From Discord at Supreme Court mirrors diminishment of democratic norms
The warnings from dissenting liberal justices battling the conservative supermajority have become overt. Justice Sonia Sotomayor referred last Wednesday to “a restless and newly constituted Court” that “sees fit … to foreclose remedies in yet more cases” in a decision limiting civil lawsuits against federal agents who violate constitutional rights.
Note the standard CNN methodology of cropping quotes. It really isn’t all that hard to give full context and references.
Seems that Sotomayer decided to call out those that disagree with her at a personal level. Not all that surprising.
But you have to see that it is everybody on the court complaining. Clarence Thomas spoke of distrust among the justices. Not mentioned was that he was talking about the leaked draft opinion. So yeah, it might be a good thing to show a bit of distrust. And Alito talked about an indefensible opinion.
And it is absolutely horrible how law clerks for the court are being forced to sign affidavits and turn over phone records. Because somebody broke the law. And it is horrible how these law clerks have to behave while under a “cloud of suspicion”.
According to a Harvard professor of American legal history, Michael Klarman. It hasn’t been this tense in the court since the 1930s when Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) coerced the court into ruling in his favor by threatening to pack the court. Good thing the Justices saw the light, as it were.
And the conservatives are breaking our democracy by curtailing the deep state of regulatory authority. It is just so dangerous to follow the Constitution and have congress make laws, not to have an agency create law (regulations which are enforced with guns, threats of imprisonment and/or financial ruin) that are adjudicated by agency employees.
And of course, words have meaning, it is the courts up coming opinion on “New York state’s longstanding permit system for carrying handguns outside of the thome” that is the issue, not the corrupt “may issue” after you show that you have an unusual need.
And the one that gets me “Conservative justices have been pressing for the expansion of Second Amendment rights,…” How is it an expansion when the right is “Shall not be infringed”?
Just spin and more spin. Go read if you’ve taken your BP meds.
And they wonder why they are losing viewers in droves..
Why would I DELIBERTELY undertake to pressure test my cerebral arteries?
No ABCNNBCBS for me. Hell, no TV, broadcast or otherwise. Don’t need the aggravation.
Hell, if I am hell bent on aggravation, my employer offers OT at a very attractive hourly rate.
Er, “deliberately”, perhaps?
WHAAAA!!! They won’t vote the way we want them too!!! WHAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Satanmayor can’t have a heart attack and die fast enough to improve the functioning of the republic.
Pray it happens 30 seconds after an opposition president is sworn in. 7-2 is even better than 6-3 or 5-4.
Best of all, with her driving on the interstate, carpooling with AOC and The Squad.
“Conservative justices have been pressing for the expansion of Second Amendment rights,…”
.
I can point to no more damning proof that someone does not understand the Bill of Rights, or the actual right protected (not granted) by the 2nd.
1. You have a fundamental human right to defend/protect yourself against threats, both personal and political.
2. The US Government cannot infringe on that right.
.
Yet, here is someone saying Conservatives want to expand those rights. Expand what? How do you expand a person’s right to protection against threats? The right is absolute. (Granted, how you carry out that right may result in jail time if a jury of your peers determines there was in fact no reasonable threat.)
.
And, number two, if conservatives are expanding that right, what it really means is the Government has already infringed that right. Removing that infringement and restricting the government is living to the letter and intent of the 2nd.