So. Ultimately a woman has no autonomy over her own body with deviant growths still? Is that what I’m reading?
6 of the worst human beings in the world. Dead women’s and dead girls, for that matter, blood is on their hands. I do not understand how it has been one and a half years since they literally made women unequal in law and nothing has been done about the monopoly they have on the entire country.
They are not enacting the will of the people. They do not represent the common voice. Why should they be allowed to force disease death and suffering onto millions of women? Why should they be allowed to do that? What kind of democracy allows such a thing?
If you look at the US objectively, it doesn’t hold up because we’re actually, right now? Not. Not really. Not anymore. Maybe again one day and hopefully soon. But not now.
Sounds like we need to resize the court and add enough justices for justice to be served.
Because there were not enough justices for a quorum—the court needs at least six and only Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson remained—the court affirmed the judgment of a lower court to dismiss the lawsuit.
Clever. Appearing to do the right thing at face value coincides nicely with getting the case against you dropped. It’s likely impossible to sue a majority of the Supreme Court if they don’t care to be sued.
It’s a frivolous troll lawsuit and this is a clickbait article
https://casetext.com/case/mactruong-v-abbott
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is an inventor of “Tele-Sex or Tele-Mining on Jupiter and other planets of the Solar System,” and appears to assert a claim for copyright infringement and constitutional violations.
In his brief, Plaintiff makes fantastical allegations, stating, for example, that “Defendants are dangerous liars, criminals, traitors and co-conspirators.” Dkt. 18 at 31. He further states that Supreme Court Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett “deserve the death penalty or at least to be disbenched from the U.S. Supreme Court.” Dkt. 18 at 40.
This is a tactic Oregon representatives use quite often. So we voted on a bill stating that if you miss 10 or more sessions you’re in eligible to run for office again.
They’re already trying to weasel out of it by claiming that the language of the law means they still get to serve one more term.
The lower court’s decision was upheld. A lower court that didn’t have the issue of defendants being asked to preside over their own case.
Sure, but do you think if the lower court decided that the case could move forward, the justices would’ve sat out? I doubt it.
Do you have an example of them doing that? Or are you simply lampooning them despite them making the best decision available.
Also sounds like a good justification for Biden to increase the number of Justices.
Statement could go like this:
“There are not enough sitting justices to adjudicate important issues before the court as demonstrated by the recent actions of honorable recusals. Therefore I calling for the addition of new seats on the court to supplement the body so it can carry out its important work as a check on Legislative and Executive branches of our government, just as the framers intended. We will begin confirmation hearings for new justices next week”
Also sounds like a good justification for Biden to increase the number of Justices.
Biden has had ample reason to seat additional justices, particularly in the wake of the ACB nomination. But he’s far too friendly with the US Senate to try such a thing.
If you want someone willing to break ranks on this question, you’re ultimately going to need to wait for a governor. If DeSantis had a shot in hell of being president and taking a Senate majority in the process, I could see him trying to pack the court out of spite after losing a few court cases. If a guy like Sanders was a governor and not a Senate buddy-buddy with Schumer and Graham, maybe he would have tried it (but even then I wouldn’t bet on it). I could absolutely see Trump pulling this shit if someone whispered it into his ear at the right moment, but he’d fumble the bag without McConnell sheepdogging the candidate through.
It’s likely impossible to sue a majority of the Supreme Court if they don’t care to be sued.
Only as long as you have the majority. If this had been a case against the liberal minority, they would not have been able to do the same.
If a lower court ruled against them, they wouldn’t excuse themselves and rule in their own favor.
And claim nothing hypocritical about it.
If a lower court ruled against them, they wouldn’t excuse themselves and rule in their own favor.
Or they would and they’d let the other three justices do the dirty work for them.
Either way, you’d need a particularly career-advancement-adverse lower court judge to even consider advancing this to the SCOTUS on favorable terms.
who do these trolls work for
SYAC:
“In a rare move, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett all sat out deciding whether to hear MacTruong v. Abbott, a case arguing that the Texas Heartbeat Act (THA) is constitutional and that the state law violates federal law. The six justices were named as defendants in the case. They did not give a detailed justification as to why they chose not to weigh in, and are not required to do so.”The six justices were named as defendants in the case. They did not give a detailed justification as to why they chose not to weigh in, and are not required to do so.
As Hunter Thompson said: “To ask the question is to answer the question.”
And that’s the original meaning of “begs the question”
I guess I don’t understand. Can you elaborate how that fits the meaning? wikipedia: “Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not been demonstrated to be true. In modern usage, it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it.”
So there’s a bunch of different things going on.
Real historically, it meant to assert something without proving it, and base your logic on the unproved assertion and go on from there. “I couldn’t have been driving drunk, because I wasn’t driving.” You can keep saying that any number of times, and insist that your logic is flawless (because in terms of the pure logic, it is), but if someone saw you driving, it’s kind of a moot point.
Saying “begging the question” to mean that is weird. The phrase is a word-for-word translation of a Greek phrase into pretty much nonsensical English. Wikipedia talks about it more but that’s the short summary.
So after that meaning came what Wikipedia calls “modern usage,” which is where “begging the question” means not just something you haven’t proved, but the central premise under debate. You assume it’s true out of the gate and it’s obviously true, and then go on from there. “We know God exists, because God made the world, and we can see the world all around us, and the world is wonderful, so God exists. QED.”
In actual modern usage, no one cares about any of that, and just uses “begs the question” to mean “invites the question.” Like you’re saying something and anyone with a brain in their head is obviously going to ask you some particular question. It has nothing to do with the original meaning, but the original meaning never actually meant that in English, so pedants like myself that prefer the original meaning are engaged in a pure exercise in futility.
Thank you for your explanation! My head hurts but I think it’s worth it.
I really wish I could “sit out” of my job and not get fired.
Cough drone strike cough
Ugh dry air… Did that sound like words?
Badas noted that MacTruong has other pending cases involving the same issue, but it is likely that they will end like this case, “with him losing and the courts issuing decisions arguing that he lacks standing.”
I thought standing didn’t mean anything anymore.
The six justices were named as defendants in the case.
Makes sense they sat out then. Presiding over your own trial doesn’t make much sense.
Nope that’s not it.
They have the majority, so if they all sit out the SC can’t hear the case.
So it’s more of a pocket veto than anything else.
Especially since the lower courts decision was to dismiss the case against the Justices who vetoed the SC case
So it’s more of a pocket veto than anything else.
“the court affirmed the judgment of a lower court to dismiss the lawsuit”
They upheld the judgment from the lower court. Should they instead preside over their own case? That hardly seems like a better choice than upholding the lower court’s judgement.
They could have provided enough SC justices to have a quorom but not provided any input into the quorom. Essentially, be present and go along with whatever the other justices decide.
There’s nothing in the Constitution about how many justices there has to be. I would argue that if the Supreme Court can’t get quorum we need to nominate Justices until they get it.
I think this was a clear message: “Don’t sue the Supreme Court Justices for their official work, because we won’t even dignifiy it with a response.” Otherwise, they could have just voted not to hear it.
Supreme Court Justices are absolutely immune from suit for their official acts and decisions. All judges are. The remedy to a bad call by a judge is an appeal, not a collateral lawsuit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_immunity
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collateral_attack
The underlying case was dismissed on the papers by a district judge. It had no chance at trial and even less chance on appeal.
Crank lawyers will file this shit anyway, because they’ve got no real dog in the fight. It isn’t as though they expect to win, much less to collect, and their sucker clients are footing the bill so what do they care?
Other plaintiffs named in the suit include the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, President Joe Biden, California Governor Gavin Newsom, actors George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, Tesla Founder Elon Musk, singer Britney Spears and media expert Norah O’Donnell.
A pure shotgun blast of nonsense. It was a desperate grab for attention and, hey, I guess you got your article in Newsweek, so it succeeded. Hope it was worth whatever you paid.
You’re right except I don’t think this dude was looking for attention. I’ve seen these people around the courts. People with hundreds of civil lawsuits. People filing lawsuits with a straight face for trillions of dollars. I don’t think this dude has a lawyer, these types are usually pro se.
When you sit there reading the law over and over it’s like when you read a word over and over, and you might start to think it means something other than what it does. I think this dude is detached from reality to begin with when he reads these statutes and constitutions and whatnot, and then just strings a bunch of nonsense together. It’s like one of those people who think a group of people is following them and controlling their lives, and this dude just latched onto filing legal papers as an outlet for his crazy.
I agree though, where there’s a will, there’s lawyer who will draft the papers. I will argue that the other lawyer’s socks clash with his tie if that’s what you want and you pay my hourly rate.
I don’t think this dude has a lawyer, these types are usually pro se.
In that case, I’m impressed he figured out how to manage a filing that made it all the way to the top court. Pro se cases get tossed in droves, simply because of the bureaucratic hurdles.
