No kidding! It looks like they are headed toward turning the First Amendment into an assault weapon! A weapon of mass destruction . . .of our country and our freedoms.
which is meant to address the free-rider problem
Anyone who thinks Republicans look upon free riders as a problem does not understand Republicans.
âConservatives Are âWeaponizing The First Amendmentâ.â
While gun-grabbing speech from the Red Hen restaurant.
Its a wonder Fred Phelps and his congregation wasnât there to protest with the rest of the goofs who showed up.
Theyâve been trying to do this for decades, especially so they could use religion to justify discrimination.
Indeed. The only free rider a Republican doesnât like is the one who isnât him, because that other guy is cutting into whatâs available for his own free ride.
I have to say, with real goosebumps, that Justice Sotomayor won my undying admiration and respect with her blistering dissent.
Rachel read most of it aloud (that was a treat, you could hear the truth and justice in her voice) and made me button-busting proud of our latino justice, and of Obama for choosing her in the first place.
She just joined my personal list of True American Heroes, she and Barbara Boxer both faced-off the old-boys in historic fashion and we should never forget it.
She gives us hope, one of those holdovers from the Obama era that we all miss so badly. And thereâs so little hope around these days.
That will change in November.
Big Time.
I used to believe the conservative majority could at least be counted on in the event Trump, say, refuses to comply with a subpoena or tries to pardon himself. (Because we have two unanimous precedents confirming that the President is not above the law â U.S. v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones.)
But now, given that these five have dropped even the slightest pretense of legal objectivity in their opinions, I no longer believe that.
âŚand all you people who thought HRC could get elected are complicite.
I have heard opinions expressed in the legal community that Alito is one of the worst justices in the modern history of the Supreme Court. Thatâs saying something, given some of the others in that cast of characters. Reading the opinion in Janus (and others written by Alito) really helps to understand why people hold that view. Alito is so doctrinaire that his opinions often stray into illogical and/or unsupportable assertions, and his opinion in Janus seems particularly labored. Republicans certainly got what they paid for when they put him on the Court.
Yes, these 5 are pushing up the throttle for a Rich White American Century. Weâre on our own.
Itâs really important that dissenting judges write strong opinions in order to lay the groundwork for defending opposition in the future. Iâm still hoping someday someone latches on to Justice Whiteâs brilliant dissent in the case overturning limits on campaign contributions Buckley vs Valeo where he argued persuasively that the Supreme Court had given the full force of the First Amendment to the proposition that âMoney Talksâ when it struck down the substance of Campaign Finance Law.
SCOTUS is all about reversing precedent. Itâs important that when the pendulum swings, progressives never allow âthatâs the way itâs always beenâ or âprevious courts/ CongressesâŚâ to be a restraint. Nope. There are no conservative precedents that must be respected. When the chance comes, Dems, itâs full speed ahead!
Datâs right, de woman is, ummph, smar-ter. Datâs right.
The conservative majority on the SCOTUS are entrenching the principal of âItâs OK If You Are Republican/Conservative.â
CLEARLY delineated in the dissent to the âMuslim banâ where the Majority ignored Trumpâs tweets when looking at intent, but relied on statements made by the board in Colorado that ruled against the âChristian Bakersâ rather than their ruling on its face.
File this under âNobody could have predictedâ?
Funny how us professional wimmins are so much smarter and better than our male peers. Just read our SCOTUS opinions. (Said with drenching sarcasm and burning anger.)
This is a good point, consider how revered Harlanâs dissent (the only one) in Plessy v. Ferguson is now:
It goes back at least to 1995 when the Supreme Court bought the anti-abortion First Amendment argument in Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo v. Williams. The religious angle made its debut when the Court turned RFRA on its head in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and will take its next step down that road when the Court rehears Masterpiece Cakeshop or its progeny.
@tena Yup. Actually, Iâm sure Kagan is well aware of the judicial history but felt the necessity of stating the problem in a published dissent.
You just now figured that out? Theyâve been doing this for 20 years at least - what the fuck have you been doing that this just now dawned on you?
Jesus F Christ!