Didn't SCOTUS give presidents the ability to violate whatever they want? Or was that maybe just one particular president?
1. Merrick Garland is the AG and in charge of the Department of Justice. He's been a staunch defender of Don Old Trump since he was appointed by Joe Biden - actually probably forced on Biden by the same people that wanted to put Merrick Garland on SCOTUS No problem with going after the little people
(Obergefell is not long for the books with the current radical SCOTUS. If Judge McBurney had wanted in any way to appeal to them he would have picked a different case to draw from -- ANY different case. Suggesting to me that his intention was the opposite. More double middle fingers. Mad respect.)
Well THAT’S an entirely predictable move after that bullshit SCOTUS ruling.
This having already been through a full round of •Trump appointee enjoining any change to “Remain In Mexico”, • appeal, • up to SCOTUS. It took two years but we did it. Now all over again on novel grounds, another Trump appointee, yet again, says Biden may not change Trump’s immigration policy
Someone should bribe the far right SCOTUS with a flight but on a Boeing.
As a political scientist who specializes in the federal courts and has been very critical of the current SCOTUS, this would be a bit of a problem for me if he's elected.
Here's hoping you are correct. SCOTUS games got us Bush 1, and that was a way less fucked court.
capacity SCOTUS has now accorded him substantial protection!
Holy shit Judge Robert McBurney did not come to play. Not just about abortion and that people with uteruses are people and therefore have rights, but also double-barreled shotgun blasts at SCOTUS' tyranny of phony originalism This is a riveting read www.documentcloud.org/documents/25...
