SCOTUS Catch-all |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 923
  • Views: 40K
  • Politics 
Ddseddse said:
He can't really, deep down, believe that his fellow justices (nor even anybody liable to read the full text of a Supreme Court decision) don't understand the US government on a 4th grade level. I refuse to believe that.

I can believe he's a pompous ass that thinks that keeping things at a 4th grade level provides cover for whatever bullshit argument he's inventing at the moment to get to a ruling in favor of his preferred outcome. I'd buy that.
Click to expand...
Gorsuch identifies as a libertarian, and this is just how libertarians talk. You've probably seen it. To them, every economic issue is answered by Econ 101, and they tend to quote simple toy models as if they carry timeless truths. I can't tell you how many times I've been doing more sophisticated economic analysis, only to have some libertarian wander in and say, "but, but, Econ 101." I have to say, "yeah, I moved past that a while ago. This is upper-level material."

Federalist Society members also like to talk this way. It's always first principles from them. They like it because the first principles are so vague that they can state the principles, pretend some wacky idea follows from those principles, and mic-drop in their head.

Sadly, this is commonplace in the legal academy.
 
I can't believe they released this opinion before the State of the Union. I wasn't going to tune in on Tuesday, but it's now going to be the best show of the year............especially for any of those Justices who show up.
 
Here's where I am after a quick read through the opinion.

1. At least the plurality got it right. The dissents are humiliating works of quasi-legal analysis.
2. This was a super easy legal question. In any other timeline, it would be astonishing we couldn't get a unanimous opinion.
3. Trump's response to this was probably the most embarrassing moment of either of his presidencies, and there have been some doozies. He somehow managed to fuck over the core constitutional principles of separation of powers and judicial review, as well as any conception of free market capitalism, all at the same time.

These are the moments that we need our Republican posters to engage. But you always seem to shrink from the moment. Help us understand how Trump's actions today advance the principles you say caused you to vote for him. Or denounce him. Many of us here had to screw up the courage to denounce the people we voted for. Will you do the same?
 
lawtig02 said:
Here's where I am after a quick read through the opinion.

1. At least the plurality got it right. The dissents are humiliating works of quasi-legal analysis.
2. This was a super easy legal question. In any other timeline, it would be astonishing we couldn't get a unanimous opinion.
3. Trump's response to this was probably the most embarrassing moment of either of his presidencies, and there have been some doozies. He somehow managed to fuck over the core constitutional principles of separation of powers and judicial review, as well as any conception of free market capitalism, all at the same time.

These are the moments that we need our Republican posters to engage. But you always seem to shrink from the moment. Help us understand how Trump's actions today advance the principles you say caused you to vote for him. Or denounce him. Many of us here had to screw up the courage to denounce the people we voted for. Will you do the same?
Click to expand...

Prediction? Republican posters ...
crickets GIF
 
Having read the opinion and concurrences this morning (i just skimmed the dissents), it is easy to understand the time it took to deliver an opinion. Gorsuch (and to a lesser extent the CJ) seems to have been trying to force the issue about using the decision to promote/cement the major questions doctrine to reach the result. The three liberal justices refused and ACB disagrees with his formulation of the doctrine.

so we had the Gorsuch/Roberts camp, the ACB camp and the liberal camp who all agreed on the outcome but disagreed on the basis to reach the decision.

Then you had Kavanaugh/Alito who were pretty clearly political outcome-oriented and willing to pretend the record supports their view of you read only the words they read and ignore all the other words (much less the context) in the statute itself. And Thomas just goes all in on his crackpot view of an imperial president, but joins the Kavalito approach too.
 
lawtig02 said:
Here's where I am after a quick read through the opinion.

1. At least the plurality got it right. The dissents are humiliating works of quasi-legal analysis.
2. This was a super easy legal question. In any other timeline, it would be astonishing we couldn't get a unanimous opinion.
3. Trump's response to this was probably the most embarrassing moment of either of his presidencies, and there have been some doozies. He somehow managed to fuck over the core constitutional principles of separation of powers and judicial review, as well as any conception of free market capitalism, all at the same time.

These are the moments that we need our Republican posters to engage. But you always seem to shrink from the moment. Help us understand how Trump's actions today advance the principles you say caused you to vote for him. Or denounce him. Many of us here had to screw up the courage to denounce the people we voted for. Will you do the same?
Click to expand...
Indeed !

I have been lamenting the fact that conservative GQPer posters seem unwilling ( or unable ? ) to engage in a meaningful discussion pertaining to issues like this. Unfortunately, my guess is you will get no response .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top