Mocking is really not proper courtroom decorum. Sorry if that disappoints you.

#26 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

I take it you've never seen an episode of Judge Judy

Any one of the 9 justices could turn in their robes tommorrow and increase their income ten fold in their first year off the bench. The corruption alleged (RV, resort stays, book deals, etc) is a pittance compared to the financial opportunities available to each and every one of them if they chose to step down. For this reason, I believe they are all dedicated jurists not "partisan hacks". If you take the time to read their well reasoned opinions, you may see views that are closely aligned with one party or another, which is likely why they were selected, however, I believe their views are their own convictions, and they are not "owned" by any party or candidate. They have a lifetime appointment, and no need to stay loyal to the President who appointed them.
That's my opinion, buttressed by the well reasoned opinions each of them presents for the court., that most people don't bother to read. I read each one, and I may not always agree with the conclusions they reach, but I have a deep respect for every last one of them.

#29 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

Since you are so learned in the SC and their decisions perhaps you could answer a few questions:

1. Where in the Constitution is the Major Questions Doctrine?
2. Who was the injured party in the student debt case? What was their injury?
3. At what point following Senate hearing did Alito concluded that Roe vs Wade was "egregiously wrong"? What lead him to change his opinion?
4. How was Masterpiece Cakeshop injured when they never had a gay customer request a wedding cake for a gay wedding?
5. How come the Supreme Court had to lie about evidence to justify their decision in Kennedy vs Bremerton School District?
6. Please explain how Originalism does anything but create a second-class citizenry for women and people of color?
7. How come Loving vs Virginia is not problematic vis a vis the 14th Amendment when Obergfell, Lawrence and Griswold are?
8. How come the textualists on the court will overturn the January 6 convictions under Sarbanes-Oxley?
9. Why does the current SC over the past few years seem to be basing most of their decisions on a desired outcome instead of applying stare decises?
10. Why did Thomas seem to cherry pick past decisions in the Bruen case? Where in the Constitution is the concept of History and Tradition when it comes to court rulings?

I predict you won't answer

My prediction was correct.

Any chance you will answer the following simple question:

11. What standing does the plaintiff in the mifepristone case have? Since they do not appear to have standing, how can the SC review their case?

The way the SC is acting is not normal, it is unprecedented. They are legislating from the bench, they are grabbing immense power at the expense of the legislative and executive branches and that is just beginning.

Major questions is NOT a thing.

The court should only be hearing cases where the plaintiffs have standing, otherwise they are legislating!

The SC is legislating a highly unpopular agenda that could never pass congress.

The financial corruption is only part of it.

The SC is enacting a radical, fringe theory of governance not in any way tied to precedence or the wishes of the vast majority of Americans. They are ignoring basic tenets of judicial review.

And they will be in control for at least the next 30 years.

Judge Caprio for the Supreme Court

Do yourself a favor and spend a while in his courtroom. He is enough to restore one's faith in th us justice system

"That's my opinion, buttressed by the well reasoned opinions each of them presents for the court., that most people don't bother to read. I read each one, and I may not always agree with the conclusions they reach, but I have a deep respect for every last one of them."

You tout yourself as an expert on the "well reasoned opinions". I ask you for your proof of said "well reasoned" in the form of 11 questions that would demonstrate an understanding of some of the more well-known decisions from recent years in conjunction with how their "well reasoned" decisions satisfy stare decis, standing, Article III issues.

You are choosing not to.

I can only conclude that you are not an expert on the "well reasoned opinions". So, if you are not an expert (or even a knowledgeable amateur) your conclusion vis a vis whether the decisions are "well reasoned" or not is suspect. I would just like you to admit you were talking out your ass.

Are you sitting in front of your computer 24/7?

I do sit at my computer frequently, the benefit of being semi-retired.

If your intent is to impress the class with your superior knowledge, why don't you simply answer them yourself?

1. Where in the Constitution is the Major Questions Doctrine? It doesn't exist, it is a made up thing that the conservative majority uses to bypass the legislative branch and dictate policy. A blatant, unconstitutional power grab and corrupt.
2. Who was the injured party in the student debt case? What was their injury? There were no injured parties in this case. Therefore, the case should have been thrown out for lack of standing. That is BASIC judicial review. Lacking a party with standing means the court was legislating. That is basic.
3. At what point following Senate hearing did Alito concluded that Roe vs Wade was "egregiously wrong"? What lead him to change his opinion? He committed perjury in his senate hearing.
4. How was Masterpiece Cakeshop injured when they never had a gay customer request a wedding cake for a gay wedding?They were not, thus did not have standing and the case should not have been heard-there was not constitutional controversy to be heard. Since there was no controversy to be heard, what the SC did was legislating not adjudicating.
5. How come the Supreme Court had to lie about evidence to justify their decision in Kennedy vs Bremerton School District?Because they wanted a decision and made up evidence to support their decision-specifically when the court justified their decision on Kennedy's prayers being subtle and quiet, when photographic evidence proved the opposite.
6. Please explain how Originalism does anything but create a second-class citizenry for women and people of color? It is self evident that decisions based on laws passed when women and PoC did not have any rights means their current status is based on them having less power.
7. How come Loving vs Virginia is not problematic vis a vis the 14th Amendment when Obergfell, Lawrence and Griswold are? Because the author of that opinion (Thomas) is married to a white woman and he is African-American.
8. How come the textualists on the court will overturn the January 6 convictions under Sarbanes-Oxley? They will be overturning convictions that for actions that clearly meet the written text of the law, thus they are being hypocritical.
9. Why does the current SC over the past few years seem to be basing most of their decisions on a desired outcome instead of applying stare decises?Because they have a radical partisan agenda that could NEVER be passed legislatively and have stacked the courts to enact it through massive power grabs.
10. Why did Thomas seem to cherry pick past decisions in the Bruen case? Where in the Constitution is the concept of History and Tradition when it comes to court rulings? It isn't in the Constitution, he cherry picked so he could ignore Stare Decisis to reach a foregone conclusion-again power grab and legislating from the bench.
11. What standing does the plaintiff in the mifepristone case have? Since they do not appear to have standing, how can the SC review their case? They don't have standing and the case should have been thrown out based on that. This is yet another example of legislating from the bench, in this case overturning the experts at the FDA who have studied the issue for decades. Overturning based on, well nothing. Again a complete ignoring of judicial process.

See that is someone who has ACTUALLY studied the SC decisions.

Oh and see, I have the balls to answer questions directed to me.

Just saying.

I simply asked you to defend your assertion with specifics.

You choose not to.

"That's my opinion, buttressed by the well reasoned opinions each of them presents for the court., that most people don't bother to read. I read each one, and I may not always agree with the conclusions they reach, but I have a deep respect for every last one of them."

You wrote that, not me.

I am asking you to defend this opinion, because, believe it or not, the SC is a rather important issue at the nonce.

Or you can choose to pretend I am not arguing with YOUR stated opinion.

Truthy has absolutely no respect for the opinions of others, which he deems automatically invalid if they differ from his own. So he moves the goalposts, or in this case, sets up a brand new playing field, introduces 12 different balls and then ask me to chase them. To what end? He won't be satisfied until he forces capitulation.
#58 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

I live in eternal hope that when shown facts that people will change. Very Democratic Party of me unfortunately.

I tend to not be wrong very often, and when I am I admit it.

Because I only comment on issues that I know something about.