The cancer realized who it was growing in and tricked her into falling so it could escape.
No further treatment is *probably* a good sign but might just mean she's old enough that the treatment could be worse than the possibility of more cancer.
The cancer realized who it was growing in and tricked her into falling so it could escape.
No further treatment is *probably* a good sign but might just mean she's old enough that the treatment could be worse than the possibility of more cancer.
The doc specifically said there was no sign of further disease. I'm pretty sure that she's made of iron and spite at this point.
This might have been talked about in the previous thread, but I thought I would mention it here. One of my friends introduced me to Slate's SCOTUS podcast called Amicus. IMO it is pretty damn good for those of us who are non-lawyers who are overly interested in SCOTUS.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Some good news today. The Court will not hear an appeal of the rejection of the asylum ban, saying that seekers must go through an approved portal in order to apply. Notable for John Roberts joining the liberal side of the court in the rejection. This is the same ban Trump publicly sparred with Roberts about back in November re: judicial independence.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Also not going to be heard heard: the "defunding Planned Parenthood" thing that circuit courts have ruled 5-1 is nonsense. Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the left in denying cert after tabling the decision a total of 17 times between the two cases (8 for one, 9 for the other), leaving Thomas to issue a pretty spiteful dissent since he could only get Gorsuch and Alito to join him in a desire to rule on it.
+7
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Also not going to be heard heard: the "defunding Planned Parenthood" thing that circuit courts have ruled 5-1 is nonsense. Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the left in denying cert after tabling the decision a total of 17 times between the two cases (8 for one, 9 for the other), leaving Thomas to issue a pretty spiteful dissent since he could only get Gorsuch and Alito to join him in a desire to rule on it.
Sorry, can you describe what actually happened a little? I get that they refused to hear a case, but what was the case actually doing?
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
So, apparently this actually happened back on the 10th.
Louisiana and Kansas want to block Medicaid funding from going to PP because omg abortion, ignoring the fact that the majority of what PP does is not abortion.
They’ve lost in the lower courts, and were trying to get the SCOTUS to take up their case. SCOTUS declined, and Thomas threw a hissy fit because that’s who he is.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Some good news today. The Court will not hear an appeal of the rejection of the asylum ban, saying that seekers must go through an approved portal in order to apply. Notable for John Roberts joining the liberal side of the court in the rejection. This is the same ban Trump publicly sparred with Roberts about back in November re: judicial independence.
It's still kind of weird to think about how Roberts is now the swing justice.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Some good news today. The Court will not hear an appeal of the rejection of the asylum ban, saying that seekers must go through an approved portal in order to apply. Notable for John Roberts joining the liberal side of the court in the rejection. This is the same ban Trump publicly sparred with Roberts about back in November re: judicial independence.
It's still kind of weird to think about how Roberts is now the swing justice.
And it's just as weird to wonder, if he wasn't Chief Justice (and therefore his own legacy being tied to this, it being the Roberts court), would he be ruling the same way?
Because for someone like that, anyone with the ambition and ego to get into position to get to the Supreme Court, and be in a position to be Chief Justice, it's got to have an impact. It's one thing to be one of five Justices that will go into ingnomy for a bad decision or set of decisions. But it's always the Chief that gets the blame in history, if they're not in opposition.
I mean, in Dred Scott, it was the Taney Court. Bush v Gore, it was the Renquist Court. Citizens United was the Roberts court. You don't hear as much about the others who sided with the majorities. The only exceptions I can think of are Sandra Day O'Conner for publicly regretting her decision in BvG, and Kennedy because he authored CU, and was the one most people put their faith in not voting in the affirmative.
So, would Roberts if he were just another Justice, vote the same way? I think he thinks he would, but I'm not sure he doesn't at least consider his legacy in his decisions. Not enough to make him a liberal, but enough to tip the balance if it's on a knife's edge.
Roberts absolutely considers his legacy in these decisions. He's made comments, particularly during the Kavanaugh confirmation process, about the importance of SCOTUS maintaining legitimacy and he's implied several times the importance of legacy.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Roberts absolutely considers his legacy in these decisions. He's made comments, particularly during the Kavanaugh confirmation process, about the importance of SCOTUS maintaining legitimacy and he's implied several times the importance of legacy.
Yeah, he says that. But it's all bullshit. This court consistently makes insane rulings and Roberts has snowed people into thinking he's reasonable somehow. Drives me insane.
Most obvious thing supporting my argument is that he wrote Shelby County.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
It's possible for him to consider his legacy, but have different opinions than you of what constitutes a good legacy.
You sometimes seem to speak as though you believe everyone secretly believes the same things and holds the same values, but people like Roberts cynically act in opposition to their values because reasons.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The cancer realized who it was growing in and tricked her into falling so it could escape.
No further treatment is *probably* a good sign but might just mean she's old enough that the treatment could be worse than the possibility of more cancer.
The doc specifically said there was no sign of further disease. I'm pretty sure that she's made of iron and spite at this point.
At her age, getting surgery is likely a good sign
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Also not going to be heard heard: the "defunding Planned Parenthood" thing that circuit courts have ruled 5-1 is nonsense. Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the left in denying cert after tabling the decision a total of 17 times between the two cases (8 for one, 9 for the other), leaving Thomas to issue a pretty spiteful dissent since he could only get Gorsuch and Alito to join him in a desire to rule on it.
Sorry, can you describe what actually happened a little? I get that they refused to hear a case, but what was the case actually doing?
Basically, it's like this:
Medicaid allows you to get a procedure anywhere as long you need it and the doc is certified to do the thing. In some states, Planned Parenthood and other health providers who also do abortions have been delisted as Medicaid available providers. People have then sued to have them relisted on the grounds that they meet the standards and are the only available provider for the (non-abortion) services Medicaid is funding.
The argument here is about whether a person on Medicaid can sue to have a provider relisted - that's the pure question before the courts. 5 Circuits have said yes you can, 1 has said no you can't. Two current cases have been pending for a long time - SCOTUS has declined to make a decision about hearing one of them 8 times, and the other 9 times... basically kicking the can down the road because there's no agreement amongst them about whether they should or not. Now, finally, they have decided not to hear either of them, effectively leaving the Circuit court decisions to stand.
Result is that PP and other providers won't be removable from Medicaid rolls for nonsense reasons that are really about abortion. It's a solid victory for pro-choice advocates, made more solid because it's clear to Thomas that he can't even get three of his colleagues to consider looking at the rulings at all. The suggestion is that it's so obviously been correctly decided at the Circuit level that 6 SCOTUS members say it's a waste of time to consider.
It's possible for him to consider his legacy, but have different opinions than you of what constitutes a good legacy.
You sometimes seem to speak as though you believe everyone secretly believes the same things and holds the same values, but people like Roberts cynically act in opposition to their values because reasons.
No, I think he's a terrible person who believes terrible things, but people foolishly believe he moderates decisions to improve his "legacy" against almost all the evidence. The ACA decision, where he gutted the Medicaid expansion being one of the few exceptions. Meanwhile, he took the right to vote away from hundreds of thousands, if not millions. And did Korematsu2. And cemented the second Gilded Age. He's a right wing racist plutocrat and people try to pretend he's not.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
It's possible for him to consider his legacy, but have different opinions than you of what constitutes a good legacy.
You sometimes seem to speak as though you believe everyone secretly believes the same things and holds the same values, but people like Roberts cynically act in opposition to their values because reasons.
No, I think he's a terrible person who believes terrible things, but people foolishly believe he moderates decisions to improve his "legacy" against almost all the evidence. The ACA decision, where he gutted the Medicaid expansion being one of the few exceptions. Meanwhile, he took the right to vote away from hundreds of thousands, if not millions. And did Korematsu2. And cemented the second Gilded Age. He's a right wing racist plutocrat and people try to pretend he's not.
Yes he is, but El Jeffe's point is that Roberts doesn't see those as damaging his legacy, while ruling against the ACA would have.
It's possible for him to consider his legacy, but have different opinions than you of what constitutes a good legacy.
You sometimes seem to speak as though you believe everyone secretly believes the same things and holds the same values, but people like Roberts cynically act in opposition to their values because reasons.
No, I think he's a terrible person who believes terrible things, but people foolishly believe he moderates decisions to improve his "legacy" against almost all the evidence. The ACA decision, where he gutted the Medicaid expansion being one of the few exceptions. Meanwhile, he took the right to vote away from hundreds of thousands, if not millions. And did Korematsu2. And cemented the second Gilded Age. He's a right wing racist plutocrat and people try to pretend he's not.
Yes he is, but El Jeffe's point is that Roberts doesn't see those as damaging his legacy, while ruling against the ACA would have.
And my point is too many people take that sentiment and believe he'll be reasonable. He won't.
EDIT: Basically, I believe John Roberts would sell his own mother into slavery to get the GOP one more House seat.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
My assertion is that being chief justice and swing vote will have a non zero effect on his votes because of how he perceives his legacy.
I'm not saying anything about him being reasonable or nice or anything else, just that it is a factor that will inform some of his decisions in some manner.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Also not going to be heard heard: the "defunding Planned Parenthood" thing that circuit courts have ruled 5-1 is nonsense. Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the left in denying cert after tabling the decision a total of 17 times between the two cases (8 for one, 9 for the other), leaving Thomas to issue a pretty spiteful dissent since he could only get Gorsuch and Alito to join him in a desire to rule on it.
Sorry, can you describe what actually happened a little? I get that they refused to hear a case, but what was the case actually doing?
Basically, it's like this:
Medicaid allows you to get a procedure anywhere as long you need it and the doc is certified to do the thing. In some states, Planned Parenthood and other health providers who also do abortions have been delisted as Medicaid available providers. People have then sued to have them relisted on the grounds that they meet the standards and are the only available provider for the (non-abortion) services Medicaid is funding.
The argument here is about whether a person on Medicaid can sue to have a provider relisted - that's the pure question before the courts. 5 Circuits have said yes you can, 1 has said no you can't. Two current cases have been pending for a long time - SCOTUS has declined to make a decision about hearing one of them 8 times, and the other 9 times... basically kicking the can down the road because there's no agreement amongst them about whether they should or not. Now, finally, they have decided not to hear either of them, effectively leaving the Circuit court decisions to stand.
Result is that PP and other providers won't be removable from Medicaid rolls for nonsense reasons that are really about abortion. It's a solid victory for pro-choice advocates, made more solid because it's clear to Thomas that he can't even get three of his colleagues to consider looking at the rulings at all. The suggestion is that it's so obviously been correctly decided at the Circuit level that 6 SCOTUS members say it's a waste of time to consider.
Doesn't this leave the circuits split? As far as I'm aware it means that the ruling in the single circuit that went against stands in that circuit unless the circuit decides to rule against it. This seems contrary to one of the main reasons the Supreme Court exists. This is definitely better than the SC reversing the decision.
Also not going to be heard heard: the "defunding Planned Parenthood" thing that circuit courts have ruled 5-1 is nonsense. Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the left in denying cert after tabling the decision a total of 17 times between the two cases (8 for one, 9 for the other), leaving Thomas to issue a pretty spiteful dissent since he could only get Gorsuch and Alito to join him in a desire to rule on it.
Sorry, can you describe what actually happened a little? I get that they refused to hear a case, but what was the case actually doing?
Basically, it's like this:
Medicaid allows you to get a procedure anywhere as long you need it and the doc is certified to do the thing. In some states, Planned Parenthood and other health providers who also do abortions have been delisted as Medicaid available providers. People have then sued to have them relisted on the grounds that they meet the standards and are the only available provider for the (non-abortion) services Medicaid is funding.
The argument here is about whether a person on Medicaid can sue to have a provider relisted - that's the pure question before the courts. 5 Circuits have said yes you can, 1 has said no you can't. Two current cases have been pending for a long time - SCOTUS has declined to make a decision about hearing one of them 8 times, and the other 9 times... basically kicking the can down the road because there's no agreement amongst them about whether they should or not. Now, finally, they have decided not to hear either of them, effectively leaving the Circuit court decisions to stand.
Result is that PP and other providers won't be removable from Medicaid rolls for nonsense reasons that are really about abortion. It's a solid victory for pro-choice advocates, made more solid because it's clear to Thomas that he can't even get three of his colleagues to consider looking at the rulings at all. The suggestion is that it's so obviously been correctly decided at the Circuit level that 6 SCOTUS members say it's a waste of time to consider.
Doesn't this leave the circuits split? As far as I'm aware it means that the ruling in the single circuit that went against stands in that circuit unless the circuit decides to rule against it. This seems contrary to one of the main reasons the Supreme Court exists. This is definitely better than the SC reversing the decision.
Yes, circuit splits are normally a really good predictor for SCOTUS taking up a case because of that.
what is the deal with the whole circuit split thing anyway
like
aren't they just supposed to be administrative boundaries? the federal law doesn't actually change depending on which circuit you're in
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
The cancer realized who it was growing in and tricked her into falling so it could escape.
No further treatment is *probably* a good sign but might just mean she's old enough that the treatment could be worse than the possibility of more cancer.
The doc specifically said there was no sign of further disease. I'm pretty sure that she's made of iron and spite at this point.
It’s pretty worrying though. A person who keeps having cancer popping up in different places is a person in whom cancer has spread.
The Supreme Court should not be decided by how tough one old lady can be.
The way I look at Roberts votes. He cares about looking legitimate and his ego probably doesn't want to be remember in history as a the super shitty chief justice that hosed the courts legitimacy. Looking at it from that lens, this is how you get his current record. If he thinks he can sabotage something he doesn't like because of personal political reasons (nixing medicaid expansion in ACA and his bullshit VRA ruling being two good examples here), while also sometimes making rather reasonable ruling on things that run counter to what his personal views seem to be because there isn't a way for him to rule against or sabotage something, that won't boomerang back in a way that fucks the court's legitimacy.
Also keep in mind he is a human. So he's not going to perfectly execute his agenda. Sometimes he is going to overreach because he assumes people won't see the true natures behind his actions.
That's to say, Jeffe is correct in that Roberts is factoring in how his votes impact his legacy. Bum is also correct that Roberts does look for opportunities to advance his shitty agenda that do harm the court's legitimacy (likely the cases where he overreaches and assumes everyone is dumber than they actually are, well probably right about the corporate media being full of idiots). It would be nice if the corporate media caught on to the fact that he is partisan judge, not super partisan because he tries to maintain a veneer of legitimacy, but partisan enough to go for a partisan score if he thinks it won't harm the court's legitimacy.
The cancer realized who it was growing in and tricked her into falling so it could escape.
No further treatment is *probably* a good sign but might just mean she's old enough that the treatment could be worse than the possibility of more cancer.
The doc specifically said there was no sign of further disease. I'm pretty sure that she's made of iron and spite at this point.
It’s pretty worrying though. A person who keeps having cancer popping up in different places is a person in whom cancer has spread.
The Supreme Court should not be decided by how tough one old lady can be.
To which I will add that while Roberts may be concerned about his legacy, and maybe thinks that he's totally threading that needle, I think his legacy is not going to fare as well as he believes or hopes.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+7
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
yeah that seems entirely normal. You don't want to impose harm on a party if you think it's worth looking into.
They may just say "Nah, we decline to hear this" and then the pause will be lifted as the lower court's ruling stands. That seems at least possible - there's no way the circuit court didn't expect this, and they had to have taken care to try and issue a decision the SCOTUS will find compelling.
On what grounds are they taking the NC case - the district court judge pointed out that the NC legislature had no grounds to remove it to federal jurisdiction.
Roberts absolutely considers his legacy in these decisions. He's made comments, particularly during the Kavanaugh confirmation process, about the importance of SCOTUS maintaining legitimacy and he's implied several times the importance of legacy.
I think he realizes deeply what is likely to follow a supreme court fully losing its legitimacy to the majority of the population going forward. So probably not to surprising he is weighing in on some stuff like this we shall see how things go but he at least seems to understand that treading carefully is a wise course.
On what grounds are they taking the NC case - the district court judge pointed out that the NC legislature had no grounds to remove it to federal jurisdiction.
Very possible that they decided to hear it but it winds up getting punted due to lack of standing in the end.
Roberts absolutely considers his legacy in these decisions. He's made comments, particularly during the Kavanaugh confirmation process, about the importance of SCOTUS maintaining legitimacy and he's implied several times the importance of legacy.
I think he realizes deeply what is likely to follow a supreme court fully losing its legitimacy to the majority of the population going forward. So probably not to surprising he is weighing in on some stuff like this we shall see how things go but he at least seems to understand that treading carefully is a wise course.
Yeah, my forecast for the near future is that the supreme court refuses to take the obvious avenues available to it to make things better and more democratic, but don't actively make voter suppression worse. Roberts is smart enough to know that you can only push people SO far into an undemocratic state before they realize what's happening. Barring voter initiatives and insisting politicians MUST decide on their own district seems a bridge too far.
Joshua Block is an attorney for the LGBT-focused wing of the ACLU.
I know a lot of gnashing of teeth is happening, deservedly, over the ruling because of Gorsch and Kavanaugh, but Joshua points out here that we can't forget that Thomas is also a piece of shit who doesn't care about conflicts of interest.
Originally posted in the immigration thread, but was informed its more topical to go here.
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
I'm waiting for the announcement that Thomas has decided to retire, giving Trump yet another Supreme Court pick that'll fuck the country for four decades or more after he's gone.
I'm waiting for the announcement that Thomas has decided to retire, giving Trump yet another Supreme Court pick that'll fuck the country for four decades or more after he's gone.
What, this close to an election? They wouldn't dare!
I'm waiting for the announcement that Thomas has decided to retire, giving Trump yet another Supreme Court pick that'll fuck the country for four decades or more after he's gone.
He's only 70, he has another decade+ of writing opinions that are a century out of place.
Posts
No further treatment is *probably* a good sign but might just mean she's old enough that the treatment could be worse than the possibility of more cancer.
The doc specifically said there was no sign of further disease. I'm pretty sure that she's made of iron and spite at this point.
Sorry, can you describe what actually happened a little? I get that they refused to hear a case, but what was the case actually doing?
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Louisiana and Kansas want to block Medicaid funding from going to PP because omg abortion, ignoring the fact that the majority of what PP does is not abortion.
They’ve lost in the lower courts, and were trying to get the SCOTUS to take up their case. SCOTUS declined, and Thomas threw a hissy fit because that’s who he is.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
It's still kind of weird to think about how Roberts is now the swing justice.
And it's just as weird to wonder, if he wasn't Chief Justice (and therefore his own legacy being tied to this, it being the Roberts court), would he be ruling the same way?
Because for someone like that, anyone with the ambition and ego to get into position to get to the Supreme Court, and be in a position to be Chief Justice, it's got to have an impact. It's one thing to be one of five Justices that will go into ingnomy for a bad decision or set of decisions. But it's always the Chief that gets the blame in history, if they're not in opposition.
I mean, in Dred Scott, it was the Taney Court. Bush v Gore, it was the Renquist Court. Citizens United was the Roberts court. You don't hear as much about the others who sided with the majorities. The only exceptions I can think of are Sandra Day O'Conner for publicly regretting her decision in BvG, and Kennedy because he authored CU, and was the one most people put their faith in not voting in the affirmative.
So, would Roberts if he were just another Justice, vote the same way? I think he thinks he would, but I'm not sure he doesn't at least consider his legacy in his decisions. Not enough to make him a liberal, but enough to tip the balance if it's on a knife's edge.
Yeah, he says that. But it's all bullshit. This court consistently makes insane rulings and Roberts has snowed people into thinking he's reasonable somehow. Drives me insane.
Most obvious thing supporting my argument is that he wrote Shelby County.
You sometimes seem to speak as though you believe everyone secretly believes the same things and holds the same values, but people like Roberts cynically act in opposition to their values because reasons.
At her age, getting surgery is likely a good sign
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Basically, it's like this:
Medicaid allows you to get a procedure anywhere as long you need it and the doc is certified to do the thing. In some states, Planned Parenthood and other health providers who also do abortions have been delisted as Medicaid available providers. People have then sued to have them relisted on the grounds that they meet the standards and are the only available provider for the (non-abortion) services Medicaid is funding.
The argument here is about whether a person on Medicaid can sue to have a provider relisted - that's the pure question before the courts. 5 Circuits have said yes you can, 1 has said no you can't. Two current cases have been pending for a long time - SCOTUS has declined to make a decision about hearing one of them 8 times, and the other 9 times... basically kicking the can down the road because there's no agreement amongst them about whether they should or not. Now, finally, they have decided not to hear either of them, effectively leaving the Circuit court decisions to stand.
Result is that PP and other providers won't be removable from Medicaid rolls for nonsense reasons that are really about abortion. It's a solid victory for pro-choice advocates, made more solid because it's clear to Thomas that he can't even get three of his colleagues to consider looking at the rulings at all. The suggestion is that it's so obviously been correctly decided at the Circuit level that 6 SCOTUS members say it's a waste of time to consider.
No, I think he's a terrible person who believes terrible things, but people foolishly believe he moderates decisions to improve his "legacy" against almost all the evidence. The ACA decision, where he gutted the Medicaid expansion being one of the few exceptions. Meanwhile, he took the right to vote away from hundreds of thousands, if not millions. And did Korematsu2. And cemented the second Gilded Age. He's a right wing racist plutocrat and people try to pretend he's not.
Yes he is, but El Jeffe's point is that Roberts doesn't see those as damaging his legacy, while ruling against the ACA would have.
And my point is too many people take that sentiment and believe he'll be reasonable. He won't.
EDIT: Basically, I believe John Roberts would sell his own mother into slavery to get the GOP one more House seat.
I'm not saying anything about him being reasonable or nice or anything else, just that it is a factor that will inform some of his decisions in some manner.
Doesn't this leave the circuits split? As far as I'm aware it means that the ruling in the single circuit that went against stands in that circuit unless the circuit decides to rule against it. This seems contrary to one of the main reasons the Supreme Court exists. This is definitely better than the SC reversing the decision.
Yes, circuit splits are normally a really good predictor for SCOTUS taking up a case because of that.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
like
aren't they just supposed to be administrative boundaries? the federal law doesn't actually change depending on which circuit you're in
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
The ruling of the circuit court is binding on the lower courts, but only within a circuit. So the interpretation CAN change.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
It’s pretty worrying though. A person who keeps having cancer popping up in different places is a person in whom cancer has spread.
The Supreme Court should not be decided by how tough one old lady can be.
Also keep in mind he is a human. So he's not going to perfectly execute his agenda. Sometimes he is going to overreach because he assumes people won't see the true natures behind his actions.
That's to say, Jeffe is correct in that Roberts is factoring in how his votes impact his legacy. Bum is also correct that Roberts does look for opportunities to advance his shitty agenda that do harm the court's legitimacy (likely the cases where he overreaches and assumes everyone is dumber than they actually are, well probably right about the corporate media being full of idiots). It would be nice if the corporate media caught on to the fact that he is partisan judge, not super partisan because he tries to maintain a veneer of legitimacy, but partisan enough to go for a partisan score if he thinks it won't harm the court's legitimacy.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Given the 3 cancers are each like a decade apart?
To which I will add that while Roberts may be concerned about his legacy, and maybe thinks that he's totally threading that needle, I think his legacy is not going to fare as well as he believes or hopes.
This seems not great?
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
They may just say "Nah, we decline to hear this" and then the pause will be lifted as the lower court's ruling stands. That seems at least possible - there's no way the circuit court didn't expect this, and they had to have taken care to try and issue a decision the SCOTUS will find compelling.
I think he realizes deeply what is likely to follow a supreme court fully losing its legitimacy to the majority of the population going forward. So probably not to surprising he is weighing in on some stuff like this we shall see how things go but he at least seems to understand that treading carefully is a wise course.
Very possible that they decided to hear it but it winds up getting punted due to lack of standing in the end.
Yeah, my forecast for the near future is that the supreme court refuses to take the obvious avenues available to it to make things better and more democratic, but don't actively make voter suppression worse. Roberts is smart enough to know that you can only push people SO far into an undemocratic state before they realize what's happening. Barring voter initiatives and insisting politicians MUST decide on their own district seems a bridge too far.
Joshua Block is an attorney for the LGBT-focused wing of the ACLU.
I know a lot of gnashing of teeth is happening, deservedly, over the ruling because of Gorsch and Kavanaugh, but Joshua points out here that we can't forget that Thomas is also a piece of shit who doesn't care about conflicts of interest.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
What, this close to an election? They wouldn't dare!
He's only 70, he has another decade+ of writing opinions that are a century out of place.