Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires republicans to act in good faith.

President Musk and Trump are both poorly raised, coddled 8 year old boys.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

GOP baffled that ‘we don’t care if you die’ is not a winning slogan.

Tick tock motherfuckers!

Oh FFS you might as well trust a 6-year-old with a flamethrower.

It is not hopeless, and we are not helpless.

The fight for our country is always worth it. ~Kamala Harris

They are not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.

Books are my comfort food!

“In this country American means white. everybody else has to hyphenate.”

Not rolling over. fuck you, make me.

The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

Sometimes the world just tells you your cat is here.

The National Guard is not Batman.

The most dangerous place for a black man in America is in a white man’s imagination.

There are a lot more evil idiots than evil geniuses.

Since we are repeating ourselves, let me just say fuck that.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

You are here: Home / Open Threads / Supreme Court Decisions Again Today at 10 am ET (June 27 Edition)

Supreme Court Decisions Again Today at 10 am ET (June 27 Edition)

by | 102 Comments

This post is in: 

Supreme Court Decisions Again Today at 10 am ET (June 26 Edition) & Open Thread

If you want to follow along on SCOTUSblog.

I’ll copy the short summaries as each one shows up on their website.

Here we go!

The court grants a group of states’ request to put the EPA’s “good neighbor plan” on hold in Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency. The rule was issued to reduce air pollution from power plants and other industrial facilities based on the EPA’s interpretation of a provision of the Clean Air Act, which requires “upwind” states to reduce emissions that affect the air quality in “downwind” states.

Opinion:  5-4  (ugh)

 

The court rules in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a multi-billion-dollar bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma, the maker of the highly addictive opioid painkiller OxyContin, that would release members of the Sackler family, which owned the company but did not declare bankruptcy, from any future liability for claims against them.

Opinion:  5-4  (ugh)

 

In SEC v. Jarkesy, the court rules that when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.

Opinion:  5-4  (Perdue loses?)

 

The court dismisses Moyle v. United States, allowing doctors in Idaho to continue providing abortions in emergency medical situations.

Opinion:    (sane)

Reader Interactions

102Comments

  1. 1.

    WaterGirl

    Decorum be damned, I hope the 3 Justices who still believe in the rule of law start calling out the corrupt justices by name in their dissents.  We saw a tiny bit of that yesterday from our newest justice, and I love to see it.

  3. 3.

    rusty

    Pointing out they aren’t following the plain letter of the law is a good start.  Last year on the student loan case the dissent pointed out that the court itself was acting unconstitutionally because it wasn’t following the plain letter of the law (the dept. of education was explicitly allowed to change the terms of loans).  The dissents need to start pointedly stating that this court is acting outside of its constitutional remit.  It would at least start to make the court apologists start to grapple with the blatant power grab of unelected and unaccountable justices running the country.  There are plenty of opportunities here for the dissent to be much more direct.

  4. 4.

    Anonymous At Work

    The only accountability corrupt Justices face are either: 2/3 of the Senate and majority of House can no longer stomach the corruption OR 50+1 in Senate and President decide teh court needs more members who are not corrupt.  Everything else is just talk to them.

    And even then, if Justices try it, they might rule that the Court can never again have anything other than 9 members.

  5. 5.

    TBone

    The highlight of the dissent yesterday was, for me, use of the word “atextual.”  The connotation literally jumped off the page.

  6. 6.

    Dagaetch

    from SCOTUSblog, “Two boxes today. Which means likely a maximum of four opinions.”

  7. 7.

    Baud

    @rusty:

    Not that I have proof, but I predicted years ago that the conservatives would start to abandon textualism as soon as they had a lock on power at the court.

  10. 10.

    Dagaetch

    @Baud: either that, or they plan to drop ALL the terrible decisions on Friday after the debate in the hopes of a news cycle that can’t handle it.

  11. 11.

    TBone

    Tomorrow is the day that I really don’t look forward to.  They’ll change the subject from the debate to something outrageous in a New York minute!

  12. 12.

    JPL

    Earlier today Satby Linked to Nazi Town USA which was a program on American Experiece.   It should be much watch viewing for all Americans, but trump and others would reject that.   The one thing that stopped the nazi right was a free press.

    trump if elected will use the social media decision to change all that and this court will let them.

    Nazi Town USA

  14. 14.

    TBone

    @JPL: link says I can’t watch unless I donate to my local PBS station for a “pass.” 🙄😣

    Isn’t it ironic…dontcha think?

    Free press.  💔

  15. 15.

    catclub

    @TBone: When Amy Coney barrett was scolding that the facts the plaintiffs claimed were all lies, and that the events described happened before ANY interaction with the government, and still there were three votes in favor of the non-facts side, was appalling.

  22. 22.

    Anonymous At Work

    @Baud: I think ACB’s sharpness in some opinions was because she really did think that Thomas, Scalia, etc. were really textualists and originalists.  Then, on the Court, she’s figured out that they start with their political opinion and find a rationalization moving backwards.  It will NOT change her votes often or in decisive cases, though.

    So, at best, she’ll be the Suzy Collins of the Court.

  24. 24.

    JPL

    @smith:  thanks I just found it.   Once again even though I’m in my seventies, I learned a few new things.   trump’s immigration policies is a mirror of the American German Bund party.

  25. 25.

    Dagaetch

    Second decision is Purdue Pharma, again 5-4 with liberals Sotomayor, Kagan, Roberts + Kavanaugh in the minority.

  27. 27.

    Fake Irishman

    @Baud:

    damn it. That was a big one. Now EPA rules will be blocked forever until GOP administrations can withdraw them.

  29. 29.

    Suzanne

    @Baud:

    Not that I have proof, but I predicted years ago that the conservatives would start to abandon textualism as soon as they had a lock on power at the court. 

    Any time you make a prediction that works from the basic precept that conservatives don’t really have principles, they only have a will to power….. you will be correct.

  33. 33.

    Anonymous At Work

    @Baud: I agree, oddly, with majority.  Bankruptcy Court is about a bankrupt entity (person or Romney-person) and debtors.  Sacklers were not declaring bankruptcy but Perdue was.  Therefore, the Sacklers could only have criminal and civil liability discharged if the debtors agreed.  The debtors did not, therefore the bankruptcy court lacked the authority.
    Note: Roberts still batting perfectly for protecting Romney-Persons’ interests.

  38. 38.

    Dagaetch

    SEC v. Jarkesy next. I think I was right earlier, they’re holding all of the really awful ones for tomorrow (or possibly next week).

  40. 40.

    Anonymous At Work

    @Dagaetch: Jarksey is complete bullshit, piled deep, just not wrapped in sexy trappings.  Government agencies must use a full trial-by-jury in federal court to seek civil penalties, “alternative facts” made up by Jarkseys be damned.  Federal agency enforcement got trashed.

    Only upside is now Biden and Democratic trifecta can claim in 2025 that the federal courts need to double the number of justices on all levels.

  44. 44.

    catclub

    @TBone: I would guess written opinion, since I only saw/heard it yesterday.  Yes. Long footnote on page 12-13 of the majority opinion.:

    The Fifth Circuit relied on the District Court’s factual findings, manyof which unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous. The DistrictCourt found that the defendants and the platforms had an “efficient re-port-and-censor relationship.” Missouri v. Biden, 680 F. Supp. 3d 630,

    715 (WD La. 2023). But much of its evidence is inapposite. For instance,the court says that Twitter set up a “streamlined process for censorshiprequests” after the White House “bombarded” it with such requests.Ibid., n. 662 (internal quotation marks omitted). The record it cites saysnothing about “censorship requests.” See App. 639–642. Rather, in re-sponse to a White House official asking Twitter to remove an imperson-ation account of President Biden’s granddaughter, Twitter told the offi-cial about a portal that he could use to flag similar issues. Ibid. Thishas nothing to do with COVID–19 misinformation. The court also foundthat “[a] drastic increase in censorship . . . directly coincided with De-fendants’ public calls for censorship and private demands for censor-ship.” 680 F. Supp. 3d, at 715. As to the “calls for censorship,” the court’sproof included statements from Members of Congress, who are not par-ties to this suit. Ibid., and n. 658. Some of the evidence of the “increasein censorship” reveals that Facebook worked with the CDC to update itslist of removable false claims, but these examples do not suggest that theagency “demand[ed]” that it do so. Ibid. Finally, the court, echoing theplaintiffs’ proposed statement of facts, erroneously stated that Facebookagreed to censor content that did not violate its policies. Id., at 714,n. 655. Instead, on several occasions, Facebook explained that certaincontent did not qualify for removal under its policies but did qualify forother forms of moderatio

     

    It is really an indictment of the 5th circuit’s complete lawlessness in opposition to anything the federal government does witha Democratic president.

  45. 45.

    MomSense

    I just want to scream.  This fucking SCOTUS was completely preventable.  I’m so angry at all the progressives who accused us of fear mongering when we talked about the courts and who after the fact were mad that Dems didn’t codify Roe.  The voting rights act was codified. McCain Feingold was codified. The clean air and water acts were codified.  The Supreme Court has us in checkmate.

  46. 46.

    JPL

    @TBone: Yup!   we have the right to shoot AR-15’s in smogged filled rooms   The pro-life/christian nationalists act again.

  50. 50.

    JPL

    The pro life folks are at it again.   We have the right to breathe polluted air and fire assault rifles.

  52. 52.

    J. Arthur Crank

    @MomSense:   Yes, that “codify Roe” bit was/is especially stupid.  The Court can strike down laws it deems unconstitutional, and the idea that this Court would say “you have got us over a barrel with that new Roe code”  is laughable at best.

  56. 56.

    strange visitor (from another planet)

    @rusty:  the black-letter law says that the chair of ways and means “shall” be able to pull the returns of ANY citizen.

    the “originalists” bounced that decision around and drew it out for TWO YEARS.

     

    THEY don’t believe their own lies. no point in YOU doing the work for them.

  59. 59.

    Another Scott

    @Anonymous At Work: Thanks for the explainer.

    Why it takes the SCOTUS to decide something as seemingly fundamental as that is a mystery to me…

    It seems to be yet another example of the maxim that if you have enough money you can always get a hearing at the SCOTUS to avoid consequences.

    Grr…,
    Scott.

  61. 61.

    New Deal democrat

    @Fake Irishman: Today’s EPA decision is just a warm-up for overruling Chevron deference. The lodestone is, “WE, the COURT, will decide what every term of every statute and regulation shall mean, and not experts in the field. And even if the congress is clear, WE the COURT will insist on a do-over via the Major Case Doctrine.”

    In short, just another installment of the Court arrogating more power it itself (just as foreseen by Brutus 235 years ago).

    The bankruptcy opinion is the silver lining, since the Sackler family hand-picked the one and only bankruptcy district court that was likely to strip away the rights of claimants who were not parties to the proceding, and thus allow the Sackler family to walk away almost Scot-free.

  62. 62.

    Dagaetch

    Will any of these decisions be a topic at tonight’s debate? I could see EPA coming up…Biden says something about “SCOTUS wants to take away your clean air”…but otherwise, I think they’re too complex/administrative to really be discussed.

  63. 63.

    JWR

    From SCOTUSblog:

    Amy Howe – Mod – 7:36 AM
    Just to be clear, we are finished for today. We are now down to six or seven cases remaining (again, depending on whether the court issues one or two opinions for the social media cases) to go, and they are almost all big ones: Relentless and Loper-Bright, the Chevron cases; Corner Post v. Federal Reserve, on the statute of limitations for challenging a federal agency action; the social media cases; Grants Pass v. Johnson, the homelessness case; Fischer v. United States, the Jan. 6 case; and Trump v. US, the presidential immunity case.

    Also says that we were not given the “tomorrow is the last day” message, so early next week. Or do they still stick with the Wed-Thu-Fri schedule?

  67. 67.

    RaflW

    @New Deal democrat: The Republican majority on the court seems to be going full fledged into the zone of deciding that Congress doesn’t mean what Congress says in legislation enabling regulation.

    I get that some things that progressive admins have done are expansions of various laws passed a while back. But if I’m understanding correctly, Congress was trying to address the simple, scientifically obvious fact that air pollution doesn’t just stop at a state’s border.

    This Court is radical and is ideologically wedded to destroying the regulatory state, even when elected majorities pass laws with clear public intent.

    (Meanwhile, they’re basically saying to Trump: Go ahead, seek that billion dollar bribe from fossil fuel companies. As long as they pay you after the fact like leaving money on the dresser at the end of a ‘date’, it’s fine.)

  68. 68.

    Anonymous At Work

    @Another Scott: It’s because when a closely-held corporation or a corporation whose founding family still controls the majority of shares (there’s a legal difference) goes bankrupt, the family controlling the company is usually tied up in the proceedings closely.  Here, “Perdue” on behalf of the Sacklers was fighting tooth-and-nail to save the Sacklers from accountability even as it settled (without admitting anything) a lot of major claims that would require a reorganization.  What seems like a small twist: the founding/controlling family wants to keep arms-length on being liable now but wants the traditional “future liability is discharged” actually has significance.

  70. 70.

    JPL

    @Baud: I’ve lost all hope for the ability to regulate in this country.  The supremes are the ultimate power so why have a Congress or President.

  71. 71.

    New Deal democrat

    @RaflW: I am going to go out on a limb here, that however upset people are now, they will be apoplectic when the Jan 6 and Presidential immunity cases are dropped next week, about 10 minutes before the Supremes head out on their billionaire-financed vacations.

  72. 72.

    Baud

    @JPL:

    Meh, that’s a Republican talking point for Dems to stay home.

    I’d rather be beaten than surrender.

  74. 74.

    rusty

    @Anonymous At Work: The Sackler’s would have been allowed to buy immunity with the settlement.  I’m with you, this one was correctly decided.  Let them face personal liability.

  75. 75.

    rikyrah

    @MomSense:

    Yeah, I will never forget nor forgive all the

    ” you can’t scare me into voting for Hillary by using the Court” in 2016.

     

    Yeah. Never ever will I ever.

  78. 78.

    JPL

    @Baud: I’ll be voting for Joe.

    Mother Jones has a good article about the court and Chevron and it was not behind a pay wall for me.

    link

  79. 79.

    rusty

    @New Deal democrat: According to this court those trips are just “gratuities”, totally, absolutely, couldn’t ever be bribery and constitutionally protected.  Now get out of my way peasant!!

  80. 80.

    JWR

    Suck on this, supremos.

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A solid majority of Americans say Supreme Court justices are more likely to be guided by their own ideology rather than serving as neutral arbiters of government authority, a new poll finds, as the high court is poised to rule on major cases involving former President Donald Trump and other divisive issues.

    The survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 7 in 10 Americans think the high court’s justices are more influenced by ideology, while only about 3 in 10 U.S. adults think the justices are more likely to provide an independent check on other branches of government by being fair and impartial.

  81. 81.

    Skippy -San

    The Supreme Court just ruled that the EPA cannot stop polluters from dumping toxins into the air that they know will blow over to neighboring communities. This country cannot survive this partisan conservative majority for much longer.

  83. 83.

    cmorenc

    @Anonymous At Work:

    So, at best, she’ll (ACB) be the Suzy Collins of the Court.

    One of the most succinctly apt analogies I’ve ever seen.  ACB will make noises as if she is the soberly conscientious critic of her conservative colleague’s dubious manipulations, but still vote with them come crunch time in the most truly important cases.  I haven’t seen enough video of ACB to tell if she has acquired the knack for displaying the furrowed eyebrows of concrn that is Collins’ trademark gesture.

  84. 84.

    ArchTeryx

    @JPL: If they overturn Chevron the civil service side of the federal government is effectively powerless. Since Congress is perpetually gridlocked, All regulatory power would promptly devolve to the states, which effectively means no more federal agencies with any power and the end of our republican government.

    That’s the point where I think the federal government – starting with Biden – needs to have it’s Andrew Jackson moment and simply declare the decision null and void, the court arrogating itself power it is not allowed to have. They do not have the power to make us into the Holy Roman Empire. Call them out and ignore them.

  85. 85.

    Mike E

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote:

    “While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires. This Court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation, and we have squandered it. And for as long as we refuse to declare what the law requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas, and elsewhere will be paying the price.”

  86. 86.

    Fake Irishman

    @Skippy -San:

    It isn’t THAT bad. The underlying rule is still in effect, but the ruling today is letting a group of states drag their feet in implementing it.

  91. 91.

    Another Scott

    @Anonymous At Work:

    IANAL, but GovExec agrees that it’s a huge change:

    The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed federal agencies’ longstanding capacity to adjudicate and enforce certain federal laws, dealing the latest in a series of blows to the executive branch’s administrative powers.

    In a 6-3 decision, the conservative majority on the court rejected the Biden administration’s argument that existing precedent protected agencies as they adjudicated laws written by Congress, instead suggesting individuals and private entities had a right to defend themselves from civil penalties before a jury. The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees a right to a trial before a jury of peers, applies to cases involving administrative penalties, the court ruled.

    […]

    Still, the case could have widespread impact for agencies across government. Many government offices rely on in-house “tribunals” to carry out enforcement provisions of federal statute, ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Federal Trade Commission and the Agriculture Department. Taking all of those cases seeking to carry out enforcement to the federal court system would require a massive expenditure of resources those agencies are ill-equipped to absorb.

    The Biden administration had argued that because Jarkesy involved the government and a private entity, rather than two private entities, the “public rights doctrine” dictates the executive branch can adjudicate the matter without violating the Seventh Amendment that would otherwise require a jury trial. It also argued the Seventh Amendment is relevant when a lawsuit arises from a private lawsuit seeking monetary damages that is based in “common law” rather than a specific statute passed by Congress.

    In a dissenting opinion joined by all three liberal justices, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the entire concept of administrative adjudication “empowers executive officials to find the relevant facts and apply the law to those facts like juries do in a courtroom.” She also pointed to a 1976 case, Atlas Roofing Company v. Occupational Safety and Health Commission, in which the Supreme Court found Congress has the power to grant agencies’ the authority to adjudicate new public laws. Atlas Roofing made it “obvious” that Jarkesy should have been resolved “under a faithful and straightforward application” of that case’s precedent, Sotomayor said.

    She also warned of the “momentous consequences” that will result from the new decision, noting more than two-dozen federal agencies issue civil penalties in administrative proceedings.

    The misplaced view of the majority “means that the constitutionality of hundreds of statutes may now be in peril, and dozens of agencies could be stripped of their power to enforce laws enacted by Congress,” Sotomayor wrote. “Rather than acknowledge the earth-shattering nature of its holding, the majority has tried to disguise it.”

    The majority suggested its ruling applied only to civil penalty suits alleging fraud, but the dissenting justices suggested that was a distinction that should “fool no one” and the decision instead amounted to a “massive sea change.”

    […]

    The decision was the latest blow to the administrative powers of federal agencies. Last year, the court established a legal theory known as the “major questions doctrine,” setting the precedent that agencies have little leeway in creating new regulations with major economic impact or political salience that rely on powers not clearly laid out in statutory text. The court in the coming days is expected to rule on—and likely undermine—Chevron deference, which says broadly that courts must defer to agencies when interpreting ambiguous statutory language.

    So the Executive has gone too far, and the Legislature doesn’t mean what it explicitly says in black-letter law, therefore the unelected and unaccountable Courts must step in and run everything instead. So sayeth the SCOTUS. Which just happens to be a Court.

    Grr…,
    Scott.

  92. 92.

    Barbara

    @Anonymous At Work: I read the majority opinion.  I am biased because it struck me as outrageous that members of the Purdue family would obtain the benefits of bankruptcy without its burdens — which is, putting all of your assets on the line, not just some of them.

    The opinion pointed out additional outrages that I was unaware of — that the Sackler family was seeking discharge for types of claims that the bankruptcy court does not generally have the power to grant, e.g., for willful or fraudulent conduct. And it was all couched in the “catchall” end of a long list of types of permitted relief, allowing “other appropriate relief.”

    The best point made by the other side is that the claims are inextricably linked to claims against Purdue itself, such that it made sense to roll all of those claims into a single pool.  That may be, but bankruptcy doesn’t permit a debtor seeking a discharge to exercise discretion over the amount of its assets that are up for grabs.   The court noted that the Sacklers could buy peace with non-consenting claimants by agreeing to pay them more individually.  It would be cumbersome but that is how the world works for non-bankrupt defendants.

  93. 93.

    Citizen Alan

    @Baud: Purdue does not break upon ideological lines but on a genuine controversy about the power of bankruptcy judges over parties who are not in bankruptcy. There are two competing factors for judges. 11 U.S.C. s 105 gives the bankruptcy judge broad equitable powers to oversee bankruptcy cases BUT they cannot do so beyond the express provisions of the bankruptcy code.

    In this case, Purdue’s Ch 11 plan called for creating a massive multi-billion dollar fund to pay people who have claims against Purdue arising from the Oxycontin cases. Purdue can’t afford to pay those claims, so the Sackler Family put up the money for the fund on the condition that they as individuals get personal releases from all liability in any future Oxycontin cases. This is called a Third Party Release, and it was an open and controversial question of whether a bankruptcy judge could approve those for parties who are not in bankruptcy even if all the parties agreed.

    On one hand, it sucks that the Sacklers could walk away without any personal liability. On the other hand, if you don’t give the Sacklers a release, they don’t pay for the Purdue fund, and the people with Oxycontin claims will probably get pennies on the dollar if anything, but people will still have the theoretical ability to go after a family of ruthless billionaires with good lawyers. A majority of the court says option 1 is not permissible, so we’re stuck with option 2.

    This was a hot topic while I was working on my LLM. A friend/classmate of mine was pulling her hair out because she picked Third Party Releases as her thesis topic and the law would change every few months as higher courts looked at the case.

  94. 94.

    Barbara

    @Citizen Alan: The court didn’t rule out the permissibility of third party releases in other circumstances, or where the non-debtors are able to get the consent of claimants to their own release.  Most of Purdue’s assets were stripped from Purdue by the family members.  Yes, I get that as a policy matter more people might be better off if the settlement were permitted, but a contrary result would unleash a precedent that would permit increasingly aggressive third party releases.  Congress did step in to allow such releases for asbestos claims — which strongly suggests that they are not normally considered to be permissible under bankruptcy practice.  I just didn’t see the question as being that close of a call.  What distinguishes most other third party releases is the consent of creditors.  The Sackler family didn’t have that.

  96. 96.

    WaterGirl

    @JWR: 3 in 10 is pretty close to 27%.

    What I want to know is… what % of the 7 in 10 who believe ideology is driving decisions – rather than law – believes that that’s a PROBLEM>

  97. 97.

    Anonymous At Work

    @Citizen Alan: Co-mingling assets between the Sacklers and Perdue creates a whole host of problems.  We’ll see if this comes up but here’s how I see the problem:
    Family A runs Corporation A.
    Family A has Corporation A do illegal stuff.
    Family A asset-strips Corporation A between doing illegal stuff and discovery of illegal stuff.
    Corporation A declares Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
    Corporation A settles with creditors and with injured parties, and obtains release of liability for Family A.
    Family A pays for settlement for nickels on the dollar and obtains Get out of Jail Free card.
    Family A escapes accountability, “sits on beach, earning twenty percent” (to quote Hans Gruber).

    All of this done through in a separate, specialized, and insular/incestuous court system (HERE),  and without unanimous consent of creditors, injured people, and US executive branch.

  98. 98.

    Soprano2

    @rikyrah: Me, either. We’re all having to live with their refusal to pollute themselves by voting for “that woman”. Misogyny is a strong drug.

  99. 99.

    Skippy-san

    I truly hate the Supreme Court.  I especially hate Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. The are not enough words to describe how much I want them to pay a price for what they have done to this country.

  100. 100.

    SomeRandomFellow

    @Anonymous At Work: I think you give her *far* too much credit, because she was nominated by a President who said he needed her “for the ballots” and she didn’t vow to recuse from any 2020 decisions.

    Me, I think she’s upset that her colleagues are giving away the game, *clearly* showing that they only wanted the power to rule, when she feels this makes her look like some dirty, slimy scumsucking zombie parasite. I can assure her, that her fellow Republican colleagues only makes her look blatantly corrupt – the rest is, well… what’s that expression, “sucks to be you,” something like that?

  101. 101.

    wjca

    @JWR:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A solid majority of Americans say Supreme Court justices are more likely to be guided by their own ideology rather than serving as neutral arbiters of government authority, a new poll finds

    So, since their credibility, not to mention reputations, are permanently trashed, what’s the motivation not to run amok? Spoiler alert: there’s none at all.

Comments are closed.