Many of them lied to get their position saying precedent was important or was that just lawyer-speak for you can hear what you want to hear. Because precedent doesn’t mean anything when you are following the 2025 playbook.
On motive for the SCOTUS majority's repeated use of the shadow docket:
They don't commit themselves to any holdings on the relevant substantive issues that might embarrass them when and if the Democrats win the presidency in 2028. They get to give major advantages to Trump that they would be obligated (supposing the regard their own precedents as more subject to stare decisis than they did on (to cite only one example: abortion) to give to a Democratic president. More: then are free to deny these benefits arbitrarily and capriciously to political figures whose policies they don't like.
Seriously? This guy? http://cnn.it/3noFbgZ
?
Please address the shadow docket status!
Thanks Chris and Steve. You both give me hope. What are your thoughts on expanding the court, term limits, and code of ethics?
What is the process to change the Citizens United fiasco? And Trump's immunity?
Thank you! Well done!
Great overview of the session and the Court - thank you!
a cruel regime with a cruel court to assist it. I find this court to be unconstitutional,
Many of them lied to get their position saying precedent was important or was that just lawyer-speak for you can hear what you want to hear. Because precedent doesn’t mean anything when you are following the 2025 playbook.
On motive for the SCOTUS majority's repeated use of the shadow docket:
They don't commit themselves to any holdings on the relevant substantive issues that might embarrass them when and if the Democrats win the presidency in 2028. They get to give major advantages to Trump that they would be obligated (supposing the regard their own precedents as more subject to stare decisis than they did on (to cite only one example: abortion) to give to a Democratic president. More: then are free to deny these benefits arbitrarily and capriciously to political figures whose policies they don't like.
Does it now seem safe to say that stare decisis is dead?
this use of emergency docket is why strengthening Court ethics and expansion and term limits are clearly now necessary
Thomas may want to continue the grift
Completely agree that the conservative justices seem to bend backwards and changing laws.
I believe they couldn’t change or make laws❓
Sorry about those Mets.
Kavanaugh has a bad habit of saying these things in his opinions.
I follow baseball ⚾️.
The court needs big reform. Money should not play in any court of law.