|
Andrew Fleischman@nobodyinteresting.bsky.social |
Bruen analysis is just policy with more steps
6 replies 0 reposts 30 likes
|
Jeff
@lpqk.bsky.social
[ View ] |
"We fucked up in Bruen but we won't admit it so here's some incomprehensible jibberish that the lower courts are expected to follow."
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Staid Winnow
@staidwinnow.bsky.social
[ View ] |
How does this gibe, though? The majority in the 8-1 cites Bruen which was authored by the 1 in the 8-1. I am amused when the same Amendment is interpreted differently at different times by different courts/justice. This seems bizarre.
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
AndersOSU.bsky.social
@andersosu.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Kavanaugh - let me explain how I’m too dumb to understand that when I’m squinting at crappy historical sources I’m making policy choices
0 replies 0 reposts 4 likes
|
John Castiglione
@johncastiglione.bsky.social
[ View ] |
It’s literally just, “the lower courts need to vibe about whether we think this is consistent with the structure and history.” Absurd.
0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
@doughoff.bsky.social
[ View ] |
What I want to know is - where's the "Statute of Northampton (1328)" drinking game?
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Rumpole the Brief
@rumpole-brief.bsky.social
[ View ] |
They pulled similar crap in 1992 in bankruptcy (Dewsnup) where the majority said Congress couldn't have meant to upset historical BK practice just bc the words of the statute did so. A young Scalia dissented vigorously. Today the Children of Scalia Locknerize all day long.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes