2025 SCOTUS Decisions

[UNI88]

The more I think about the more it calls into question. Would SCOTUS have the guts to overturn the 14th amendment in the fall?

Will district court decisions on any constitutional matter matter be left to stand at least in that district or once SCOTUS gets around to ruling on them? If a kid is granted citizenship in one state or district will they not be considered a citizen in another? What about gun laws? Or shoukd every case just go straight to SCOTUS

There seems to be potential here for some serious confusion and contradiction on a national level.

Would the biden administration have been able to forgive student loans outside of the federal districts with injunctions? Would a SCOTUS ruling have been able to put those loans back on the books?

What other injunctions against biden’s EOs would have been localized?

MAQA yahoos might be too dense to realize that this sword cuts both ways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

The more I think about the more it calls into question. Would SCOTUS have the guts to overturn the 14th amendment in the fall?

Will district court decisions on any constitutional matter matter be left to stand at least in that district or once SCOTUS gets around to ruling on them? If a kid is granted citizenship in one state or district will they not be considered a citizen in another? What about gun laws? Or shoukd every case just go straight to SCOTUS

There seems to be potential here for some serious confusion and contradiction on a national level.

Would the biden administration have been able to forgive student loans outside of the federal districts with injunctions? Would a SCOTUS ruling have been able to put those loans back on the books?

What other injunctions against biden’s EOs would have been localized?

MAQA yahoos might be too dense to realize that this sword cuts both ways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course SCOTUS could have put those loans backs on the books after they ruled the forgiveness was unconstitutional.

TDSers might be too dense to realize that the number of injunctions against Trump are like 10x of what they were against Biden or Obama, almost all issued by donk appointed judges, so the sword wasn’t remotely close to cutting both ways evenly.

[UNI88]

Would the biden administration have been able to forgive student loans outside of the federal districts with injunctions? Would a SCOTUS ruling have been able to put those loans back on the books?

What other injunctions against biden’s EOs would have been localized?

MAQA yahoos might be too dense to realize that this sword cuts both ways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course SCOTUS could have put those loans backs on the books after they ruled the forgiveness was unconstitutional.

TDSers might be too dense to realize that the number of injunctions against Trump are like 10x of what they were against Biden or Obama, almost all issued by donk appointed judges, so the sword wasn’t remotely close to cutting both ways evenly.

Can SCOTUS unforgive a forgiven loan and force the student to pay it? That too would need to be litigated.

Glad you admit that MAQA yahoos are dense. They’re tDSers too (Type II).

trump has 10x the number of injunctions against his EOs because he’s had 10x as many that might be illegal.

Do you have any proof that almost all were “issued by donk appointed judges” or did you Chizzy that number? That’s a high percentage. Put up or shut up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

Trump’s Stunning Streak of Losses in Lower Courts

Bonica’s data indicates that judges across the ideological spectrum are ruling against Trump at similar rates. He’s lost in 72% of rulings issued by Republican-appointed judges and 80% of rulings by Democratic-appointed judges.

The “it’s liberal judges ruling against trump” Hoax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Of course SCOTUS could have put those loans backs on the books after they ruled the forgiveness was unconstitutional.

TDSers might be too dense to realize that the number of injunctions against Trump are like 10x of what they were against Biden or Obama, almost all issued by donk appointed judges, so the sword wasn’t remotely close to cutting both ways evenly.

Can SCOTUS unforgive a forgiven loan and force the student to pay it? That too would need to be litigated.

Glad you admit that MAQA yahoos are dense. They’re tDSers too (Type II).

trump has 10x the number of injunctions against his EOs because he’s had 10x as many that might be illegal.

Do you have any proof that almost all were “issued by donk appointed judges” or did you Chizzy that number? That’s a high percentage. Put up or shut up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No it wouldn’t. SCOTUS is the highest court, and they could declare the forgiveness null and void.

I already did. Reading is fundamental. 92-%. Pay attention or shut up.
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 5#p1471275

[BDKJMU]

Kagan on ruling for the majority:

It can't be right that one district court, whether it's in the Trump years ... the Biden years, and it just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks, and leave it stopped for years — that it takes to go through the normal process.

Oops, nevermind, that was in 2022 when a few district court judges ruled against Biden.

[Caribbean Hen]

Kagan on ruling for the majority:

It can't be right that one district court, whether it's in the Trump years ... the Biden years, and it just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks, and leave it stopped for years — that it takes to go through the normal process.

Oops, nevermind, that was in 2022 when a few district court judges ruled against Biden.

Scott Jennings is spectacular

CNN, in a rare smart move, brought in some common sense to save their sinking network

Meanwhile, lying Jake the snake, who’s been lying about Joey Rotten Biden for years and years and finally when he’s caught lying, he writes a book to admit the media was lying too you

[UNI88]

Can SCOTUS unforgive a forgiven loan and force the student to pay it? That too would need to be litigated.

Glad you admit that MAQA yahoos are dense. They’re tDSers too (Type II).

trump has 10x the number of injunctions against his EOs because he’s had 10x as many that might be illegal.

Do you have any proof that almost all were “issued by donk appointed judges” or did you Chizzy that number? That’s a high percentage. Put up or shut up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No it wouldn’t. SCOTUS is the highest court, and they could declare the forgiveness null and void.

I already did. Reading is fundamental. 92-%. Pay attention or shut up.
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 5#p1471275

Did you? In the post I quoted you didn’t limit the injunctions to nationwide or universal injunctions. Does your number accurately apply to all injunctions against trump?

Trump’s Stunning Streak of Losses in Lower Courts

Bonica’s data indicates that judges across the ideological spectrum are ruling against Trump at similar rates. He’s lost in 72% of rulings issued by Republican-appointed judges and 80% of rulings by Democratic-appointed judges.

The “it’s liberal judges ruling against trump” Hoax.

[BDKJMU]

No it wouldn’t. SCOTUS is the highest court, and they could declare the forgiveness null and void.

I already did. Reading is fundamental. 92-%. Pay attention or shut up.
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 5#p1471275

Did you? In the post I quoted you didn’t limit the injunctions to nationwide or universal injunctions. Does your number accurately apply to all injunctions against trump?

Trump’s Stunning Streak of Losses in Lower Courts





The “it’s liberal judges ruling against trump” Hoax.

Wrong:

Nevertheless, as the table below indicates, in the nearly 40 cases RCI identified in which judges entered a universal injunction, Democratic presidents appointed more than four in five of those presiding:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com ... 16070.html

[GannonFan]

I'm going to be honest, it's surprising to me that is took 200+ years of judicial review for this question to be answered.

It took until the Trump administration for the question to arise. To me that says the ruling is just the liberal justices wanting to make Trump less dangerous. Well, that's not a good legal reason.

In other news, it may be the first time a branch of government has reduces its own powers.

It took this long because for most of those 200 years this kind of judicial review, the kind where one federal judge anywhere in the country can stop something everywhere in the country, didn't happen very often until as of late. SCOTUS was very clear that this was a very recent phenomenon. They weren't speaking for all judicial review, that's in place now just as much as it was in place after Marbury, but just the much more recent (i.e. 10-15 years) spate of nationwide injunctions.

[GannonFan]

The more I think about the more it calls into question. Would SCOTUS have the guts to overturn the 14th amendment in the fall?

Will district court decisions on any constitutional matter matter be left to stand at least in that district or once SCOTUS gets around to ruling on them? If a kid is granted citizenship in one state or district will they not be considered a citizen in another? What about gun laws? Or shoukd every case just go straight to SCOTUS

There seems to be potential here for some serious confusion and contradiction on a national level.

I haven't seen or read anything in the opinions of the current court that would say that. In addition, SCOTUS can't overturn an amendment. How is something that is in the Constitution (amendments are indeed part of the Constitution) possibly unconstitutional? That's paradoxical to say the least. Clarence Thomas has become a weird pariah in the woods, and Alito will join him at times in lunatic wanderings, but none of the other 7 would seem to be trending in that direction. Birthright citizenship is currently the law of the land, as per Congress, as per SCOTUS review over the past 150 years, and will continue to be in place until someone passes an amendment to not have it. Congress has enough issues just passing regular legislation, so I don't see them being up for passing something so contentious. So outside of Alito and Thomas, who would the other 3 votes be who would overturn birthright citizenship? Gorsuch would be the only other one even in the ballpark, and since he's probably the most committed to what's written and how it was understood I strongly doubt he'd do it considering the mountain of understanding in the US, both before and after the 14th amendment, that would lean towards birthright. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, if there's any overriding theme of their jurisprudence, is that they want Congress to make laws. Everything Congress has done, including passing this amendment, would be pointing at birthright citizenship. To overturn that, they would have to almost take a 180 from how they've been ruling. And after that you have the liberal judges - Jackson and Sotomayor are automatic no's just on the political aspect of it, and Kagan is in the same camp as Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett and wouldn't overturn what Congress, the Constitution, and prior SCOTUS opinions have laid down. The math just doesn't work to get to 3 votes, let alone the 5 to make this ruling.

[kalm]

The more I think about the more it calls into question. Would SCOTUS have the guts to overturn the 14th amendment in the fall?

Will district court decisions on any constitutional matter matter be left to stand at least in that district or once SCOTUS gets around to ruling on them? If a kid is granted citizenship in one state or district will they not be considered a citizen in another? What about gun laws? Or shoukd every case just go straight to SCOTUS

There seems to be potential here for some serious confusion and contradiction on a national level.

I haven't seen or read anything in the opinions of the current court that would say that. In addition, SCOTUS can't overturn an amendment. How is something that is in the Constitution (amendments are indeed part of the Constitution) possibly unconstitutional? That's paradoxical to say the least. Clarence Thomas has become a weird pariah in the woods, and Alito will join him at times in lunatic wanderings, but none of the other 7 would seem to be trending in that direction. Birthright citizenship is currently the law of the land, as per Congress, as per SCOTUS review over the past 150 years, and will continue to be in place until someone passes an amendment to not have it. Congress has enough issues just passing regular legislation, so I don't see them being up for passing something so contentious. So outside of Alito and Thomas, who would the other 3 votes be who would overturn birthright citizenship? Gorsuch would be the only other one even in the ballpark, and since he's probably the most committed to what's written and how it was understood I strongly doubt he'd do it considering the mountain of understanding in the US, both before and after the 14th amendment, that would lean towards birthright. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, if there's any overriding theme of their jurisprudence, is that they want Congress to make laws. Everything Congress has done, including passing this amendment, would be pointing at birthright citizenship. To overturn that, they would have to almost take a 180 from how they've been ruling. And after that you have the liberal judges - Jackson and Sotomayor are automatic no's just on the political aspect of it, and Kagan is in the same camp as Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett and wouldn't overturn what Congress, the Constitution, and prior SCOTUS opinions have laid down. The math just doesn't work to get to 3 votes, let alone the 5 to make this ruling.

They can’t overturn it but can’t they change its application via interpretation and rulings on specific cases?

[GannonFan]

I haven't seen or read anything in the opinions of the current court that would say that. In addition, SCOTUS can't overturn an amendment. How is something that is in the Constitution (amendments are indeed part of the Constitution) possibly unconstitutional? That's paradoxical to say the least. Clarence Thomas has become a weird pariah in the woods, and Alito will join him at times in lunatic wanderings, but none of the other 7 would seem to be trending in that direction. Birthright citizenship is currently the law of the land, as per Congress, as per SCOTUS review over the past 150 years, and will continue to be in place until someone passes an amendment to not have it. Congress has enough issues just passing regular legislation, so I don't see them being up for passing something so contentious. So outside of Alito and Thomas, who would the other 3 votes be who would overturn birthright citizenship? Gorsuch would be the only other one even in the ballpark, and since he's probably the most committed to what's written and how it was understood I strongly doubt he'd do it considering the mountain of understanding in the US, both before and after the 14th amendment, that would lean towards birthright. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, if there's any overriding theme of their jurisprudence, is that they want Congress to make laws. Everything Congress has done, including passing this amendment, would be pointing at birthright citizenship. To overturn that, they would have to almost take a 180 from how they've been ruling. And after that you have the liberal judges - Jackson and Sotomayor are automatic no's just on the political aspect of it, and Kagan is in the same camp as Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett and wouldn't overturn what Congress, the Constitution, and prior SCOTUS opinions have laid down. The math just doesn't work to get to 3 votes, let alone the 5 to make this ruling.

They can’t overturn it but can’t they change its application via interpretation and rulings on specific cases?

I was using your words since you said overturn. But yes, obviously the 14th amendment was not ironclad clear as they worded it when they wrote it, hence why there's some legal thought recently that it can be mean something other than birthright citizenship. But like I said, there's plenty more evidence that birthright citizenship is what they meant than there is that they didn't, and SCOTUS rulings closer to the time of the writing of the 14th also point to that being the intent. It's never really been challenged as such in a good 150 years either. Given that the SCOTUS just pulled back nationwide injunctions by lower courts and the main thrust of Barrett's majority opinion for that was that such injunctions were not commonplace for 200 years prior, and were a more recent phenomenon, I think the SCOTUS is signaling the same "this has been the standard for so long" argument here with them adhering to the traditional meaning of the 14th amendment. That's the kind of reasoning that not only would get the Roberts/Kavanaugh/Barrett sign on (along with the liberal judges), but could even snare Gorsuch as well. A 7-2 win for birthright citizenship with this court would be spiking the ball in the endzone for that argument and I think it's achievable.

[kalm]

They can’t overturn it but can’t they change its application via interpretation and rulings on specific cases?

I was using your words since you said overturn. But yes, obviously the 14th amendment was not ironclad clear as they worded it when they wrote it, hence why there's some legal thought recently that it can be mean something other than birthright citizenship. But like I said, there's plenty more evidence that birthright citizenship is what they meant than there is that they didn't, and SCOTUS rulings closer to the time of the writing of the 14th also point to that being the intent. It's never really been challenged as such in a good 150 years either. Given that the SCOTUS just pulled back nationwide injunctions by lower courts and the main thrust of Barrett's majority opinion for that was that such injunctions were not commonplace for 200 years prior, and were a more recent phenomenon, I think the SCOTUS is signaling the same "this has been the standard for so long" argument here with them adhering to the traditional meaning of the 14th amendment. That's the kind of reasoning that not only would get the Roberts/Kavanaugh/Barrett sign on (along with the liberal judges), but could even snare Gorsuch as well. A 7-2 win for birthright citizenship with this court would be spiking the ball in the endzone for that argument and I think it's achievable.

I don’t have as much faith in the conservatives on the court as you. Especially after the presidential immunity decision. These are originalist only when it suits them.

[GannonFan]

I was using your words since you said overturn. But yes, obviously the 14th amendment was not ironclad clear as they worded it when they wrote it, hence why there's some legal thought recently that it can be mean something other than birthright citizenship. But like I said, there's plenty more evidence that birthright citizenship is what they meant than there is that they didn't, and SCOTUS rulings closer to the time of the writing of the 14th also point to that being the intent. It's never really been challenged as such in a good 150 years either. Given that the SCOTUS just pulled back nationwide injunctions by lower courts and the main thrust of Barrett's majority opinion for that was that such injunctions were not commonplace for 200 years prior, and were a more recent phenomenon, I think the SCOTUS is signaling the same "this has been the standard for so long" argument here with them adhering to the traditional meaning of the 14th amendment. That's the kind of reasoning that not only would get the Roberts/Kavanaugh/Barrett sign on (along with the liberal judges), but could even snare Gorsuch as well. A 7-2 win for birthright citizenship with this court would be spiking the ball in the endzone for that argument and I think it's achievable.

I don’t have as much faith in the conservatives on the court as you. Especially after the presidential immunity decision. These are originalist only when it suits them.

I always thought people overreacted on that case. The main thrust there was SCOTUS sending the cases back to the lower courts for them to adjudicate them before those cases coming to SCOTUS. IMO, it was Jack Smith (and who knows, maybe Merrick Garland behind him pushing) trying to hit a home run with SCOTUS without doing the work at the lower levels that was the real issue in that case. They could've continued those cases if they thought the evidence was good enough and they had a good enough argument that those actions were outside the realm of Presidential authority. The fact those cases fell apart as they did, or weren't pursued, tells me they weren't. But the path to prosecution was there if the evidence supported it and if the prosecutors desired it.

As for the originalists, I don't see the "only when it suits them". Get these things codified in the law or the Constitution and it's far easier to defend those things. That's why the birthright thing is going to hold up - it's in the Constitution, those who wrote it said why they wrote it (albeit not as well documented as we would like) and contemporary SCOTUS rulings confirmed what was written. It's just like the most recent case against national injunctions, SCOTUS is resting on more than a century of accepted political thought to overturn recent, novel, and not widely accepted nuances.

[UNI88]

They can’t overturn it but can’t they change its application via interpretation and rulings on specific cases?

I was using your words since you said overturn. But yes, obviously the 14th amendment was not ironclad clear as they worded it when they wrote it, hence why there's some legal thought recently that it can be mean something other than birthright citizenship. But like I said, there's plenty more evidence that birthright citizenship is what they meant than there is that they didn't, and SCOTUS rulings closer to the time of the writing of the 14th also point to that being the intent. It's never really been challenged as such in a good 150 years either. Given that the SCOTUS just pulled back nationwide injunctions by lower courts and the main thrust of Barrett's majority opinion for that was that such injunctions were not commonplace for 200 years prior, and were a more recent phenomenon, I think the SCOTUS is signaling the same "this has been the standard for so long" argument here with them adhering to the traditional meaning of the 14th amendment. That's the kind of reasoning that not only would get the Roberts/Kavanaugh/Barrett sign on (along with the liberal judges), but could even snare Gorsuch as well. A 7-2 win for birthright citizenship with this court would be spiking the ball in the endzone for that argument and I think it's achievable.

An interesting tidbit is what happens to little marco if they were able to undercut it? He was born in the US to non-citizens (they were naturalized later). Wouldn’t he be an illegal and subject to deportation? And no longer eligible for the presidency?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

I don’t have as much faith in the conservatives on the court as you. Especially after the presidential immunity decision. These are originalist only when it suits them.

I always thought people overreacted on that case. The main thrust there was SCOTUS sending the cases back to the lower courts for them to adjudicate them before those cases coming to SCOTUS. IMO, it was Jack Smith (and who knows, maybe Merrick Garland behind him pushing) trying to hit a home run with SCOTUS without doing the work at the lower levels that was the real issue in that case. They could've continued those cases if they thought the evidence was good enough and they had a good enough argument that those actions were outside the realm of Presidential authority. The fact those cases fell apart as they did, or weren't pursued, tells me they weren't. But the path to prosecution was there if the evidence supported it and if the prosecutors desired it.

As for the originalists, I don't see the "only when it suits them". Get these things codified in the law or the Constitution and it's far easier to defend those things. That's why the birthright thing is going to hold up - it's in the Constitution, those who wrote it said why they wrote it (albeit not as well documented as we would like) and contemporary SCOTUS rulings confirmed what was written. It's just like the most recent case against national injunctions, SCOTUS is resting on more than a century of accepted political thought to overturn recent, novel, and not widely accepted nuances.

Do you think that thomas and alito are originalists? I don’t. Not in the mold of Scalia who was a giant compared to those two dwarfs and attempted to apply originalist principles consistently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

Did you? In the post I quoted you didn’t limit the injunctions to nationwide or universal injunctions. Does your number accurately apply to all injunctions against trump?

Wrong:

Nevertheless, as the table below indicates, in the nearly 40 cases RCI identified in which judges entered a universal injunction, Democratic presidents appointed more than four in five of those presiding:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com ... 16070.html

Reading is fundamental.

You chart is literally titled "RCI's Universal Injunctions Analysis". I specifically asked if your number accurately applied to all injunctions, not just universal/nationwide injunctions.

MAQA yahoos, beta cucks always looking for ways to claim that they and trump are victims while also trumpeting their self-proclaimed alpha maleness. Sometime in the future, psychologists will have a field day studying the contradictions and defining the boundaries of this mental illness.

[GannonFan]

I always thought people overreacted on that case. The main thrust there was SCOTUS sending the cases back to the lower courts for them to adjudicate them before those cases coming to SCOTUS. IMO, it was Jack Smith (and who knows, maybe Merrick Garland behind him pushing) trying to hit a home run with SCOTUS without doing the work at the lower levels that was the real issue in that case. They could've continued those cases if they thought the evidence was good enough and they had a good enough argument that those actions were outside the realm of Presidential authority. The fact those cases fell apart as they did, or weren't pursued, tells me they weren't. But the path to prosecution was there if the evidence supported it and if the prosecutors desired it.

As for the originalists, I don't see the "only when it suits them". Get these things codified in the law or the Constitution and it's far easier to defend those things. That's why the birthright thing is going to hold up - it's in the Constitution, those who wrote it said why they wrote it (albeit not as well documented as we would like) and contemporary SCOTUS rulings confirmed what was written. It's just like the most recent case against national injunctions, SCOTUS is resting on more than a century of accepted political thought to overturn recent, novel, and not widely accepted nuances.

Do you think that thomas and alito are originalists? I don’t. Not in the mold of Scalia who was a giant compared to those two dwarfs and attempted to apply originalist principles consistently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thomas has never distinguished himself. The only thing I would say in his defense is that we'll never know what he could've been had he not gone through the confirmation process that he did as well as a lot of the vile attacks he received from those on the left who didn't want a black conservative on the bench. With that said, the issues around his confirmation did involve his own conduct (granted, probably not any different than many of those men on the Judiciary Committee who were opposing him, hence why even they were resistant to go down that path until outside forces compelled them to) so if he didn't want to be judged that way then don't have done the conduct in the first place. As for the attacks, him, like Alito, just haven't shown the maturity to get past what's just commonplace anymore in political arenas. They're both twits and we'll be better off when they retire.

[BDKJMU]

Wrong:


https://www.realclearinvestigations.com ... 16070.html

Reading is fundamental.

You chart is literally titled "RCI's Universal Injunctions Analysis". I specifically asked if your number accurately applied to all injunctions, not just universal/nationwide injunctions.

MAQA yahoos, beta cucks always looking for ways to claim that they and trump are victims while also trumpeting their self-proclaimed alpha maleness. Sometime in the future, psychologists will have a field day studying the contradictions and defining the boundaries of this mental illness.

Wrong. Remembering what you posted is fundamental. In your OP, not the follow up where you moved the goalposts to ‘all‘ injunctions, you didn‘t specify ‘all‘. Clearly the universal (nationwide) injunctions are the far more consequential than localized for obvious reasons. And in those, 80+% have been issued by donk appointed.

TDSers, always claiming that there has been no bias anywhere against Trump. Not by the courts, not by the media, there’s been no lawfare, there’s been no hoaxes, everything Trump does is bad, or he gets no creditbfor anything good. Sometime in the future, psychologists will have a field day studying this terrible mental illness.

[UNI88]

Reading is fundamental.

You chart is literally titled "RCI's Universal Injunctions Analysis". I specifically asked if your number accurately applied to all injunctions, not just universal/nationwide injunctions.

MAQA yahoos, beta cucks always looking for ways to claim that they and trump are victims while also trumpeting their self-proclaimed alpha maleness. Sometime in the future, psychologists will have a field day studying the contradictions and defining the boundaries of this mental illness.

Wrong. Remembering what you posted is fundamental. In your OP, not the follow up where you moved the goalposts to ‘all‘ injunctions, you didn‘t specify ‘all‘. Clearly the universal (nationwide) injunctions are the far more consequential than localized for obvious reasons. And in those, 80+% have been issued by donk appointed.

TDSers, always claiming that there has been no bias anywhere against Trump. Not by the courts, not by the media, there’s been no lawfare, there’s been no hoaxes, everything Trump does is bad, or he gets no creditbfor anything good. Sometime in the future, psychologists will have a field day studying this terrible mental illness.

All is the default not universal/nationwide. Duh!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

[kalm]

Speaking of legacies, John Robert’s is getting destroyed.

[GannonFan]

Speaking of legacies, John Robert’s is getting destroyed.

Pretty sure he never had a lot of fans in that segment of the twitter world anyway. Surprised he (or you) didn't try to work in Citizen's United as well. As with all things historical, his legacy will be decided well down the line. When his court holds the line and bars Trump from serving a third term that will be looked on well by historians, even though the MAGA folks will take their turn lambasting him.

[kalm]

Speaking of legacies, John Robert’s is getting destroyed.

Pretty sure he never had a lot of fans in that segment of the twitter world anyway. Surprised he (or you) didn't try to work in Citizen's United as well. As with all things historical, his legacy will be decided well down the line. When his court holds the line and bars Trump from serving a third term that will be looked on well by historians, even though the MAGA folks will take their turn lambasting him.

Citizens United is self evident. As is presidential immunity. Do you really think 100 years from now historians are gonna say: you know what? Buying elections and making the president above the law were good decisions?

He may have opportunities to redeem himself but as of now he’s an utter failure when it comes to the constitution.