this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
552 points (95.4% liked)

politics

19144 readers
5000 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago

I have zero faith in Thomas or Alito. Gorsuch and Kavenaugh, while bad overall, have managed to surprise me a few times. While both were appointed by Trump, they haven't been the MAGA loyalists I expected so far.

Gorsuch actually wrote the majority opinion on Bostock v Clayton County, guaranteeing sexual orientation as a protected class. He's also been a defender of Native American rights and his Originalist tendencies focusing on Founders Intent when it comes to legislation may be helpful since those actually barred from office following the Civil War weren't convicted in a court prior to their prohibition from office. He also Clerked under Justice Kennedy.

Kavenaugh has always been a partisan. He was Counsel for George W Bush and the was an author of the Star Report leading to the impeachment of Clinton. His approach to the law involves strict interpretation of language, and less of a focus on intent. The question of whether the 14th amendment applies to the President will be a big part of his decision, as other elected positions are specifically named.

But he also Clerked for Kennedy, and has been less-partisan than expected from the bench. He's the idealolgical center of the Court (the most-partisan justices are Alito, Thomas, and Kagan). He voted with Roberts (the least-partian justice) 95 percent of the time in the last term, and the justice with whom he disagreed more than any other was actually Thomas.

He was also the majority opinion on 96 percent of cases, though that's a little misleading because the justices agree more than they don't. The justice with the lowest rate of being in the majority last term was Thomas followed by Alito, who were still in the majority on 76 and 80 percent of cases, respectively.

And even Barrett could have been worse, though she's definitely the worst of the 3, and even more painful is that she replaced RBG. Interestingly though, Dobbs v Jackson is the only 5-4 case where she joined the majority opinion during her tenure.

Idealogically, all 3 Trump appointees are closer to center than any of the liberal justices. I don't like any of them, but the worst justices on the Court are still Thomas and Alito.