

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-conten...31-Order-2.pdf

The opening lines of the dissent is particularly hilarious:

"Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic “No,” but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned."

Leaving aside the jurisdictional question (why bring it up if you aren't going to address it?), isn't that what the judicial branch is supposed to do? Lol. How dare a federal district judge interpret the law and making decisions with the force of law. How DARE he do it to the US GOVERNMENT (what, exactly, is the federal judiciary again?)!

[Maximus]

Yeah! How dare the court . . . [checks notes] rule against Trump?

only 4, and not 5, are in the tank for trump.

[frank ryan]

Yeah! How dare the court . . . [checks notes] rule against Trump?

It does look like it is the dissenters who are the ones who constantly side with Trump and are worrisome.

I think it is rational to be suspicious of Thomas and his payments from billionaires, legal or not. Not to mentions his wife's crazy right wing extremism.

[All-American]

Yeah! How dare the court . . . [checks notes] rule against Trump?

Here's the decision, by the way.

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-conten...31-Order-2.pdf

[All-American]

so can the defenders of the SOTUS admit that at least 4 are trump admin members?

you cant even let usaid pay out work already done? lol

Yeah! How dare the court . . . [checks notes] rule against Trump?

[Maximus]

so can the defenders of the SOTUS admit that at least 4 are trump admin members?

you cant even let usaid pay out work already done? lol

[YOhio]

This is fun. A lot of people are making fun of it on Twitter, but I think it's cool. Pretty wild that she was in a drama class with Matt Damon.

Embedded Tweet

[Goatnapper'96]

I think it's becoming increasingly clear that a majority of voters don't care about morality in their leaders, so long as they either hate or go after the right groups.

I finally have a convert! Politics demonstrates a symptom of our deeper issues.

[frank ryan]

Not at all what I said.

Checks and balances are intended to protect one branch of government from being overrun by another. At the end of the day, though, each branch draws its power, however filtered, from the people. The best-designed democracy in the world won't save the electorate from the consequences of their own choices.

Huh?

Part of the strategy reaching all the way up to the SCOTUS is is judicial activism on the part of the Heritage Foundation. Kudos to them, it's been successful.

[All-American]

I thought checks and balances was supposed to save them from the consequences. It seems you are saying the scotus did indeed hurt those checks

Not at all what I said.

Checks and balances are intended to protect one branch of government from being overrun by another. At the end of the day, though, each branch draws its power, however filtered, from the people. The best-designed democracy in the world won't save the electorate from the consequences of their own choices.

[Maximus]

The best option, of course, would be to pick morally decent presidents that would not commit criminal acts.

If that is not what the people want, I don’t know that judges will save them from the consequences of their own choices.

I thought checks and balances was supposed to save them from the consequences. It seems you are saying the scotus did indeed hurt those checks

[Uncle Ted]

Harris to replace Sotomayor... what a great idea!

Embedded Tweet

[Northwestcoug]

The best option, of course, would be to pick morally decent presidents that would not commit criminal acts.

If that is not what the people want, I don’t know that judges will save them from the consequences of their own choices.

I think it's becoming increasingly clear that a majority of voters don't care about morality in their leaders, so long as they either hate or go after the right groups.