SCOTUS

[Suranis]

Never heard of that flag, tbh.

[Flatpoint High]

whelp:

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court has reversed a lower court ruling holding that South Carolina’s congressional map was a racial gerrymandering. Justice Thomas concurred, and Justice Kagan, for the three liberal justices dissented. The majority did something rare: it rejected the factual findings of the lower court, something the Court only is supposed to do when those lower court findings are clearly erroneous.

for the rest of the story: https://electionlawblog.org/?p=143227

[raison de arizona]

What a nightmare.

[RVInit]

If Biden should win the election this year AND Democrats somehow hold onto the Senate, the first order of business should be to add a shit ton of justices to the Supreme Court. I'm sick and tired of "well, Republicans will just get revenge BS". They have been getting revenge now for years.

[bob]

If Biden should win the election this year AND Democrats somehow hold onto the Senate, the first order of business should be to add a shit ton of justices to the Supreme Court.

Don't forget to add to your shopping list, "Kill the filibuster." (And, of course, win the House.)

Because there aren't 60 votes in the Senate to expand SCOTUS.

[p0rtia]

So am I the only one who thinks SCROTUS is going to side with fuckhead on the immunity issue?

[John Thomas8]

So am I the only one who thinks SCROTUS is going to side with fuckhead on the immunity issue?

After another case like this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ngNewsSerp

and the two shitgibbons remaining on the bench (thomas, alito), I fully expect SCROTUS to issue their first ever presidential pardon. Not "we're pardoning the president", but "we're wielding presidential pardon authority".

[raison de arizona]

I'm so surprised. No really. Here's my surprised face

Clarence Thomas Reversed Position After Gifts And Family Payments
The Supreme Court justice switched sides on a landmark legal doctrine, satisfying his benefactors’ conservative advocacy machine.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas changed his position on one of America’s most significant regulatory doctrines after his wife reportedly accepted secret payments from a shadowy conservative network pushing for the change. Thomas’ shift also came while he was receiving lavish gifts from a billionaire linked to other groups criticizing the same doctrine — which is now headed back to the high court.

The so-called “Chevron deference” doctrine stipulates that the executive branch — not the federal courts — has the power to interpret laws passed by Congress in certain circumstances. Conservatives for years have fought to overturn the doctrine, a move that would empower legal challenges to federal agency regulations on everything from climate policy to workplace safety to overtime pay.

Thomas wrote a landmark Supreme Court opinion upholding the doctrine in 2005, but began questioning it a decade later, before eventually renouncing his past opinion in 2020 and claiming that the doctrine itself might be unconstitutional. Now, Thomas could help overturn the doctrine in a new case the high court just agreed to hear next term.

Groups within the conservative legal movement funded by Leonard Leo’s dark money network and affiliated with Thomas’ billionaire benefactor Harlan Crow have organized a concerted effort in recent years to overturn Chevron. That campaign unfolded as they delivered gifts and cash to Thomas and his family in the lead-up to his shift on the doctrine.

https://www.levernews.com/clarence-thom ... -payments/

Birds of a feather…
Much moar at link.

It's not just Justice Alito.

Here's the "Appeal to Heaven" flag flying outside of conservative powerbroker Leonard Leo's home in Maine.

Photo taken by a nearby resident who shared it with @ProPublica and gave us permission to publish it. 1/x

[RVInit]

If Biden should win the election this year AND Democrats somehow hold onto the Senate, the first order of business should be to add a shit ton of justices to the Supreme Court.

Don't forget to add to your shopping list, "Kill the filibuster." (And, of course, win the House.)

Because there aren't 60 votes in the Senate to expand SCOTUS.

I'm all for it.

[raison de arizona]

She sounds delightful.

Mrs. Alito spit at their car??? https://nytimes.com/2024/05/28/us/justi ... -flag.html

[chancery]

https://x.com/joshtpm/status/1795879150936367227

Josh Marshall
@joshtpm
"there were no additional steps that I could have taken to have the flag taken down more promptly"

Longer quote in the tweet.


https://x.com/joshtpm/status/1795879464527634796

Josh Marshall
@joshtpm
not sure whether this is Alito's clearest statement in print in support for gender equity or just big cuck energy

[p0rtia]

No, sir. Nope. No appearance of bias there. Nuh-uh.

[chancery]

https://x.com/secretsandlaws/status/1795875581831061786

Secrets and Laws
@secretsandlaws
The Alito letter, a breakdown.

1. I mean, GTFO with this!

Read the whole thread; most of it isn't quoted.

[chancery]

https://x.com/Larry_C_Fitz/status/1795878673419030963

Asha Rangappa reposted
Laurence C Fitzgerald
@Larry_C_Fitz
A reasonable and unbiased person would take his changing stories and the lies he told as an indication that he has been less than forthright and is biased, so it does for the criteria for recusal now, even if it did not previously (though I believe it did already).

https://x.com/AmericasBurner/status/1795877763477549154

Asha Rangappa reposted
AmericasBurner
@AmericasBurner
Is it just me, or did everyone else also expect Alito to be way smarter than his explanation portrays him?

He’s a Supreme Court Justice and he didn’t think anyone would check up on his story?

Is old age getting to him?

https://x.com/BradMossEsq/status/1795878505747718370

Bradley P. Moss
@BradMossEsq
Also talks about his wife being an independent person whose rights to make her own choices he respects.

Mind you, this is the author of the Dobbs opinion.

[raison de arizona]

My capacity for astonishment is exhausted. Alito, misusing research? Pretending it says something it doesn't?

The Brennan Center says Alito misused its research.

It's the second week in a row that a source cited by Alito says the justice misunderstood the underlying work and used it to reach the wrong result under false pretenses. (Last time it was @joshchafetz.) https://brennancenter.org/our-work/anal ... conclusion

[sterngard friegen]

Alito won't recuse from the January 6 cases or the Trump immunity case. He's writing the friggin opinions. How can he recuse?

(He's taking his time because he and Thomas are trying to figure out how to totally immunize Trump but not allow any of the total immunity to cloak Joe Biden. It's tough, but he's working on it. And if he can do it right, Biden will not be immune but Trump will be immune for past and future crimes.)

[chancery]

https://x.com/EricLisann/status/1795805249564774402

Asha Rangappa reposted
Eric Lisann
@EricLisann
Setting aside, for a moment, the muddled issue of what neighborly interaction supposedly prompted the Alitos to hoist the upside-down flag outside their home (and setting aside a similar flag they hoisted outside their NJ beach house), the public is left with the unsettling impression that the Alitos closely identify with the causes popularly associated with these flags ie Stop the Steal, the Big Lie, and insurrection. In fact, the Alitos have taken pains not to disassociate themselves from those causes, and precisely when the public would expect them to do that. It is as if they want the public to understand that they (Alitos) are inextricably bound with these causes which they can not disavow.

https://x.com/steve_vladeck/status/1795886852961947993

Steve Vladeck
@steve_vladeck
Justice Alito's insistence in his letters to Congress that he has an "obligation to sit" in the January 6 cases *because* the Code of Conduct says so is an interesting data point for those who have insisted that the Code doesn't impose *any* requirements on the justices.

https://x.com/NPRinskeep/status/1795886607125406193

Steve Inskeep
@NPRinskeep
This passage of Alito’s letter says a reasonable person “not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect Supreme Court cases” would agree with him — suggesting that no one could simply disagree with him in good faith.

https://x.com/tap02152/status/1795888305260708090

Shelley
@tap02152
Yet if one of his clerks had done something like this it would have been grounds for dismissal.

That's a big hole in Alito's position that he and his supporters never address. There's a reasonable argument that the standards should be stricter for Supreme Court justices than they are for the thousands of judges and hundreds of thousands of government employees subject to ethics codes.

[Slim Cognito]

Alito won't recuse from the January 6 cases or the Trump immunity case. He's writing the friggin opinions. How can he recuse?

(He's taking his time because he and Thomas are trying to figure out how to totally immunize Trump but not allow any of the total immunity to cloak Joe Biden. It's tough, but he's working on it. And if he can do it right, Biden will not be immune but Trump will be immune for past and future crimes.)

Just spell out that immunity in this case is only for those whose name begins with T and ends with rump, that this is a special case and will not ever apply to people whose names end in, for example, iden. I mean, basically that's what it's going to say anyway, right? And it's not like they have any shame.

[John Thomas8]

They're no longer hiding they're not Americans.

We're done.

[Greatgrey]

IMG_0499.jpeg (462.95 KiB) Viewed 490 times

[raison de arizona]

He's lower than slime.

[pipistrelle]

Well, that there whine sounds like a reason to retire, don't it?

[RTH10260]

Dear Justice Alito - I have a suggestion to make - just step down

[pipistrelle]

IMG_3251.jpeg (60.14 KiB) Viewed 320 times

[John Thomas8]

I did read where Dread Dumbass Roberts declined to answer for his court's behaviour.