The only way I can think of to ensure only adults use porn sites is by verifying the identity of the users. I can see how that would be a "turn-off" But it didn't seem to bother Mark Robinson until he ran for govenor. But then idk if it was his porn intrests, his antisemitism, homophobia, misogyny, abortion hypocricy or the fact that he is black that didn't sit well with his constituents.
I have liberal friends that refuse to accept what is happening. So, I express myself here. We all know what the Supreme Court is doing, and most of us knew that Trump would prevail. I remember when he was elected in 2016 in the local Bend Bulletin newspaper, a letter to the editor said then that the hand of Mordor is upon this land.
I’m not sure you can give the six activist Supreme Court justices the excuse of “originalism,” as if that was a respected and legitimate approach to interpreting the Constitution, when their rulings continue to violate and erode the Constitution. The language is plain. Due process, birthright citizenship, Congress’ authority over budget appropriations and war powers are right there in the original Constitution. These Trump and Bush appointees are partisan charlatans, wholly owned corrupt beneficiaries of the billionaires who wine and dine them. Prove me wrong. Please!
The yet again strange thing about the US is how it relies on ‘rights’ read from an ancient document as soothsayed by 9 lawyers.
Elsewhere legislatures, elected to take on the challenge, work out what will be and over time get endorsement or not by the electors.
In these place legislatures tend to think ideologically but broadly and are less inclined to pursue vindictive actions against their opponent electors.
Please help me out here. I wonder if anyone can wrap their head around this key excerpt in the majority opinion written by Judge Barrett with the other 5 male judges concurring:
No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) (concluding that James Madison had violated the law but holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus ordering him to follow it). But see post, at 15 (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (“If courts do not have the authority to require the Executive to adhere to law universally, . . . compliance with law sometimes becomes a matter of Executive prerogative”). Observing the limits on judicial authority—including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789—is required by a judge’s oath to follow the law. JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring “legalese,” post, at 3, she seeks to answer “a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?” Ibid. In other words, it is unecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.
When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.
#4 Mahmoud vs Taylor opens the door to so much more. What happens when parents don’t want their children exposed to books about, or by, minorities? Or don’t want their children to see interracial marriages? And on and on.
I am theoretically not opposed to cracking down on nationwide injunctions. The GOP has their tried and true plan where they find a way to file everything in the Amarillo division of the Northern District of Texas and then get Judge Kacsmaryk to issue a nationwide injunction. However, a case such as this where potentially millions of people nationwide are affected seems like the exact type of case appropriate for a nationwide injunction.
I don’t understand how SCOTUS can just ignore the 14th amendment. The Constitution applies to all states and all people. What is their reasoning behind this carveout. For people who claim to be textualists, they certainly aren’t.
I have a question, Qasim. What does “originalism” mean? Is it similar to Court decisions that essentially legislate rather than interpret a case in the light of the Constitution?
Thank you for your clear-eyed and sobering analysis of these rulings. It's not about the law or intent of the founders or the Constitution. The conservative justices on the SCOTUS have been bought off. We have to keep challenging and speaking up and our legislators who are too timid or afraid for their job security must be replaced.
It's also apparent that while occasionally the justices agree with each other, most votes that restrict civil rights the lines are drawn based on ideology;
Is citizenship somehow involved in the decision of Loving v. Virginia? I'm curious how Justice Thomas wants to go back & deal with interracial marriage.
The only way I can think of to ensure only adults use porn sites is by verifying the identity of the users. I can see how that would be a "turn-off" But it didn't seem to bother Mark Robinson until he ran for govenor. But then idk if it was his porn intrests, his antisemitism, homophobia, misogyny, abortion hypocricy or the fact that he is black that didn't sit well with his constituents.
I have liberal friends that refuse to accept what is happening. So, I express myself here. We all know what the Supreme Court is doing, and most of us knew that Trump would prevail. I remember when he was elected in 2016 in the local Bend Bulletin newspaper, a letter to the editor said then that the hand of Mordor is upon this land.
I’m not sure you can give the six activist Supreme Court justices the excuse of “originalism,” as if that was a respected and legitimate approach to interpreting the Constitution, when their rulings continue to violate and erode the Constitution. The language is plain. Due process, birthright citizenship, Congress’ authority over budget appropriations and war powers are right there in the original Constitution. These Trump and Bush appointees are partisan charlatans, wholly owned corrupt beneficiaries of the billionaires who wine and dine them. Prove me wrong. Please!
Won't the decision against birthright citizenship prevent the lower courts from making any decision that goes against the regime?
Not great.
The yet again strange thing about the US is how it relies on ‘rights’ read from an ancient document as soothsayed by 9 lawyers.
Elsewhere legislatures, elected to take on the challenge, work out what will be and over time get endorsement or not by the electors.
In these place legislatures tend to think ideologically but broadly and are less inclined to pursue vindictive actions against their opponent electors.
Please help me out here. I wonder if anyone can wrap their head around this key excerpt in the majority opinion written by Judge Barrett with the other 5 male judges concurring:
No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) (concluding that James Madison had violated the law but holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus ordering him to follow it). But see post, at 15 (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (“If courts do not have the authority to require the Executive to adhere to law universally, . . . compliance with law sometimes becomes a matter of Executive prerogative”). Observing the limits on judicial authority—including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789—is required by a judge’s oath to follow the law. JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring “legalese,” post, at 3, she seeks to answer “a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?” Ibid. In other words, it is unecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.
When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.
#4 Mahmoud vs Taylor opens the door to so much more. What happens when parents don’t want their children exposed to books about, or by, minorities? Or don’t want their children to see interracial marriages? And on and on.
I am theoretically not opposed to cracking down on nationwide injunctions. The GOP has their tried and true plan where they find a way to file everything in the Amarillo division of the Northern District of Texas and then get Judge Kacsmaryk to issue a nationwide injunction. However, a case such as this where potentially millions of people nationwide are affected seems like the exact type of case appropriate for a nationwide injunction.
Thanks for this breakdown, Qasim! Just the facts and nothing but the facts! I am sure maga will be pissed at you for this explanation!
I don’t understand how SCOTUS can just ignore the 14th amendment. The Constitution applies to all states and all people. What is their reasoning behind this carveout. For people who claim to be textualists, they certainly aren’t.
I have a question, Qasim. What does “originalism” mean? Is it similar to Court decisions that essentially legislate rather than interpret a case in the light of the Constitution?
Thank you for your clear-eyed and sobering analysis of these rulings. It's not about the law or intent of the founders or the Constitution. The conservative justices on the SCOTUS have been bought off. We have to keep challenging and speaking up and our legislators who are too timid or afraid for their job security must be replaced.
Regarding number 3, I feel as if that only passed the court so they could continue to propaganda their rural base with internet shitfuckery.
We are in for one hell of a fight for the heart of this nation.
Thank you for that clear explanation.
It's also apparent that while occasionally the justices agree with each other, most votes that restrict civil rights the lines are drawn based on ideology;
How sad for our people!
Is citizenship somehow involved in the decision of Loving v. Virginia? I'm curious how Justice Thomas wants to go back & deal with interracial marriage.
That would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. I’m sure he thinks he’s “white” now, just like donnie thinks he’s smart. 👹