Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bess Hambleton's avatar

Great update, thank you!

Also must add, as a law nerd, this kind of "observation" really grinds my gears: '“The case was notable because it created unusual alliances,” the New York Times points out.' Of course it's true that there are real ideological divisions in the Supreme Court. But it's a gross oversimplification to assume those divisions will always overtly apply to the decision of any given case, or that ideology necessarily drives legal analysis toward one result or the other. This particular case is a great example. (And, side note, it's downright laughable that any justice would feel personally beholden to side with the president who appointed them. The justices generally have an excellent grasp of separation of powers, and they know that their tenure will outlast the president as long as they are in good health and choose to stick around. You might be able to court favor with a justice, *cough Thomas cough*, but they're damn hard to bully.)

Expand full comment
Douglas's avatar

I greatly appreciate these updates simply because beneath all the shouting softer, adult voices are getting things done.

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts