Fuck off. What is with these bullshit purity tests? ACB is still 1000x better than Ginsburg. We just had two consecutive 5-4 rulings against lockdowns in CA and NY. Do you think that would've happened with Ginsburg? No.
Secondly, ACB didn't hear any of the election lawsuits - she sat out since she had been confirmed after the Pennsylvania lawsuit started.
Do we really want Federal courts deciding State issues?
That would be a consideration in the PA case.
I'd think it was a factor in the TX case as well, even though it sure would appear that one of the core functions to having a Supreme Court is to decide disputes between states. On this one, I can only conclude that they feared the precedent and trusted the State Legislatures to fix their own mess as prescribed.
That's a reasonable interpretation IF we assume they aren't totally cucked.
Derp. You apparently don't know geography either. Read my comment again. She was on SCOTUS when the TEXAS lawsuit was filed. She voted to turn it down.
She didn't hear the Pennsylvania lawsuit because she was not on SCOTUS yet -- but your claim that she sat out ALL of the election lawsuits is patently false.
Barrett is a corrupt neo-lib piece of shit whose only saving grace was that she MIGHT vote against abortion. That's even bullshit. She'll recuse herself if abortion ever comes before the court again, count on it.
edit -- AND...I even wrote a post praising this hell-bound cunt on her pro-life stance. I no longer believe it. At all.
Respect. I always thought she was a bad choice because putting a woman on the court is a terrible idea, but I make mistakes too, and we should always admit and learn from our mistakes.
Many of the election cases were brought after she was put on the bench. She participated in every single one of those. Any case that had some partial adjudication prior to her appointment, she may or may not have participated in at some point. However, she did participate in voting to boot them as moot last month and in January. So the idea that she just washed her hands of responsibility by sitting out is without merit. She voted that Texas did not have standing. She voted that the other cases were moot this year. She failed in her duty to uphold the constitution and the integrity of the election process. She failed to uphold equal protection of the laws and let cheaters outweigh the votes of lawful voters. She is a fraud, a hack, and actually voted to deny an injunction against the governor of Illinois for barring the Illinois Republicans from organizing during covid because "they did not meet the threshold of demonstrating they were likely to succeed on the merits." How much more likely to succeed on the merits can you be when you are being precluded from exercising an express constitutional right?? She was a shit pick before she was picked. We are reaping what we sow.
Fuck off. What is with these bullshit purity tests? ACB is still 1000x better than Ginsburg. We just had two consecutive 5-4 rulings against lockdowns in CA and NY. Do you think that would've happened with Ginsburg? No.
Secondly, ACB didn't hear any of the election lawsuits - she sat out since she had been confirmed after the Pennsylvania lawsuit started.
Found the revisionist historian. Amy was on SCOTUS when the Texas lawsuit was filed. She voted to turn it down.
She didn't vote. It was a 5-3 with one abstention (ACB).
https://kekpe.pe/i/607098dcad28d.png
So she wasn't in favor of hearing the case, meaning she was against it and was bailed out of having to pick a side.
Even worse.
Do we really want Federal courts deciding State issues?
That would be a consideration in the PA case.
I'd think it was a factor in the TX case as well, even though it sure would appear that one of the core functions to having a Supreme Court is to decide disputes between states. On this one, I can only conclude that they feared the precedent and trusted the State Legislatures to fix their own mess as prescribed.
That's a reasonable interpretation IF we assume they aren't totally cucked.
Derp. You apparently don't know geography either. Read my comment again. She was on SCOTUS when the TEXAS lawsuit was filed. She voted to turn it down.
She didn't hear the Pennsylvania lawsuit because she was not on SCOTUS yet -- but your claim that she sat out ALL of the election lawsuits is patently false.
But the TX suit was Texas vs. Pennsylvania no?
Is the "Pennsylvania suit" different than Texas v. PA?
Only thing more cowardly than voting not to hear is not voting at all.
Barrett is a corrupt neo-lib piece of shit whose only saving grace was that she MIGHT vote against abortion. That's even bullshit. She'll recuse herself if abortion ever comes before the court again, count on it.
edit -- AND...I even wrote a post praising this hell-bound cunt on her pro-life stance. I no longer believe it. At all.
Respect. I always thought she was a bad choice because putting a woman on the court is a terrible idea, but I make mistakes too, and we should always admit and learn from our mistakes.
No she wont recuse. If lower courts hold that Roe V Wade should be overturned, she'll side with abortionists. Kavanaugh too.
At this point, abortion will never be overturned.
Everyone should have noticed this prior to her appointment. Cried for george floyd and has an adopted black kid.
Not true, she partook in most of the cases and voted to not hear them.
https://kekpe.pe/i/607098dcad28d.png
Many of the election cases were brought after she was put on the bench. She participated in every single one of those. Any case that had some partial adjudication prior to her appointment, she may or may not have participated in at some point. However, she did participate in voting to boot them as moot last month and in January. So the idea that she just washed her hands of responsibility by sitting out is without merit. She voted that Texas did not have standing. She voted that the other cases were moot this year. She failed in her duty to uphold the constitution and the integrity of the election process. She failed to uphold equal protection of the laws and let cheaters outweigh the votes of lawful voters. She is a fraud, a hack, and actually voted to deny an injunction against the governor of Illinois for barring the Illinois Republicans from organizing during covid because "they did not meet the threshold of demonstrating they were likely to succeed on the merits." How much more likely to succeed on the merits can you be when you are being precluded from exercising an express constitutional right?? She was a shit pick before she was picked. We are reaping what we sow.
So you point to one single case...and notice I said "most of the cases."
Too late. Now she's irrelevant.
A justice cannot rule on a case whose proceedings started before they were seated. That's the law.
There are a lot of election laws, too.
Didn't stop the Dems. But you keep fighting with kid glove slappy fights and see where that gets you against these ruthless monsters.