|
Peter Sagal@petersagal.bsky.social |
By the current court’s standard, precedent is meaningless. So, sure. But you’d need a new majority (2 current conservative members replace by liberals). And a new “case or controversy” that could rise to the Court for review.
3 replies 3 reposts 24 likes
|
Porter
@porter79.bsky.social
[ View ] |
So . No mulligan.
The court literally cannot haven't come to Jesus moment (prior nov) and quote
@questauthority.bsky.social
"Lol,no.😔 Sorry- we just read that 2025 document and-oooff.
We screwed up."
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Mary (geographile)
@geographile.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I would like to read Barrett's opinion, because she agreed, but wrote separately because it wasn't for exactly the same reasons. I assume she would vote the same if we could swap out some justices, but it might change things.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Here’s a scenario, adopting, again, the current court’s methods. (Which are outrageous, but hey, geese, ganders). Thomas and Alito get on Thurston Howell’s private jet which disappears over the Pacific. The Dem Senate quickly confirms Justices Elie Mystal and Elizabeth Warren.
3 replies 3 reposts 50 likes