The Supreme Court: Clarence & Ginni Thomas Jet Set Edition

[McTrollson]

Dems are doing nothing. There’s no precedent at all for kicking out a SCOTUS justice and they’re absolute cowards.

[commonWealth]

@McTrollson

Dems are doing nothing. There’s no precedent at all for kicking out a SCOTUS justice and they’re absolute cowards.

Right but this clearly is bad enough, and there’s precedent for court packing. But they don’t actually want to do that anyway. eDems aren’t cowards, they’re well paid to protect the status quo for the wealthy.

[commonWealth]

@commonWealth

Curious to see how eDems play this. My guess is not a peep. They don’t want anything to fundamentally change, and they don’t want to undermine the credibility of a court that has been very favorable to establishment Democrat’s true interests (big corporations).

https://twitter.com/themaxburns/status/1644033008792399874?t=SeqQCjYzo9_26YwExnIOvA&s=19

[CaffeineNeeded]

RE: Impeachment

That starts in the house, that ain’t going to happen.

[commonWealth]

Nor will it happen if/when Dems retake the House because they don’t want it to happen.

[eyebooger]

@commonWealth

As one Democratic House member tells me via text, “Public trust in SC is already bad. A big circus would destroy it completely.”

[commonWealth]

Establishment Democrats love this court.

[commonWealth]

A rare good point from Mueller She Wrote.

Mueller, She Wrote

[commonWealth]

Could someone stick a mic in Stephen Breyer’s face today please?

Not that he’d say shit about it.

[commonWealth]

Lol ok, Dick.

Manu Raju

[eyebooger]

I’m assuming no one asked the super-obvious follow-up questions after he said that?

[pvn]

“we’re strongly looking into it”

[commonWealth]

I haven’t seen anything else about it from him.

[commonWealth]

Meanwhile…

$35 political contribution to Democrats raises fresh scrutiny of Judge Merchan...

[McTrollson]

Pure Logan Roy king moves, honestly. If they complain about your bribes, just stop reporting them. Whatever, fuck off.

Lisa Fung

[pvn]

chaser: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/06/clarence-thomas-abortion-supreme-court-leak/

[McTrollson]

On an unrelated note, Breyer may lowkey be the dumbest person to serve on the Supreme Court. The 5-4 episode on Hamdi v. Rumsfeld with an audio recording of him is such a trip. Breyer seems completely confused why Hamdi isn’t able to show up to testify. The whole fucking case is about the government keeping Hamdi incommunicado in a hole somewhere! Dude is like “did you file habeas corpus?” You dumb shit, that’s the whole reason we’re here!

[Surf]

Saying that somebody told you it was OK doesn’t seem like should be an acceptable response for a fucking Supreme Court justice

[commonWealth]

@Surf

Saying that somebody told you it was OK doesn’t seem like should be an acceptable response for a fucking Supreme Court justice

That’s more logic than he uses in most of his rulings.

[goofy]

@goofy

Jay Willis is the only good legal journalist

The Wisconsin Supreme Court Election Was the Most Honest Election In America

Historically, liberal would-be judges have been as cagey about their philosophies as their Federalist Society counterparts. The results in Wisconsin indicate that this strategy, at the very least, might have some drawbacks: In a contest where the stakes were high and the candidates relatively forthcoming about what they’d do with power, the anti-choice autocracy enthusiast got absolutely molly-whopped. As it turns out, representative democracy and bodily autonomy are more important to voters than rote appeals to the virtues of judicial humility; liberals who believe the law protects those things can feel pretty good about their chances of winning the argument. Judging by their rock-bottom approval ratings, if somehow forced to stand for re-election, your average conservative Supreme Court justice would get fucking smoked.

Protasiewicz’s victory is a nice illustration of the reason conservatives work so hard to control the courts, both in Wisconsin and across the country: The policy views they implement from the bench are unpopular, and the myth of the apolitical judiciary provides essential cover for their ideological project. By dispensing with this narrative, Protasiewicz offered voters an alternative, more honest vision of what it means to be a judge. It’s not an accident that they rewarded her for it.