|
Quinta Jurecic@qjurecic.bsky.social |
the repeated citations to Trump v Hawaii were what really sent me round the bend. the sheer smugness of it!
5 replies 12 reposts 113 likes
|
Adam Serwer
@adamserwer.bsky.social
[ View ] |
“Korematsu is overturned, but here is a decision whose logic echoes and reinforces Korematsu” is an example of the paradigmatic dishonesty of the roberts court
2 replies 17 reposts 113 likes
|
AndyK250.gb
@andyk250.bsky.social
[ View ] |
This might be a naive question, but at this point, what is actually preventing Biden from expanding the Supreme Court, or from pursuing investigations into improprieties on the parts of certain Justices?
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Al G Rhythm
@algrhythm.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I’m just gonna say it. I believe John Roberts’ actions are traitorous. Or, at least traitor-adjacent.
0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
KC Momkin
@kc-momkin.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The problem is the ruling is so twisted, confusing, convoluted and inconsistent with the Constitution in practical reality, that it messes up the entire separation of powers. Lawyers can't lawyer their way out when the supermajority on the Supreme Court gets to just make up stuff.
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
@zfcook.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Did Roberts ever suggest presidential statements were close to “official acts” in Trump v Hawaii? I didn’t understand that part of the new decision (either). The gist of Hawaii seemed clear that any statement by Trump, speaking as a -candidate- for office, sure as heck would not be an official act.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes