Well apparently we just need to pack the court like the Republicans, and then whatever we want will be legal, because established law means nothing anymore. Problem solved.
The Court shouldn't "legislate" from the Court just because it is hard for Congress to act. If Congress don't like what the Executive is doing, it can write legislation to limit the Executive. Why hasn't it done so?
This ruling against the EPA will harm health. Next up is the Clean Water act. This Court is likely going to limit the EPA there also. Long precedents of giving the Executive flexibility to regulate for clean air and clean water is about to be all gone. Maybe next up is to limit the executive flexibility to regulate for safe drugs.
This is why Roberts wrote his dissent. Mississippi was the case before them, and they didn't change it to Roe until after RBG died and was replaced by ACB. Go big or go home, right? Lol. So I get Roberts' conservative juresprudence here. "Overturn Roe in the right place and time, and that may even be in a year. But don't skip steps break the rules to do so, even if you think it was wrong. It was decided AND upheld, so you guys (his fellow justices) are just being way way way too over arogant about being so sure about this." That's what I got from reading his dissent. He's so sad that they broke the process. Hell, I get Thomas's. I get the dissenters, and to a level, I get Kav. I think his words are more like, if the majority of the states want to overturn something, then we can talk about overturning a substantive right (like gay marriage). The least logically consistent is the majority opinion (Alito, Gorsuch, and ACB). I would have rather had Gorsuch join Thomas, since that's closer to his normal interpretation. The majority wins, and I don't mind a close decision, but the whole "we believe in substantive DP rights, but not this time, because it's a baby" is legally BS, lol. (Because if it's really a baby, then give it rights, like a baby - be legally consistent) So yeah, the Liberals, Roberts, Kav (even with him being extra), and Thomas all made sense to me. Majority was just anti-abortion, but didn't want to come off as anti-gay. And even though that's not legally consistent (for their reasoning), they can do that. That's SCOTUS for you....sometimes it's just about what you want, lol.
The USSC took up the idiotic independent state legislature case in North Carolina. Say goodbye to State Supreme Courts striking down gerrymandered maps.
not everyone would say backwards. although I know with at least one case it might look that way to a lot of people
Taking away freedoms from disadvantage groups and empowering advantaged groups over them is antithesis to the ideals of this country, and yes, it is becoming a more backwards country in the process.
"She only needs the agreement of other members". By other members, he'd be referring to the dumbasses who are so far gone you said you don't even pay attention to them: "I just don't pay as much attention to Republicans because a lot of them are dumbasses, whereas I still retain the optimism of youth that Democrats ought to know better." So, that's all she needs to do. Just get those folks on board with a rational climate plan. What's the big deal?
Os has to post other academic opinions because he has no academic papers worth sharing that came from himself. The fact he tosses trolling behavior among a demographic of mostly 50 to 60 year old white men that post here as bait to determine whether to introduce to his students is some of the laziest type of teaching I can imagine. What a waste of tuition money.
AWESOME GREAT FIRST POST. LONG TIME LURKER ESTABLISHES CLUTCHFANS ACCOUNT SIMPLY TO POST AN AD HOMINEM AGAINST OS TRIGONUM. I FEEL LIKE I HAVE RISEN TO NEW HEIGHTS!!
