Read @stevevladeck.bsky.social on the bizarre shortcomings of the majority's unsigned opinion in the Venezuelan migrant decision. An actual opinion is better than no opinion, I guess, but is it too much to ask that the opinion make sense? www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-140-... - ThreadSky

mjsdc.bsky.social • 3 days ago

Read @stevevladeck.bsky.social on the bizarre shortcomings of the majority's unsigned opinion in the Venezuelan migrant decision. An actual opinion is better than no opinion, I guess, but is it too much to ask that the opinion make sense? https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-140-the-new-and-sort-of-improved

Comments

hellzempty.bsky.social•3 days ago

None of the justices on that side cared if it made sense. As with their other terrible decisions, they supported the far-right and offered meaningless word salad for arguments.

Alito, for example, seems to only care that his side wins. Why bother with opinions, when "fuck you" is more truthful?

pravetz.bsky.social•3 days ago

It’s hard to continue to pretend that laws exist

gene-bernache.bsky.social•3 days ago

With this court? Yes.

geoffbowser.bsky.social•3 days ago

With briefing they would have had to deal with the fact that their own prior decisions directly refute the position they took in this case:

https://bsky.app/profile/geoffbowser.bsky.social/post/3lmcxoe2ipk2g

tobellz.bsky.social•3 days ago

Scholars debate when "the Calvinabll era" of the Supreme Court began. While many use Roberts' ascension as the start, others suggest it began only after the 2020 election. Still other others go so far as to place the 2000 Bush v Gore decision as the beginning of the trend.

leeleewhy.bsky.social•3 days ago

2000, definitely.

jmidnight.bsky.social•3 days ago

Only outcomes matter to this Court.

jamespio.bsky.social•3 days ago

There is one statement in the opinion that because habeas was the proper claim (in the majority's opinion), plaintiffs could not succeed on the merits, which, of course, harkens back to the standard for issuance of preliminary relief.

pelledge.bsky.social•3 days ago

The problem is they have a political outcome they want and then they're just trying to reverse engineer the reasoning to get there.

oldbutnotdeadyet.bsky.social•3 days ago

Which I am afraid will be the same for the Garcia case.

jitteryraptor33.bsky.social•3 days ago

Just like with abortion you had one justice quoting a witch burner. As long as it suits their needs they will run with it. The high court is a joke now.

notmiki.bsky.social•3 days ago

Real talk: how many justices actually possess the intellectual rigor that, if they chose to do so, they *could* issue a well thought out opinion dealing with precedent, unbriefed and on short notice? I think we all assume they could do it if they had to but I'm not sure the evidence supports that...

notmiki.bsky.social•3 days ago

Bruen is such a colossal failure to predict the predictable that it really makes me wonder if the right wing of the court was just not capable of better.

soulfullsimpatico.bsky.social•3 days ago

You've got a lot of nerve asking for something more decisiony!!!

edwalker.bsky.social•3 days ago

Sense is not required of Trump’s servants.

gardenofangels.bsky.social•3 days ago

📌

titus.idyll.org•3 days ago

Can’t defend the indefensible I guess.

billsallak.bsky.social•3 days ago

This is why it was per curiam—who wants their name on this?!?

rational.bsky.social•3 days ago

Cowards, all of them

novapsyche444.bsky.social•3 days ago

It is only by the use of omission that some unmerited justifications stand.

wavycloud.bsky.social•3 days ago

Twisting themselves into pretzels to avoid angering the deranged creamsicle.

andyvance.bsky.social•3 days ago

Or provide the creamsicle what he wants - for everything to be decided in the 5th Circuit - while putatively upholding due process

ljlawyers.bsky.social•3 days ago

Correct.

jim0novak.bsky.social•3 days ago

We force people to write out logical arguments because doing so sometimes reveals to the writer (and frequently to the reader) that the argument MAKES NO SENSE.

bigalincal.bsky.social•3 days ago

To use CJ Roberts' analogy - Roberts is behind the plate, ready to call balls and strikes; plaintiff/deportees walk up to the plate to bat; no pitches are thrown, but Roberts just calls "you're out!".

auntiemamelives.bsky.social•3 days ago

Still seething about this

zathras5.bsky.social•3 days ago

Sotomayor’s dissent engaged with the facts of the case; Jackson, with the Court’s taking it on an emergency basis.

The majority addressed neither. Were the Court’s Republicans just protecting the Republican President, as so often before? They offered little to support a different conclusion.

kcarpdiem.bsky.social•3 days ago

📌

cuibonobaby.bsky.social•3 days ago

This SC doesn't balance equities unless it helps them reach their desired policy outcome.

cuibonobaby.bsky.social•3 days ago

Using the shadow docket this court has gutted the law of equitable relief.

ljlawyers.bsky.social•3 days ago

Everything other than “wrong venue” was a bullshit advisory opinion. Alito et al will play whack-a-mole & never find standing, juris, or venue or any remedy to vindicate a right to due process, or find it barred by immunity. See what they did to Bivens, VRA, 14A & 15A, & more. It’s not a court.

cyborgnot.bsky.social•3 days ago

The elephant in the room is that four of the conservative justices are literally dumb, partly due to advanced age. That includes Roberts

upwithpeople.bsky.social•3 days ago

Alito & his minions must have written it.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply