You mean like Bush v Gore which explicitly said it could never be used as a precedent, and yet commonly is?
You mean like Bush v Gore which explicitly said it could never be used as a precedent, and yet commonly is?
Why would they "cover" for Trump? Do you imagine they feel beholden to him for appointing them? They are not; Past, present or future. They've already refused to hear Trump related cases, and that hurt him.
And yes, even if it goes against him, they will keep the scope of the ruling dialed in tight. That's how law and judgments work at this highest level. And should.
Look, I'm hating the conservative bent in this Court, and they seem wildly biased, but y'all are off base in many ways.
Not all their judgements are conservative. They told Alabama to fuck themselves over voting districts. They refused to hear a "pray away the gay" case yesterday, deferring to a lower court's opinion. Been a couple more that surprised me, but the cases escape me ATM. Didn't they refuse to hear a Trump related case recently? This might be what I'm thinking of.
The other weird thing I see all over lemmy, not your post!, is the idea that because Trump appointed them, they're somehow beholden to him. Nope. That's the whole idea behind lifetime appointments. A Justice can tell anyone and everyone to fuck themselves without fear of reprisal, current or future.
tl;dr: The current Court is conservative, not partisan. For this very particular job, that's a real difference.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
Saw a thread yesterday where people were happy cause they think the Supreme Court is going to tell him to get fucked.
I say I wish I still had that child-like optimism.
They only fuck poor people.
save