▲ 160 ▼ Supreme Court Rejects Right-Wing ‘Theory’ That Would Have Upended American Elections (talkingpointsmemo.com) submitted 3 years ago by Remillard@kbin.social to c/politics@kbin.social 43 comments fedilink hide all child comments The Supreme Court rejected the independent state legislature theory in a bombshell decision Tuesday, turning back a right-wing attempt to vest the sole power in administering federal elections with state legislatures.
[+] NightGaunts@kbin.social 18 points 3 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Remillard@kbin.social [S] 28 points 3 years ago (3 children) I honestly don't know. Nothing Alito or Thomas has said recently has made any sort of logical or philosophical sense. I think Roberts is trying to preserve some semblance of legacy of unbias with the current court reputation which is why I think he's sided the past few cases where he has. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] chaogomu@kbin.social 16 points 3 years ago Thomas does this shit, he writes nonsense dissents, and then when he's allowed to write the majority opinion, he will reference his own nonsense dissent in another case as if it had the weight of actual law. He does the same with nonsense concurrences. Always referencing himself, to fuck over everyone else. He's the ultimate example of "I got mine, fuck you" Alito then has Fox News brain. Completely rotted by whatever culture war bullshit is popular at the time he writes an opinion. Even if it contradicts a position he held previously. Gorsuch is an odd one. He's good on personal liberties (sometimes) but also believes that the prohibition of mixing religion and state doesn't exist for the states. So yeah, the three judges who dissented here are three very different forms of crazy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Grumps@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago I'm not sure if Roberts is trying to preserve or can preserve anything. At some point legacy means nothing. Just ask Bill Barr. That said, I agree with you. Thomas and Alito are not arguing from any defensible position. They hate precedent -- which is the entire basis of common law jurisprudence -- yet continually reach back to witch trials and love letters between slave owners to defend their positions. They are, in my opinion, literally insane. permalink fedilink source parent [–] keeb420@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago They're corrupt pieces of shit. In a better world there would be actual crimes they committed and they would've been hauled off to jail. Actually in a better world they would've never been justices in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Remillard@kbin.social [S] 28 points 3 years ago (3 children) I honestly don't know. Nothing Alito or Thomas has said recently has made any sort of logical or philosophical sense. I think Roberts is trying to preserve some semblance of legacy of unbias with the current court reputation which is why I think he's sided the past few cases where he has. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] chaogomu@kbin.social 16 points 3 years ago Thomas does this shit, he writes nonsense dissents, and then when he's allowed to write the majority opinion, he will reference his own nonsense dissent in another case as if it had the weight of actual law. He does the same with nonsense concurrences. Always referencing himself, to fuck over everyone else. He's the ultimate example of "I got mine, fuck you" Alito then has Fox News brain. Completely rotted by whatever culture war bullshit is popular at the time he writes an opinion. Even if it contradicts a position he held previously. Gorsuch is an odd one. He's good on personal liberties (sometimes) but also believes that the prohibition of mixing religion and state doesn't exist for the states. So yeah, the three judges who dissented here are three very different forms of crazy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Grumps@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago I'm not sure if Roberts is trying to preserve or can preserve anything. At some point legacy means nothing. Just ask Bill Barr. That said, I agree with you. Thomas and Alito are not arguing from any defensible position. They hate precedent -- which is the entire basis of common law jurisprudence -- yet continually reach back to witch trials and love letters between slave owners to defend their positions. They are, in my opinion, literally insane. permalink fedilink source parent [–] keeb420@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago They're corrupt pieces of shit. In a better world there would be actual crimes they committed and they would've been hauled off to jail. Actually in a better world they would've never been justices in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 16 points 3 years ago Thomas does this shit, he writes nonsense dissents, and then when he's allowed to write the majority opinion, he will reference his own nonsense dissent in another case as if it had the weight of actual law. He does the same with nonsense concurrences. Always referencing himself, to fuck over everyone else. He's the ultimate example of "I got mine, fuck you" Alito then has Fox News brain. Completely rotted by whatever culture war bullshit is popular at the time he writes an opinion. Even if it contradicts a position he held previously. Gorsuch is an odd one. He's good on personal liberties (sometimes) but also believes that the prohibition of mixing religion and state doesn't exist for the states. So yeah, the three judges who dissented here are three very different forms of crazy. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Grumps@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago I'm not sure if Roberts is trying to preserve or can preserve anything. At some point legacy means nothing. Just ask Bill Barr. That said, I agree with you. Thomas and Alito are not arguing from any defensible position. They hate precedent -- which is the entire basis of common law jurisprudence -- yet continually reach back to witch trials and love letters between slave owners to defend their positions. They are, in my opinion, literally insane. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] keeb420@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago They're corrupt pieces of shit. In a better world there would be actual crimes they committed and they would've been hauled off to jail. Actually in a better world they would've never been justices in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent