Legal/scotus thread

sturg33 said:
In a weird way it may make the court more right wing bc nobody wants to be associated voting along with her

https://twitter.com/x/status/2051683526836158688
Click to expand...
Not defending KBJ here, but I do find it a bit rich to use a ruling from your own SCOTUS session to castigate someone for defending something that’s unconstitutional. She didn’t think the map was unconstitutional a couple months ago, and I don’t see why a Justice should need to adhere to precedent that they themselves just voted against.
 
mqt said:
Not defending KBJ here, but I do find it a bit rich to use a ruling from your own SCOTUS session to castigate someone for defending something that’s unconstitutional. She didn’t think the map was unconstitutional a couple months ago, and I don’t see why a Justice should need to adhere to precedent that they themselves just voted against.
Click to expand...
Her vote is one thing (though her job is uphold the law, which she voted against).

Its her dissent and reasoning and how she invokes her feelings of justice into all her rulings. She is an embarrassment
 
sturg33 said:
Her vote is one thing (though her job is uphold the law, which she voted against).

It’s her dissent and reasoning and how she invokes her feelings of justice into all her rulings. She is an embarrassment
Click to expand...
Sure, I was just also taken aback by the footnote as I find it silly to suggest that a justice ruling in accordance with their own ruling from several months ago is in itself controversial. Good, bad or indifferent, I’d argue that SCOTUS justices really needn’t be bound by precedent they had personally ruled against in the first place barring some new information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top