We can guess what happens when someone with standing sues and they have to rule on the merits of the case. Guess that'll conveniently happen after the election...
unanimous decision, Kavanaugh wrote the opinion. maybe y'all can stop fear mongering about the MAGA court, and Brown. @SamFisher @Ubiquitin
I have one degree of separation from Weissmann, and met him once many years ago, before he became a leftist darling. at the time he seemed like a very smart dude. but Trump seems to have broken him, and he's just another partisan shill now.
All they did was rule the plaintiff doesn't have standing. They did not rule on the legal merits of the actual case. So the MAGA court is still there until they rule on the legal merits when a plaintiff has standing.
I came across this old article today and there is so much truth to it. I just included some of the excerpts. The Supreme Court Must Be Stopped The court is fundamentally antidemocratic—and the only way to limit the damage it can do is to reduce its power, budget, and lack of accountability. The Supreme Court justices can waft through this country, giving rights to some, taking away rights from others, and the people just shrug. The court operates like a monarch, bestowing flowers on their favored champions and thorns on their enemies. These people—and I’m including both the conservatives and the liberals here—act like they’re untouchable because that is how everybody else treats them. The nine justices are the nepo-babies of American democracy: They’ve earned nothing, yet act like they own the entire world. We bow and scrape to the Supreme Court because we fear that relieving it of its unearned power would lead our fractured country to open civil war. Count me in the camp of American feminist activist Jane Addams, who said, “The cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy.” The votes of nine people matter less to me than the votes of 330 million. If everybody were allowed to vote, if everybody’s votes counted equally, if the county weren’t gerrymandered into an antidemocratic pretzel, the people and not the court would be the final arbiter of our problems. When elected officials take bribes or engage in corruption, they often lose; they get primaried or kicked off committees and sometimes face charges. But when Supreme Court justices engage in public corruption or take bribes, nothing happens. When Donald Trump commits crimes… he generally gets away with it; still, people do, at least, try to hold him accountable, and he sometimes gets charged or impeached or made to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. But when the Supreme Court helps Trump get away with his crimes, or at least helps him delay his reckoning until after the election. The court’s decision to delay Donald Trump’s trial, functionally indefinitely, is indefensible and a clear indication of political posturing instead of the swift application of justice. But that decision is just the latest in a decade-long string of rulings meant to help Republicans achieve their long-standing political goals. From abortion to voting rights, affirmative action, labor laws, gun laws, environmental regulations, financial regulations, public bigotry disguised as religion—it has been years since you needed to know anything about the law to predict the Supreme Court’s rulings: All you’ve needed to know was the stated position of the Republican Party to be able to predict with perfect accuracy what the Supreme Court would do. Most, if not all, of these policy initiatives are ones Republicans cannot enact through elections and legislation, so the Supreme Court comes in and decrees by fiat all that the Republicans cannot accomplish through democracy. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-supreme-court-must-be-stopped/
Nah - it is a pretty partisan and political court. It is pretty damn bad. If your saying it could be worse? Sure.
Yes indeed. The Supreme Court is acting like fascists. I agree with you. Why hasn't the Supreme Court been expanded to have the same amount of Justices as federal judicial districts? This is how it was designed. How come McConnell blocked Garland 9 months before the election but voted in Coney Barrett less than 2 months before the election? How about looking at the length of tenure during the beginning of the Supreme Court. The average was less than 10 years. The Founding Fathers never expected this. Especially at a time when the average age of death was 42 years old.
This case disgusted me..... Remember when Paul Vernon Hoeffer, of Palm Beach Gardens was threatening Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. and Kim Foxx, the top prosecutor in Cook County, Illinois, in a series of phone calls between 2019 and 2020? In one call to Pelosi's office he said he would "come a long, long way to rattle her head with bullets" if she doesn't resign. In another, he threatened to cut her head off "jihadist-style." After a Pelosi staffer transferred him to the U.S. Capitol Police, he was warned that death threats are criminal. Hoeffer responded, “You know how hard it is to prove someone made a threat?” He also left a series of threatening voicemails for Foxx, using racial slurs and threatening to kill her, according to court filings. The FBI traced his number, went to Hoeffer's home and warned him to stop. He apologized and assured the agents "he would not continue to make calls of this nature," prosecutors said. But in Nov. 2020, he left a threatening message to the office of Ocasio-Cortez, threatening to decapitate the New York congresswoman and warning her to "keep one eye open when you sleep," the filings said. He pleaded guilty to three counts of interstate transmission of threats to kidnap or injure, and the federal sentencing guideline range was between 33 and 41 months in prison. Cannon sentenced him to 18 months behind bars followed by three years of supervised release. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna22631
Back when the Supreme Court was founded the the entire U.S. Population was only 3,929,214. It was 0.011 percent of what it is now. It's crazy that these justices are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and hold office for life. For life! It's almost impossible to remove them, no matter how partisan or crooked they might be. You can't tell me their own morals, religious viewpoints, beliefs, racial viewpoints, and political party affiliation doesn't sway their decisions. How many times do you see the Supreme Court rule in favor of matters brought to them by their own party? They are "justices for life" in the court of last resort for those looking for justice. That's scary these days. Someone like Trump appointed Handmaid Amy Coney Barrett or inexperienced Cannon in there for life is crazy. Tell me Amy Coney Barrett isn't going to sway her decisions based on her own religious viewpoints, and I won't believe it. Tell me a very inexperienced Aileen Cannon, appointed by Trump is qualified to preside over his trial fairly and with legal expertise and I will tell you I don't believe it. Times are changing. When psychopaths like Trump, who make every decision based upon who will do his bidding, then appointing Supreme Court Justices for life makes me cringe these days.
Happens all the time. I recognize that I don't sit on the Supreme Court of the United States and have not been empowered to make that determination. I apply the law as it exists now, as it has been interpreted now, even when I disagree with it. That means doing things like charging assault weapons cases, even though I think California's assault weapon law is not only unconstitutional, but frankly nonsense.
Again I think we need to look at expanding the court if they can’t agree to follow even basic ethics.
