I don’t have the energy or inclination to explain what a FedSoc SCOTUS majority ACTUALLY said and did on a complex issue, when there is zero chance that majority or its backers would extend the same good faith approach to any issue I care about.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
There has long been an ideological slant to the court, but it used to be worthwhile to suspend judgment and read the decisions on their face, but these days doing so feels like you're participating in a farce that even they've given up on.
It's all up and down the federal judiciary. Spence v. American Airlines can only be read as an audition for Leonard Leo and Trump. He's telling them in no uncertain terms that he is willing to abuse his power to attack the right wing bogeyman du jour.
Reading Fred Friendly's _Minnesota Rag_, the tale of the Supreme Court case that barred prior restraint of the press in America (by one vote, by the replacement for a Justice who had died after cert was granted) did not leave me with many illusions about the Court's ideology.
I agree that he was terrible, and is hardly alone in that. But even 20 years ago when there was a *lot* to despair at that couldn’t be justified as impartial application of the law, you could sometimes be persuaded by a justice you disagreed with. The court’s current Heritage set takes it to 11.
That's how I'm feeling these days. 30 years in service of an ideology that was supposed to be ABOVE ideology, but is in fact just a more complicated con than most. We never truly had "rule of law" here, one always got all the justice one could afford. Now it's just overt.
The ink tracing a path through the maze on the conservative justices' Kidz-Zone placemat suspiciously runs out of ink back towards the START of the maze.
This is something people on the left need to learn. Don't make their arguments for them, even when they might be correct. You don't have to lie, but why do their job for them?
Let them have the fun of trying to inform and educate the American public, for once.
Re: Todays water ruling. So I just read a lot of the SCOTUS ruling and I’m an enviro geologist. I actually mostly agree with the ruling. What they struck down was rather subjective. What they left was quantitative. I feel dirty even saying it though.
Ken, I have a question that's been bugging me and now's as good a time as any to ask it. Is there a role for the various Bar associations here? It sounds like some of the actions being taken by lawyers are at least toeing the line with how unethical/cynical they are. Or is this all out of scope?
Comments
It's simply worse now.
Let them have the fun of trying to inform and educate the American public, for once.
It's one of the things I like about Wonkette. I don't really care what rationalization GOP reps & senators use to get themselves through the night.