SCOTUS Does Guns (Again)

It is that time when the Supreme Court hands down its judgements again…this is the latest to be handed down….

The Supreme Court handed advocates for gun rights a major victory on Thursday with a ruling expected to make it easier for people to carry concealed handguns:

  • Decision: The court struck down a New York law requiring that people who want to carry concealed weapons must show a “proper cause” for doing so, reports the New York Times. The 6-3 decision split along the court’s conservative and liberal lines.
  • Majority: The court’s conservative justices declared that New York’s law was so restrictive that it violated the Constitution. “The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” wrote Clarence Thomas, per the Washington Post. His opinion declared that the state’s law violated that principle.
  • Dissent: “Many States have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence … by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds,” wrote Stephen Breyer. “The Court today severely burdens States’ efforts to do so.”
  • Precedent: The ruling will have consequences beyond New York, notes the AP. For example, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have “proper cause” laws similar to New York’s, and those will likely be challenged, too. The AP estimates that a quarter of the US population currently lives in states expected to be affected by the ruling.
  • Background: New York’s law has been on the books for more than a century, notes the Post. Two men, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, sued, saying it made it “virtually impossible for the ordinary law-abiding citizen to obtain a license,” per the Times. The court agreed.

Ain’t it grand?

I am sorry but this has nothing to do with personal safety, in my mind, this is just another masculine thing….letting some to feel like a ‘big man’ because that are a tottin’.

There comes a time for sanity but when it comes to the sacred gun sanity leaves the room for paranoia and silliness……since the Court is not positive in the eyes of the population.

With the Supreme Court poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, Americans’ confidence in the country’s top court has fallen to a record law, according to the latest Gallup poll. The pollsters say just 25% of Americans have “quite a lot” or a “great deal” of confidence in the court, down 11 points from a year ago. It’s the lowest number in polling going back to 1973, the year of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, when confidence was at 45%. The previous low was in 2014, when confidence in the court was at 30%. The highest figure over the last 49 years was 56%, recorded in 1985 and 1988.

Gallup says the poll was carried out from June 1 to 20, weeks after the leak of the draft decision on abortion rights. With a conservative supermajority in place, pollsters say only 13% of Democrats have high confidence in the top court, CNN reports. Confidence among independent voters has dived from 40% to 25% year-on-year, according to Gallup, while among Republicans, it has edged up from 37% to 39%. In a poll taken in 2020, before Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed as then-President Donald Trump’s third SCOTUS pick, the figure for Republicans was 53%. Gallup says confidence in the court among Republicans hit a record low of 26% in 2010.

Biden signs ‘landmark’ gun deal…..

  • The bill would make the local juvenile records of people age 18 to 20 available during required federal background checks when they attempt to buy guns. Those examinations, currently limited to three days, would last up to a maximum of 10 days to give federal and local officials time to search records.
  • People convicted of domestic abuse who are current or former romantic partners of the victim would be prohibited from acquiring firearms, closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole.”
  • There would be money to help states enforce red flag laws.
  • The measure expands the use of background checks by rewriting the definition of the federally licensed gun dealers required to conduct them. Penalties for gun trafficking are strengthened, billions of dollars are provided for behavioral health clinics and school mental health programs, and there’s money for school safety initiatives, though not for personnel to use a “dangerous weapon.”

The big tagline for this bill is “it will save lives”……tell me where.

Your thoughts will be appreciated.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Farewell Roe v Wade

It is 1130 at night and the temp is 109…..it is as miserable as the most recent SCOTUS decision.

The media now has new fodder for their angst…..the shooting in Uvalde has run its course and now the Supreme Court has given them lots of ammo for the next few weeks.

The old farts on the Court have made it mandatory that women become mothers……that women have NO control over their lives unless men say they can……Roe v Wade is now a thing of the past to be taught in history books if the GOP allows it.

Roe v. Wade is no more. The Supreme Court overturned the landmark 1973 ruling that protected abortion rights nationwide in a decision released Friday, reports the AP. The ruling is in sync with a draft opinion that was leaked in May. It’s now up to individual states to decide whether abortions can be provided, and under what restrictions. The New York Times expects the ruling to lead to “all but total” abortion bans in about half the states. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Chief Justice John Roberts filed a separate opinion, per SCOTUSblog, in which he agreed with the decision to uphold Mississippi’s abortion law (the case in question) but said he would have preferred “a more measured course” that stopped short of overturning Roe.

  • Majority: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” wrote Alito, referring also to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 case that affirmed the Roe decision. “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.”
  • And more: “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division,” wrote Alito, per the Washington Post. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
  • Dissent: “With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent,” wrote justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan in a joint dissent.

The case out of Mississippi is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392

Here is the statement issued by “Tater Twat” the governor of Mississippi……

RESS RELEASE) – “Mississippi has led the nation to overcome one of the greatest injustices in the history of our country. Our state’s historic case before the United States Supreme Court was the catalyst for overturning Roe v. Wade and has made the nation safer for children than it was just a few short hours ago.

Let’s be clear: this decision will directly result in more hearts beating, more strollers pushed, more report cards given, more little league games played, and more lives well lived. It is a joyous day! Tomorrow, we will wake to a new world, enthusiastically prepared to take on the challenges ahead and to take every step necessary to support mothers and children.

We must remember that our work is not yet over. The pro-life movement must dedicate itself to ensuring mothers and their babies receive the support they both need during pregnancy and after.

Despite what some may claim, Mississippi’s objective was never simply to win a court case – it’s been to create a culture of life across the country.

Our state seeks to be pro-life in every sense of the word – supporting mothers and children through policies of compassion and working to ensure that every baby has a forever family that loves them.

Mississippi will work relentlessly to accomplish these goals and will continue to build a culture that supports mothers and children, valuing the inherent dignity of every individual. This is our new pro-life agenda.

I applaud the Supreme Court Justices for their courage in issuing this well-reasoned decision. It took bravery to stick to the courage of their convictions, especially amidst an unprecedented leak that was aimed at threatening the integrity of the Court, an assassination attempt, riot threats, and attacks on churches and pregnancy centers. No matter one’s party or ideology, we should all be able to condemn these acts.

I pray that Americans will come together, listen to one another, and debate this issue peacefully. Only by moving beyond our divisions and having respectful conversations can we begin to heal this nation’s wounds.

We stand on the shoulders of giants. This win has been achieved thanks to the tireless efforts of so many over decades. Thank you to the lawyers who argued this case for us, passionate citizens who pushed this issue for years, and those who prayed for this day for many decades. I urge my fellow Mississippians to rejoice today and keep praying as the work is not done.

God bless!”

BULLSHIT!

It was always about winning a court case!

The lives of Mississippians will NOT improve as Reeves predicts….but that is okay for he is a Repub and that is all that matters (sarcasm)

Women need to let this go and formulate a new plan of action….bitching about the ruling will change NOTHING.

There is work to be done…..get to it!

But do not take your eyes off the issues for the GOP is not finished removing our rights as citizens….they will be coming and we need to be ready!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

As The Constitution Shreds

In the recent past the conservs on the supreme court have continually shredded the US Constitution piece by piece….right of choice is about gone……the right of a people’s Congress is gone and now the separation of church and state is shredded…..

The most recent ruling by SCOTUS is just another incident of why politics does not fit for the health of the country…..

As the nation awaits the Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court continues to release other high-profile rulings from this year’s term—including one on Tuesday that opens the door to lawsuits over the herbicide Roundup. Another on Tuesday has to do with the specific issue of education in rural Maine but the larger issue of the separation of church and state. Maine offers an unusual deal to parents in remote areas: If no public secondary schools exist where they live, the state will pay to send their children to a private school—but only if those schools are secular, per the Wall Street Journal. Two families who wanted to send their children to Christian private schools sued, and the court agreed with them that the restriction is illegal. The vote was 6-3, falling along the court’s conservative-liberal split.

  • Majority: “There is nothing neutral about Maine’s program,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority, per the Washington Post. “The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools—so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion.” Another point he made: “A state need not subsidize private education,” Roberts wrote. “But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”
  • Dissent: “This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in dissent.
  • Assessment: In its coverage, the New York Times calls the ruling in keeping with the Supreme Court’s recent shift. “The decision, from a court that has grown exceptionally receptive to claims from religious people and groups in a variety of settings, was the latest in a series of rulings requiring the government to aid religious institutions on the same terms as other private organizations.”

We all should be concerned at the shredding of our Constitution…..but instead we applaud it when they tear parts of the document up and spit it out.

The conservs are slowly removing blocks of our democratic foundation…..the weakness will eventually collapse the whole structure of government.

How much more will this cost the people of this country?

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS Does A First

For a change of pace let us go to our Supreme Court and a ruling to come…..

SCOTUS will be hearing a Roe v Wade petition….and it is not looking good for the pro side…..

A draft opinion in the closely-watched Mississippi abortion case that was leaked to Politico shows that the Supreme Court has voted to side with Mississippi and overturn abortion rights. Politico notes that nothing is final until the opinion is published, which will likely happen sometime in the next two months, and that justices could potentially change their votes during deliberations. However, the draft opinion written by Samuel Alito in February and circulated among the justices Feb. 10 minces no words in stating that, according to the majority of the justices, both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which largely maintained the abortion rights established by Roe, should be overturned. If that happens, federal protection of abortion rights would end, and it would be up to each state to decide.

Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” it states. “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” In a separate piece, Politico looks at 10 key passages from the draft opinion here; the site says there’s an almost “mocking tone” to some portions of the draft opinion, as well as Alito’s signature “caustic rhetorical flourishes.” A source says Alito and the four other conservative justices (Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett) stand behind the draft opinion, while the three left-leaning justices (Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) are working on dissents. It’s not clear how Chief Justice John Roberts will vote.

In a third piece, Politico looks at the exceptional rarity of a leak from the Supreme Court. For more on that, click here; for the 10 key passages, click here; for the Politico exclusive in full, click here. Hours before Politico published its piece, the Washington Post was out with a piece looking at “the next frontier for the anti-abortion movement.” According to the paper’s sources, if SCOTUS does in fact roll back abortion rights in the Mississippi case and Republicans take power in Washington, anti-abortion groups and their congressional allies are working on federal legislation that would ban abortion nationwide after the 6-week mark of pregnancy. Per AZFamily, Arizona will be the state most affected if Roe is overturned, followed by Michigan and South Carolina. In December, NPR looked at the 21 states likely to ban or significantly restrict abortions if Roe falls.

I think this is just wrong….we are talking about a personal decision that has no place being decided by SCOTUS.

What is next for the conserv court?

Which right will we be denied next time?

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS–2022

I want to change the dialog a bit from a war that no one will win.

I thought I would take a look at the SCOTUS term as it is drawing to a close and we have a new judge for the media to fixated on…..

These are the 3 cases that we should watch closely……..

The Supreme Court this month will hear its last oral arguments in a term that has been overshadowed by disputes over abortion and the Second Amendment and the confirmation of the nation’s first Black female justice.

As the country awaits decisions in those potentially landmark cases, three cases stand out as highlights among the remaining disputes to be argued before the justices. 

They involve a Trump-era immigration policy, a dispute over a high school football coach’s religious practice on school grounds and the Miranda warning that suspects are given by law enforcement. 

It’s the last set of arguments that will include Justice Stephen Breyer, who will retire this summer. He will be replaced by the newly confirmed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Three cases to watch as Supreme Court readies for final oral arguments of term

Speaking of Brown, the new justice, the media had a field day reporting on her confirmation….the first black woman and on and on…..

But now that we have a new judge what will change of SCOTUS?

The truth of the matter is…..NOTHING will change!

When soon-to-be Justice Jackson takes her seat this summer (retiring Justice Stephen Breyer plans to stay on until “the Court rises for the summer recess this year”), the Supreme Court will be more diverse than it has ever been. Not only will a Black woman serve as a justice for the first time in American history, but the Court will, for the first time, have four women. It will also have three people of color for the first time in its history.

It’s a historic moment. As Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said at the beginning of Jackson’s confirmation hearing, her confirmation shatters a glass ceiling: “It’s a sign that we as a country are continuing to rise to our collective, cherished, [and] highest ideals.”

The current Court, with its Republican supermajority, is more hostile toward voting rights — and specifically to the proposition that states may not write election laws that discriminate on the basis of race — than any Court since the Voting Rights Act became law in 1965. Indeed, the current Court may be more hostile to efforts to achieve racial equality than any Court since Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

Jackson’s confirmation means that she will have a seat at the literal table where the justices meet to cast their initial votes in argued cases. But her voice is likely to do little to sway her six Republican colleagues in the most closely watched and most important cases.

https://www.vox.com/23010014/supreme-court-ketanji-brown-jackson-racism-voting-rights-dissents

Having the first black women on the Supreme Court will do NOTHING to change the direction of the court….NOTHING.

Please do not hold your breath for some sanity on a conservative court….you would mostly likely turn blue and die.

Enough said.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

More SCOTUS News

It looks like there will be a opening on the highest court soon…..seems one of the old farts on the court will be retiring…….

Justice Stephen Breyer is reportedly planning to retire from the Supreme Court at the end of its current term—and while no official announcement has been made, White House press secretary Jen Psaki fielded plenty of Breyer-related questions at Wednesday’s briefing. Psaki said that while she couldn’t discuss specifics, President Biden “certainly stands by” his promise to nominate a Black woman to the top court, the Guardian reports. Asked whether that woman could be Vice President Kamala Harris, Psaki said Biden “has every intention” of running for reelection with Harris on the ticket. More:

  • Biden “happy to talk about it later.” When he was asked about Breyer’s retirement at a White House event Wednesday, the president said he would be “happy to talk about it later.” An official announcement is expected Thursday. Sources tell Politico that Breyer told the president last week about his intention to retire.
  • Liberals are relieved. Breyer, 83, is the most senior of the three remaining liberal justices on the court, as well as its oldest member, and liberals are relieved that he apparently plans to step down while there is plenty of time to confirm a successor while Democrats have a Senate majority, the AP reports. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Biden’s nominee “will receive a prompt hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee and will be considered and confirmed by the full United States Senate with all deliberate speed.”

Praise for Breyer. Democrats praised Breyer for his contributions to the court since he was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994—and for his decision to retire, the New York Times reports. Schumer said Breyer “embodies the best qualities and highest ideals of American justice,” while Democratic Rep. Mondaire Jones said he was glad Democrats won’t risk “losing yet another seat on the high court to the radical, anti-democracy right.”

The timeline. Democrats will now have the summer to get a nominee through the confirmation process, allowing her to join the court before the next term starts in October, weeks before the midterm elections, per Politico.

Some see this as good news for the Dems….for some see the Right turn of the court as a problem for the nation.

When former President Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee was confirmed in 2020, cementing the most conservative majority on the court since the 1930s, it wasn’t clear which conservative goals the justices would tackle first. Culture-war issues like abortion, gun rights, affirmative action and religious liberty were obvious possibilities, but issues with a more subtle impact like reining in the power of the executive branch and limiting unions had long been on conservative legal advocates’ wish list, too. So the question wasn’t whether the court would move to the right — it was more a question of where they’d start.

The term isn’t over yet, but it’s already looking like this year could be a bonanza for conservatives — and not just because of the high-profile cases that have snapped up most of the attention. I’ve written about how the justices could limit or overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that established a constitutional right to abortion, and expand gun rights for the first time in over a decade. But there are several other, less flashy cases that could also have sweeping effects on Americans’ lives. 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-courts-right-turn-goes-way-beyond-guns-and-abortion/amp/

I wish I was more optimistic….but so far the Right turn has been years in the making and I do not see much difference no matter who Biden nominates.

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Closing Thought–18Jan22

Will SCOTUS help legalize bribery?

Sen. Ted Cruz is doing his best to see that the court does just that.

The details of Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, a case that the Supreme Court will hear next Wednesday, read more like a paranoid fantasy dreamed up by leftists than like an actual lawsuit.

The case concerns federal campaign finance laws, and, specifically, candidates’ ability to loan money to their campaigns. Candidates can do so — but in 2001, Congress enacted a provision that helps prevent such loans from becoming a vehicle to bribe candidates who go on to be elected officials. Under this provision, a campaign that receives such a loan may not repay more than $250,000 worth of the loan using funds raised after the election.

When a campaign receives a pre-election donation, that donation is typically subject to strict rules preventing it from being spent to enrich the candidate. After the election has occurred, however, donors who give money to help pay off a loan from the candidate effectively funnel that money straight to the candidate — who by that point could be a powerful elected official.

A lawmaker with sufficiently clever accountants, moreover, could effectively structure such a loan to allow lobbyists and other donors to help the lawmaker directly profit from it. According to the Los Angeles Times, for example, in 1998, Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) made a $150,000 loan to her campaign at 18 percent interest (though she later reduced that interest rate to 10 percent). As of 2009, Napolitano reportedly raised $221,780 to repay that loan — $158,000 of which was classified as “interest.”

So in 11 years, the loan reportedly earned Napolitano nearly $72,000 in profits.

https://www.vox.com/2022/1/12/22877010/supreme-court-ted-cruz-fec-campaign-finance-bribery-loan

Still a mystery on how this case will go….but knowing the track record of the Robert’s Court I am not optimistic.

Maybe now would be a good time to take on the corruption and bribery committed by lobbyists and their corporate puppet masters.

Just a passing thought on my part.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS Of Today

I have made my thoughts on the modern SCOTUS….I think they are nothing more than political hacks that are a slave to party politics not the rule of law…..

With said let’s look at the SCOTUS of today…..

The Robert’s court has been concerned about the ethical lapses that the court has been plagued with recently…..

There have been ethical lapses by federal judges, Chief Justice John Roberts has conceded. And as a workplace, the court system has not been free of discrimination and harassment, the Washington Post reports. But he cited the principle of judicial independence in arguing that courts should be left alone to police themselves. “The Judiciary’s power to manage its internal affairs insulates courts from inappropriate political influence and is crucial to preserving public trust in its work as a separate and co-equal branch of government,” Roberts said. The chief justice made the case in his year-end report on the judiciary.

Roberts referred to “topics that have been flagged by Congress and the press over the past year”—not problems the judiciary spotted on its own. Wall Street Journal reports, which he addressed, found judges’ actions “inconsistent” with a statute requiring them to recuse themselves in cases in which they have a financial stake. “Between 2010 and 2018, 131 federal judges participated in a total of 685 matters involving companies in which they or their families owned shares of stock,” Roberts wrote. Although he said that’s a “99.97% compliance rate,” Roberts said that the judiciary takes the issue seriously and that those 131 judges “violated an ethics rule.”

Ethics training for judges will be stepped up, Roberts said, and computer software might be used to spot potential conflicts of interest. He also mentioned steps being taken to protect judiciary employees, per the Post. Legislation has been introduced that would, among other things, set up whistleblower protections for staff members. Again, Roberts said the judiciary has it under control, adding, “I appreciate that Members of Congress have expressed ongoing concerns on this important matter.” Roberts is working from a position of strength: A recent poll found the chief justice has the highest popularity rating of 11 federal officials. On the other hand, per Axios, a September poll found the Supreme Court’s approval rating down to 40%.

Seriously?

“Independent”?

That is about as a stupid statement….they are political hacks…that is how they get nominated.

Nothing about the court smells of independence…..the court no longer works for the country but rather for the political corporate machine….

In 2008, Linda Greenhouse, a New York Times reporter who had covered the Supreme Court for almost 30 years, assessed the court’s place in the nation in an essay. “The court is in Americans’ collective hands,” she wrote. “We shape it; it reflects us. At any given time, we may not have the Supreme Court we want. We may not have the court we need. But we have, most likely, the Supreme Court we deserve.” Greenhouse’s views have changed since then, she writes in a new opinion piece in the Times, as has the court. Now, she writes, the country deserves better.

The justices don’t represent the views of the majority of Americans because they weren’t chosen by a majority of Americans. Six justices were picked by Republican presidents, only three of whom received a majority of the popular vote when they were elected. The GOP leanings of small states and realities of the Electoral College mean that the three justices named by former President Donald Trump were confirmed in close votes by senators representing less than half of the US population, Greenhouse notes.

The result is a court whose majority view isn’t the nation’s. For example, polls regularly show Americans want to leave Roe v. Wade alone, but the court’s illogical handling of the Texas law suggests that’s not the way it’s headed, writes Greenhouse. “We now have justices apparently untroubled by process and precedent, let alone appearances.” With their life tenure, these justices could “capture the court for the next generation and freeze in place a legacy the American people never chose,” she says. That leads Greenhouse to an updated answer on that rhetorical question from 2008: “Is this the Supreme Court we deserve? It is not.” (Read the full piece here.)

The Supreme Court needs reforming….start with banning political think yanks from having any influence in the nomination process (but that is a pipe dream on my part for the corporations own every part of our government and that includes SCOTUS).

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

 

Closing Thought–10Dec21

Remember from your school days (that is if you studied at all) about the Founders wanting a separation of church and state?

Well that desire is slowly being eroded away and the Supreme Court is assisting in the erosion….the newest assault on the ideal…..Carson vs Makin…….

At an oral argument held Wednesday morning, all six members of the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority appeared likely to blow a significant new hole in the wall separating church and state.

The case is Carson v. Makin; the question is whether the state of Maine is required to subsidize religious education; and the majority’s answer appears, at least under certain circumstances, to be yes.

Under current law, as Justice Elena Kagan noted during Wednesday’s argument, the question of whether to fund religious education is typically left up to elected officials. Maine’s legislators decided not to do so when they drafted the state’s unusual tuition voucher program that’s at issue in Carson, and is meant to ensure that children in sparsely populated areas still receive a free education.

The overwhelming majority of Maine schoolchildren attend a school designated by their local school district. But a small minority — fewer than 5,000 students, according to the state — live in rural areas where it is not cost-effective for the state to either operate its own public school or contract with a nearby school to educate local students. In these areas, students are provided a subsidy, which helps them pay tuition at the private school of their family’s choice.

https://www.vox.com/2021/12/8/22824027/supreme-court-carson-makin-first-amendment-religion-schools-subsidize-roberts-alito-kavanaugh

Just another attempt to combine church and state….never a good idea.

Religion and governing should never be combined…..when it is someone will suffer some sort of injustice.

I read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Closing Thought–18Oct21

I have been asked to participate in protests to be held in DC at the Supreme Court building……I cannot take part as I am still fighting a family matter that requires my presence in all my glory.

Unlike the days of protests in the 60s and 70s no one cares what we think…especially the supreme court.

While I support the protests I think that the attempt will be no better than a fart in the wind.

Why do I feel this way?

The Supreme Court is more conservative than it’s been in almost a century. ​​Its new term begins today, and by next June, when the term ends, Americans might finally understand what that means. Public opinion of the court is already at a record low after the court allowed a strict abortion law to go into effect in Texas in early September. Now, the justices are preparing to hear the court’s first major gun rights case since 2010 as well as a case on the future of abortion in the U.S. Both cases could result in decisions that are far more extreme than most Americans want. 

In the past, a desire to preserve the court’s apolitical reputation kept the justices from straying too far from public opinion. That could happen again — in fact, Chief Justice John Roberts has so far proven remarkably adept at producing decisions that protect the court’s reputation and that are often portrayed as more moderate and mainstream than they really are. 

This term, though, the other conservative justices might be fine with taking a very public right turn. Neither expanding gun rights nor overturning Roe v. Wade would be popular, yet the court is considering both — a sign of how conservative it has already become. The question now is whether the risk of a backlash is enough to keep the conservative majority from, say, overturning Roe in an election year. 

“The justices are plainly conscious of public attitudes toward the court,” said Lawrence Baum, a political science professor at Ohio State University. “But that’s only one consideration for the justices and not necessarily the most important one — particularly on issues like abortion or gun rights where they may have intense personal preferences about the right outcome.”

Why The Supreme Court Probably Doesn’t Care What Most Americans Think About Abortion Or Gun Rights

The judges get all ‘butt hurt’ when they are called ‘political hacks’ and yet that is exactly what they are.

When we allow a political group like the Federalist Society pick our judges then we get what they are ‘political hacks’…..it is that simple pretending does not change the fact.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”