I can’t even remember are any of those things part of this case or they just talking about the immediate forgiveness?
I don’t think so. It’s just the forgiveness I believe. But scotus can do whatever they want
They’re in a tough spot politically here. If they block the student loan forgiveness it’s a big political loss for the GOP that drives voter turnout in 2024. If they allow it to go through Biden gets a more muted political win.
The law side of it doesn’t matter I don’t think. They can do whatever they want here. My guess is they rule to allow it to happen because it gives them legitimacy and blocking it would be very public and unpopular.
They really don’t care about the politics. If they did, they would have continued incrementally chipping away at Roe. They wouldn’t have reversed it entirely. They have a generational 6-3 lock on the US superlegislature. WHy would they care if the house swings to democrats for 2 years?
1 Like
Apparently ACB sold her house to some right wing religious group, come on down!
So she sold it to her family?
3 Likes
Eagerly awaiting when ProPublica finally figures out what happened with Kavanaugh’s six-figure credit card debt
1 Like
Confident this split won’t be seen again for a while.
https://twitter.com/mjs_dc/status/1673693956973150208?s=46&t=XGja5BtSraUljl_WWUrIUg
1 Like
It’s all bullshit obviously, those three would never vote the other way if it benefited democrats. However, the Thomas vote is especially galling. He was in the majority in bush v gore.
Pretty sure Thomas joined Rehnquist’s concurrence in that case that said they needed to overturn Florida’s Supreme Court because they violated the ISL theory so he’s being 100% consistent here.
1 Like
Good point, I guess I assumed he went with the equal protection argument.
I assume I’m missing something when I find myself on the same side as Thomas and ACB in disagreeing with a 7-2 decision. But someone explain to me why this is a good decision here?
I guess because it lets me say “I keel you!” and not get prosecuted unless they look in my heart of hearts and determine I really meant it?
This seems correct based on how the law is written. The legal definition of a threat requires it to be “true” - meaning that any reasonable person would understand it as one, regardless of what his intent was.
Like, I could tell you I’m gonna hop on my broom and fly to your house and hex you and your entire family lineage, and fully mean it as a threat, but it would not meet the “reasonable person” standard. If I’m understanding this case right, they focused on his intent rather than if the threat itself should have been interpreted as a real one.
There are other elements to what constitutes threats. I’ve had plenty of threats on my own life, but, I doubt many of them would hold up in court because the person(s) sending those threats didn’t seem to have any ability to carry them out.
I’m sure they could’ve still gotten him on harassment stuff though.
(note: I am strongly against sending threats, true or otherwise, or harrassing people, just commenting on this law)
1 Like
Oh, my bad, I’m misunderstanding the ruling. Yea, that’s odd. the way harrassment laws are written are weird and not intuitive though, especially for online stuff.
the court’s saying the state should have considered his intent? so he can use the “just kidding” defense? yea, I find that weird and bad. will make it so a lot of harrassment is harder to prosecute. it’s already way too difficult.
