Read on Twitter
Another blow to the Fox-Trump-GOP Evangelical base.
Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana abortion restrictions https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-louisiana-abortion-strikes-down/ via @CBSNews
I don't think the MAGA people will be happy about this. Remember how angry they were last week with the gay rights case?
Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana abortion restrictions https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-louisiana-abortion-strikes-down/ via @CBSNews
I don't think the MAGA people will be happy about this. Remember how angry they were last week with the gay rights case?
Decisions like this one are going the way they should go. https://twitter.com/sombrerofallout/status/1277619715800731648
Nobody can predict with perfect accuracy what a court will do. The better the lawyer, the more accurate the predictions, but courts often surprise us.
If you look at my FAQs . . .
Nobody can predict with perfect accuracy what a court will do. The better the lawyer, the more accurate the predictions, but courts often surprise us.
If you look at my FAQs . . .
. . . you'll see that I've been pushing back against the Twitter meltdowns about how Trump's court packing means we're screwed.
The only prediction I've made is that the Court won't let Trump make himself dictator. (People were really afraid of that) https://terikanefield-blog.com/faq/
The only prediction I've made is that the Court won't let Trump make himself dictator. (People were really afraid of that) https://terikanefield-blog.com/faq/
I just don't understand why it's taking so long. It should be a slam-dunk in the Trump Loses Department. https://twitter.com/SpeakOutNow16/status/1277630291541143552
I've studied the Supreme Court, and even wrote a judicial biography.
The Supreme Court really doesn't work that way. They don't "trade." They do, however, try to persuade each other.
With the exception of Kavanaugh (different case) I believe each. . . https://twitter.com/PrinceJvstin/status/1277633119739416577
The Supreme Court really doesn't work that way. They don't "trade." They do, however, try to persuade each other.
With the exception of Kavanaugh (different case) I believe each. . . https://twitter.com/PrinceJvstin/status/1277633119739416577
. . . justice operates from a deeply held set of beliefs about what the Constitution means and how it should be interpreted.
They try to do what is right within their view of how the Constitution should be interpreted.
I despise originalism and think that the inherent. . .
They try to do what is right within their view of how the Constitution should be interpreted.
I despise originalism and think that the inherent. . .
. . . biases should be obvious to everyone, but Scalia was a smart guy and really thought his view of the Constitution was correct.
If by trading you mean "I'll decide this case against what I think is right, if you decide that case against what you think is right," it just isn't going to happen, except maybe Kavanaugh who seems to have no integrity.
Who would Roberts "trade" with? https://twitter.com/Seytom1/status/1277635224453574665
Who would Roberts "trade" with? https://twitter.com/Seytom1/status/1277635224453574665
The delay indicates that they're still squabbling (maybe that was the wrong word) over the language to use.
A SCOTUS decision isn't just a thumbs up or thumbs down.
They write a lengthy, detailed decision explaining their reasoning so that the case. . . https://twitter.com/SusieFierce/status/1277635044308332546
A SCOTUS decision isn't just a thumbs up or thumbs down.
They write a lengthy, detailed decision explaining their reasoning so that the case. . . https://twitter.com/SusieFierce/status/1277635044308332546
. . . can guide future courts and serve as precedent.
Drafts are passed around, edits are discussed.
Justices can agree on the outcome of the case but disagree over whether (for example) to use "shall" or something less harsh.
"What do we mean by 'is'?"
Drafts are passed around, edits are discussed.
Justices can agree on the outcome of the case but disagree over whether (for example) to use "shall" or something less harsh.
"What do we mean by 'is'?"
The only way to protect the standing (or integrity) of the court is to issue sound decisions.
If he wants to allow Trump to shield his taxes and thereby shield Presidents from oversight knowing it's the wrong decision, he can't be trying to protect. . . https://twitter.com/Seytom1/status/1277638123497779209
If he wants to allow Trump to shield his taxes and thereby shield Presidents from oversight knowing it's the wrong decision, he can't be trying to protect. . . https://twitter.com/Seytom1/status/1277638123497779209
. . . the integrity of the court.
In other words, trading with the liberals doesn't protect the integrity of the court. One for Trump, one against Trump doesn't protect the integrity of the court if they're setting dangerous precedent for the future.
In fact . . .
In other words, trading with the liberals doesn't protect the integrity of the court. One for Trump, one against Trump doesn't protect the integrity of the court if they're setting dangerous precedent for the future.
In fact . . .
. . . it undermines the integrity. Because the law doesn't work like that. It isn't politics.
The reason that SCOTUS justices have a lifetime appointment is so that they can do what they think is right without playing politics.
The reason that SCOTUS justices have a lifetime appointment is so that they can do what they think is right without playing politics.
So the very idea that Roberts would "trade" to protect the standing of the court is nonsensical because trading, by its very nature, is corruption of the court.
If justices do anything other than what they deeply believe is right, they are corrupting the court . . .
If justices do anything other than what they deeply believe is right, they are corrupting the court . . .
The Supreme Court has, in the past, issued decisions for political reasons. One would be the Dred Scott case in which SCOTUS basically said African Americans belong in slavery because they are inferior.
Scholars of the court find out later what went into the decisions. . .
Scholars of the court find out later what went into the decisions. . .
. . . and it appears that SCOTUS (in 1857) was trying to settle the slavery issue to help the US avoid Civil War.
(1) it didn't work and (2) That was not the Court's finest hour [I typed that in the understatement font]
The way Roberts protects the court's standing . . .
(1) it didn't work and (2) That was not the Court's finest hour [I typed that in the understatement font]
The way Roberts protects the court's standing . . .
. . . is to issue sound decision that respect precedent and the Constitution, and interpret the Constitution [in his view] correctly.
Possibly.
Or the pandemic slowing things down. Ordinarily they can pop into each other's offices to discuss. Negotiation can happen faster in person.
SCOTUS is really 9 independent law firms. https://twitter.com/BadHumors/status/1277641555617222656
Or the pandemic slowing things down. Ordinarily they can pop into each other's offices to discuss. Negotiation can happen faster in person.
SCOTUS is really 9 independent law firms. https://twitter.com/BadHumors/status/1277641555617222656
Trust me: whenever SCOTUS issues an important decision, they know they will anger people. That's the job.
Each time a judge issues a decision, he or she angers half the courtroom.
They're used to it, and they're not afraid to enrage people. They want their decisions to hold up.
Each time a judge issues a decision, he or she angers half the courtroom.
They're used to it, and they're not afraid to enrage people. They want their decisions to hold up.
I didn't say decisions have never been political. Bush v. Gore is another example of a political decision.
I'm saying that those decisions are widely viewed as low points. Sandra Day O'Connor later realized that Bush v. Gore . . . https://twitter.com/TiltAtWyndmills/status/1277655274174775296
I'm saying that those decisions are widely viewed as low points. Sandra Day O'Connor later realized that Bush v. Gore . . . https://twitter.com/TiltAtWyndmills/status/1277655274174775296
. . . was a mistake in that it lowered respect for the Supreme Court as an institution. She later understood the need to try to restore some of the Court's lost prestige.
Roberts knows that.
I'm saying that the argument that Roberts wants to maintain . . .
Roberts knows that.
I'm saying that the argument that Roberts wants to maintain . . .
. . . the court's integrity through political maneuverings is nonsensical because those political decisions deprive the court of prestige.
If he IS "trading," scholars and historians will find out.
That's not how to maintain the court's standing and
integrity.
If he IS "trading," scholars and historians will find out.
That's not how to maintain the court's standing and
integrity.
Even a bad ruling isn't catastrophic (of course, depends on specific wording). Congress can pass legislation to prevent a situation like this from arising. https://twitter.com/TiltAtWyndmills/status/1277671113569558535
Trump will be voted out. Prosecutors will get his financial information. Congress can pass laws.
Trump will be voted out. Prosecutors will get his financial information. Congress can pass laws.
Sometimes people say that SCOTUS justices are "controlled" by this or that person or organization.
How do you control someone with a lifetime appointment?
Accuracy and precision are crucial to counterbalance the disinformation.
How do you control someone with a lifetime appointment?
Accuracy and precision are crucial to counterbalance the disinformation.
P.S. It makes me sad to see cynicism on the left.
Cynicism is a hallmark of right wing politics and leads to nihilism. If you start thinking that the Supreme Court is corrupt, get off Twitter and go read a good book on the history of the Court for perspective.
Says Twittermom.
Cynicism is a hallmark of right wing politics and leads to nihilism. If you start thinking that the Supreme Court is corrupt, get off Twitter and go read a good book on the history of the Court for perspective.
Says Twittermom.
Except Kavanaugh. He's in his own category. He's also 1 of 9.
I just looked on my e-reader and the most recent book I read on SCOTUS history was this one: https://www.amazon.com/History-Supreme-Court-Schwartz-Bernard-ebook-dp-B004Y4USZ0/dp/B004Y4USZ0/ref=mt_other?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid= https://twitter.com/nookalanagesh/status/1277681040073449472
Remember: "I disagree with his decisions," isn't the same as "he is corrupt."
A SCOTUS can make terrible decisions that we disagree with and think are factually wrong. That is not the definition of "corrupt."
Playing politics is different from having political views.
A SCOTUS can make terrible decisions that we disagree with and think are factually wrong. That is not the definition of "corrupt."
Playing politics is different from having political views.
Going against precedent is not necessarily bad.
Brown v. Board of Education (the 1954 case that desegregated the schools) went against the established Supreme Court precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) https://twitter.com/jakeflip/status/1277686059229306881
Brown v. Board of Education (the 1954 case that desegregated the schools) went against the established Supreme Court precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) https://twitter.com/jakeflip/status/1277686059229306881
Careful with words like "corruption." Always use words precisely. It means dishonest or fraudulent.
If going against precedent is "corrupt" what will you say if a future Court overrules Citizens United?
Using "corrupt" to mean "I don't like it" is dangerous . . .
If going against precedent is "corrupt" what will you say if a future Court overrules Citizens United?
Using "corrupt" to mean "I don't like it" is dangerous . . .
. . . undercuts democratic institutions (which means undermines democracy) and leads to nihilism and cynicism, which also endanger democracy.
You're
confusing arguments made against Plessy in the lower courts with SCOTUS's ruling in Brown . . . https://twitter.com/jakeflip/status/1277688579527831553
You're
confusing arguments made against Plessy in the lower courts with SCOTUS's ruling in Brown . . . https://twitter.com/jakeflip/status/1277688579527831553
. . . which held that "separate is never equal," and directly overruled Plessy v. Ferguson.
Occasionally, but not often, the Court overrules itself, which means setting aside precedent. It's not "corrupt."
Plessy was wrongly decided. It needed to be overturned.
Occasionally, but not often, the Court overrules itself, which means setting aside precedent. It's not "corrupt."
Plessy was wrongly decided. It needed to be overturned.
They are human, so of course they are influenced. They have political views.
Remember, I'm taking issue with the word "corrupt" as defined by my New Oxford American Dictionary.
(My favorite dictionary
)
People can be wrong without acting in bad faith. https://twitter.com/JustinMarr12/status/1277693195996954624
Remember, I'm taking issue with the word "corrupt" as defined by my New Oxford American Dictionary.
(My favorite dictionary
)People can be wrong without acting in bad faith. https://twitter.com/JustinMarr12/status/1277693195996954624
I imagine my all readers are geeks 
The big news today is the Russian bounty, but I guess there's a place on Twitter for a SCOTUS discussion. https://twitter.com/SpeakOutNow16/status/1277692949279760385
The big news today is the Russian bounty, but I guess there's a place on Twitter for a SCOTUS discussion. https://twitter.com/SpeakOutNow16/status/1277692949279760385
Congress can change the number of justices. I think that reform in that area is needed.
I'm pretty sure Congress cant change the number of chief justices. The separation of powers means that the Court decides on its own rules; "Chief" implies only one. https://twitter.com/CharlesHughes62/status/1277771569779994624
I'm pretty sure Congress cant change the number of chief justices. The separation of powers means that the Court decides on its own rules; "Chief" implies only one. https://twitter.com/CharlesHughes62/status/1277771569779994624
Smart is this year's pink. https://twitter.com/Littlechickadd/status/1277769378419871746
I think a bill should add 2 justices every 4 years, until the number reaches 15 (This avoids the accusation of partisan court-packing accusation.)
We've had 9 since the population of the US was much smaller. Now it's too much power divided only 9 ways. https://twitter.com/TheSLMR/status/1277805285550284802
We've had 9 since the population of the US was much smaller. Now it's too much power divided only 9 ways. https://twitter.com/TheSLMR/status/1277805285550284802
I turned this thread into a blog post, here: https://terikanefield-blog.com/the-supreme-courts-latest-abortion-case-the-intersection-of-law-and-politics/
If neither party has integrity—if the Democrats start acting like Republicans,—the "both sides are corrupt" people will be proven right, cynicism will set in, and you can kiss democracy goodbye.
At least one side must have integrity or it's all over. https://twitter.com/cwilhelm2014/status/1277813963917410304
At least one side must have integrity or it's all over. https://twitter.com/cwilhelm2014/status/1277813963917410304
