Calvinball SCOTUS
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/183-t...-of-the-courts
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-14-2025 at 09:17 AM.
In Kennedy v. Bremerton, SCOTUS made up evidence
The Supreme Court is so illegitimate that cases are often about fictional matters with plaintiffs who have been harmed in no way, now to the point where they are not aware that they are plaintiffs in a Supreme Court case.https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/12/u...ng-rights.htmlOne of them, Albert ‘Skip’ Caissie Jr., 78, said in a phone interview that he wasn’t aware that he was involved in a Supreme Court case.
went on Fox to sell her memoir and crack back on critics of matters that might come before it again, like Supreme Court Justices do now
https://www.lawdork.com/p/barrett-tu...not-the-docketBarrett turns to Fox News, rather than the docket, to explain her silence in key rulings
https://sherrilyn.substack.com/p/the-two-section-twosWould it be an exaggeration to summarize the Louisiana argument to SCOTUS today as this: It's an illusion that the South lost the Civil War. It actually won. And all the Civil War Amendments can now be read as a dead letter, as they were after the Slaughterhouse Cases.
JUST IN: Liberal SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor's argument in favor of black Congressional districts was just PUMMELED in front of the entire court🔥
SOTOMAYOR: Even white Republicans or white Democrats won't vote for black candidates!
MOOPPAN: If these were white Democrats, there's no reason to think they would have a second district. NONE...their argument is because these Democrats happen to be BLACK, they get a second district! If they were all white, we all agree they wouldn't get a second district. That is *literally* the definition of race subordinating traditional principles.
democrats dont like playing by the rules....its why they shame people with white skin. IF you were to get a bunch of white people together and say they were proud to be white....democrats would call you white supremists....but if you get brown and black people to do the same....they would embrace it and encourage it.....that is fact. Im glad the Suprreme Court is putting democrats on notice for their iden y politics.
DEI is just wrongthink, man
thought crime
you cant even make sense anymore.
it's a literary allusion, y'all are the thought police
https://bookanalysis.com/1984/thoughtcrime/The term “thoughtcrime” is used to describe a thought that’s an hetical to the Party’s teachings and beliefs.
To understand thoughtcrime, it’s important to understand the consequences of committing it. If one were to have illegal thoughts and those thoughts showed on their face, or they expressed them in some way, they’re going to be arrested by the Thought Police. This group is responsible for hunting down thought criminals and bringing them to the Ministry of Love. This aptly named ministry reforms and kills thought criminals.
wow....what a dumbass....the thought police.....lmao.
"what is illegal DEI?"
The Supreme Court’s majority right wing indicated in oral arguments that they think racism is over on the same day that the vice president defended the “I love Hitler” guy, and that the NYT reported that the current administration plans to accept only white, English-speaking refugees.
Projected GOP Gains from eliminating Democrat gerrymandered districts combined if VRA/Sec 2 going down at Scotus:
Probabilities:
Low Range (Limited Overturn: Weakens but doesn't fully gut Section 2; ~10-12 seats flipped via partial redraws)
+12
232 GOP vs. 203 Dem - 29 Seat GOP majority
Mid Range (Full Overturn: Enables standard racial dilution challenges; ~19 seats flipped)
+19
239 GOP vs. 196 Dem - 44 Seat GOP Majority
High Range (Aggressive Maximization: No VRA recourse + mid-decade redraws; ~27 seats flipped)
+27
247 GOP vs. 188 Dem - 59 Seat GOP Majority
If this happens there's a good chance we don't see a democrat house for a generation. And it should happen because Section 2 is racism in action.
Cry me a river. You had 0 energy for Biden's free soeech suppression, horboring/engouraging/aiding illegals, back door deal, fake autopen authorization, and more.
You're a shill!
you can in one hand and wish in the other
and see which one fills up faster
I'm not super bullish on those scenarios because of geography hurts the GOP in some instances, and I can see Thompson/Bishop/Clyburn's districts staying, but Alabama is definitely drawing a 7-0 map because they easily can draw a clean-looking 7-0 map and that state legislature is pissed off with those low-rent judges from 2023 and out for blood and revenge and rightfully so.Louisiana will go back to the one-blue-seat map centered around NOLA, Memphis won't be touched, DeSantis has already said he's gerrymandering Florida if California Prop 50 passes, Kansas won't redraw because the courts there are blue (inverse of Maryland), Indiana will draw out Mrvan, Ohio will draw out Kaptur and Sykes, and now we're hearing NC is trying to draw out Don Davis.
In a nuts , SCOTUS is letting Trump coerce and extort the whole country illegally, while trampling the cons ution and the people.
While wrecking public capacity and purging government along partisan and racial lines
too early to call, but it didn't sound very good for Trump's IEEPA tariffs in oral arguments today
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...kavanaugh.html
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/189-t...quity-of-trumpI was impelled to write yet another post (the fourth of this week) in response to the Supreme Court’s Thursday afternoon ruling in Trump v. Orr, in which the justices, over a dissent from the three Democratic appointees, put back into effect a Trump administration policy that requires all new passports to reflect the bearer’s biological sex at birth—even if they are transgender or non-binary.
Specifically, as I elaborate upon below, the ruling provides an unusually accessible example of two of the problematic moves a majority of the justices keep making with respect to Trump-related emergency applications (and no others): The assertion without any deep analytical support that the lower-court ruling at issue is inflicting “irreparable harm” on the executive branch; and the refusal to seriously consider whether that harm is more-than-outweighed by the harm it would cause to put the blocked policy back into effect. The ruling also includes one of the uglier sentences I’ve seen a majority of the Supreme Court sign onto in quite some time. Thus, beyond being the 24th consecutive grant of emergency relief to the Trump administration, the cryptic ruling in Orr is a reminder of just how bankrupt the Court’s proffered justifications are in these cases—both legally and in other ways, too.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
