Nutjobs thought that the State MUST allow someone to use a public address system to say a prayer of a specific religion (“not any religion, just ours”), cuz religious freedum!
Supreme Court didn’t even bother to hear it.
I was a little surprised back with the original case Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe was argued because the case was brought by 2 students and their parents, one an LDS student and the other a Catholic. But like DTNF says not any religion, just ours. It was in Texas.
SCOTUS leaning towards making the right call in an internet related case. What is the world coming to? (Music labels want to force ISPs to cut off pirates, ISPs want to let their customers do whatever they want so that the ISPs can make money)
Supreme Court allows Texas GOP to use new redistricted map for now
Shadow docket gives middle finger to voting rights act.
A very old (but prescient) SC case:
The US Supreme Court states that the nation “has no right to expect that it will always have wise and humane rulers, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred for liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln.
From an April 3, 1866 Supreme Court ruling.
Statement, not a case. Apparently progressives don’t believe in the Declaration of Independence, but the government that is going after political opponents clearly does.
How many times is he in the Epstein Files?
2 Likes
Worst SC Justice in over 100 years. Irony is dead,
And creating a despot King. Don’t forget that part.
Reading the article, I think he is confused. tRump is NOT a Progressive, yet tRump and his cronies are doing all those things ruining America.
A small sample:
Thomas also said he believes many people no longer believe “all men are created equal” and deserving of “unalienable rights” protected by a limited government.
Yup. Racists, MAGA shitheads believe this.
“[Progressivism] holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government,” he said. “It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights.”
Yup. That is our current government, not Progressives. The Government is supposed to make sure these rights, wherever they come from, are protected. They are supposed to make sure we don’t have to be subservient, meaning, “You get these rights when you bow to me,” to have these rights.
Thomas said Washington has been overrun by elected and appointed officials who lack commitment to “righteous cause, to traditional morality, to national defense, to free enterprise, to religious piety or to the original meaning of the Constitution.”
OK, the current government is trampling all over the Constitution. Your recent votes seem to approve of this, probably because it is YOUR side doing it, and you are benefitting financially.
“In my view, we must find in ourselves that same level of courage that the signers of the Declaration have so that we can do for our future what they did for theirs,” he said.
Well, on this I agree. No Kings! Says so, right there, in the D.O.I. Did you miss that part, about taxing (tariffs) without representation? And nearly every line?
Where do Coke cans and pubic hairs fall on the traditional morality scale?
“'cause I wanna!!”
Shared in the Milestones thread: Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC commissioner and overturns major restraint on presidential power | SCOTUSblog and Court prevents Trump from firing Fed governor | SCOTUSblog
Also…
I think the birthright citizenship and trans athlete cases are expected tomorrow?
Birthright citizenship only upheld 5-4 (case was 6-3, with Kavanaugh a separate concurring opinion saying 14th amendment doesn’t apply but siding with majority on other grounds). FFS
What part of
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
is hard to understand?
2 Likes
Thomas apparently says that that paragraph only applies to freed slaves, despite that not being mentioned at all in Section 1 (only appears in the 14th amendment in terms of not compensating slave owners for loss of their “property”)
I remember the good ol’ days, where Scalia complained about folks wanting to interpret the Constitution, rather than taking it literally (but following the meaning of the words as of the time they were drafted). (semi- /s)
I will say that the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause does leave some arguable room for interpretation.
Admittedly, that language existed to avoid granting citizenship to indigenous people, in the continuing gymnastics surrounding questions of their sovereignty (and remember that the colonizers hadn’t yet fully conquered and pacified several indigenous nations at the time the amendment was drafted)…but interpretation of that clause is the reason that birthright citizenship isn’t extended to children of foreign diplomats stationed in the US. Such folks generally have diplomatic immunity, and thus aren’t really subject to US jurisdiction…
I can see the reasoning that would lead someone to argue that children of undocumented immigrants aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction”, although I disagree with such logic. Had SCOTUS bought into such reasoning, the implications on other matters related to undocumented folks would have been very, very troubling.