The Colorado Supreme Court’s Tuesday decision to disqualify former President Trump from the state primary ballot has come under fire from Republicans who have claimed it is a political move against…
I tend to agree with your point, but they also dragged out legal precedent from ≈1850 to justify striking down abortion. They could just as easily go back to the pre-amendment version and say that the Framers never intended the 14th amendment to be a part of the Constitution; their conservatism isn’t exactly grounded in anything reasonable
Sounds to me like a distinction without a difference. The reactionary judges are happy to work with the reactionary party to accomplish their goals. How can political actors be nonpartisan when their political philosophy is one and the same as that of a major political party?
It’s a distinction with context. Partisan could be for any side. In this case it’s by conservatives who are define morality through the execution of toxic capitalism and profit without room for nuance.
Taking two completely fake cases designed to set conservative legal precident isn’t partisan enough for you? They’re pretending to have some level of actual impartiality currently because of the scrutiny over roe, Clarence Thomas, etc. Plus those rulings they didn’t touch were legally sound enough that overturning them would cause riots outside their homes.
Same SCOTUS that already refused to hear Trump’s earlier election case (not this week’s story)?
Same SCOTUS who refused to hear Alabama’s redistricting case, allowing a lower court’s judgement to stand?
Y’all need to learn the difference between “conservative” and “partisan”.
I tend to agree with your point, but they also dragged out legal precedent from ≈1850 to justify striking down abortion. They could just as easily go back to the pre-amendment version and say that the Framers never intended the 14th amendment to be a part of the Constitution; their conservatism isn’t exactly grounded in anything reasonable
1850 would have been considered the space age to the guy Alito used as justification
Yes, Alito literally quoted this guy, who was born in 1609, as a defense for ending Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Sounds to me like a distinction without a difference. The reactionary judges are happy to work with the reactionary party to accomplish their goals. How can political actors be nonpartisan when their political philosophy is one and the same as that of a major political party?
It’s a distinction with context. Partisan could be for any side. In this case it’s by conservatives who are define morality through the execution of toxic capitalism and profit without room for nuance.
Taking two completely fake cases designed to set conservative legal precident isn’t partisan enough for you? They’re pretending to have some level of actual impartiality currently because of the scrutiny over roe, Clarence Thomas, etc. Plus those rulings they didn’t touch were legally sound enough that overturning them would cause riots outside their homes.
So do most “conservatives”.