• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

WakeBored said:
Umm, sure, I guess? A bunch of idiots stormed the Capitol to try to prevent the Vice President from certifying the election results and many of them are now in jail. I’d say that’s a pretty good lesson in civics, sure.
Click to expand...

Not the people that planned it. You're still cheering those assholes on.
 
deaconson said:
Not the people that planned it. You're still cheering those assholes on.
Click to expand...

Yep. And there’s nothing to stop it from happening again. Hell, most of those people will be out of jail before the 2024 election cycle starts.
 
Except maybe next time they’ll win and we’ll slouch/lurch towards Gilead.
 
ConnorEl said:
Except maybe next time they’ll win and we’ll slouch/lurch towards Gilead.
Click to expand...

And Junebug will give us a civics lesson about why that’s just fine.
 
Everyone can just assume you took a month ban, came back, immediately got drunk, said something racist, and decided you didn’t want to be banned again and edited your post, I’d say lesson not learned!
 
Let the Supreme Court start overturning rulings like Roe and trying to roll back the legal clock on minority rights like Obergefell, and we'll see what happens to the percentages of "serious" people who want to reform the Court. From what I've read a good number of high-ranking Republicans seem to be quite worried about it (privately, of course).
 
I’ve been told that it’s anti-Semitic to assume all Jewish people are supremely loyal to Israel.
 
He’s going to be awfully disappointed when his crack legal team figures out how limited the SB 8 holding actually is.
 
Also, the first clause of that release is incredibly disingenuous. The merits question of the constitutionality of SB 8 was not before the Court. Thus, the SCOTUS’s decision did not “allow[] Texas’s ban to … remain in place.” They simply didn’t address it.
 
Could the SC have disallowed the TX law to remain in place pending further review?

Did they not instead allow the law to remain in place?
 
Last edited:
Did you not read the opinion? The question on appeal was whether the plaintiff had sued any proper persons who could be enjoined from enforcing the law. You can’t enjoin someone from doing something before determining that that person can properly be enjoined.

The SCOTUS held that the plaintiffs named several state officials who could properly be enjoined. The case will now be remanded to the district court, the plaintiffs will ask the district court to enjoin those officials from performing their official duties, and, likely after briefing and a hearing, the district court will do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top