I would add to this Supreme Court 🧵: Simple incompetence.
Clarence Thomas ending up as the lone dissenting voice in the first case testing the meaning of a majority opinion HE WROTE (Bruen, on gun control) is just grotesquely incompetent. It's indefensible for the Court to act like this.
Clarence Thomas ending up as the lone dissenting voice in the first case testing the meaning of a majority opinion HE WROTE (Bruen, on gun control) is just grotesquely incompetent. It's indefensible for the Court to act like this.
Reposted from
Kim Lane Scheppele
11/ Like those who believe that government is not in trouble until we see tanks in the streets, those who still defend this Court may believe that as long as the overtly political and outrageous decisions constitute a minority of the Court’s work, we are still more-or-less fine.
Comments