Under any other Supreme Court regime, I’d agree with this.
But under this Supreme Court…remember that a lot of these previously-unwinnable cases are being brought up at the urging of Clarence Thomas and others on the court who have openly said they’d like to “revisit” these cases. We are talking about a court who has used foreign countries’ laws, and medieval history to justify their rulings, and there’s no reason to believe they won’t do it again. Remember, they just got finished conjuring up the idea of near-absolute Presidential immunity out of thin air.
Alito and Thomas should be removed from the supreme Court, Thomas’s wife is a traitor and you’re judged by the company you keep and Alito is either a treasonous coward and blamed his treasonous wife, or he also keeps company with traitors. They have no right to be on the court and their decisions specifically should be vacated.
Edit: not to mention all of the ethics violations.
The Constitution is clear that keep their position in good behavior. The vast majority of people can see that accepting bribes is bad behavior. The question is who goes about removing justices? IIRC that isn’t specifically laid out.
OK politicians sure do like wasting taxpayer dollars on unwinnable court cases.
Under any other Supreme Court regime, I’d agree with this.
But under this Supreme Court…remember that a lot of these previously-unwinnable cases are being brought up at the urging of Clarence Thomas and others on the court who have openly said they’d like to “revisit” these cases. We are talking about a court who has used foreign countries’ laws, and medieval history to justify their rulings, and there’s no reason to believe they won’t do it again. Remember, they just got finished conjuring up the idea of near-absolute Presidential immunity out of thin air.
The case is definitely not unwinnable.
Alito and Thomas should be removed from the supreme Court, Thomas’s wife is a traitor and you’re judged by the company you keep and Alito is either a treasonous coward and blamed his treasonous wife, or he also keeps company with traitors. They have no right to be on the court and their decisions specifically should be vacated.
Edit: not to mention all of the ethics violations.
The Constitution is clear that keep their position in good behavior. The vast majority of people can see that accepting bribes is bad behavior. The question is who goes about removing justices? IIRC that isn’t specifically laid out.
Id suggest that removing corrupt justices could be an “official act” by the president?
Now that the Lemon case is overturned, who knows just how unwinnable the superintendent’s case is.