It is extraordinarily hard for me to not be cynical about the decisions coming from the Supreme Court. With this and the Voting Rights Act case last week, I can't help but think 1) it's an effort...
It is extraordinarily hard for me to not be cynical about the decisions coming from the Supreme Court.
With this and the Voting Rights Act case last week, I can't help but think 1) it's an effort following the decisions last summer and all of the corruption and scandals this spring to try to appear more principled and just, and 2) there are going to be some absolutely devastating decisions in the next couple weeks and this is just the court trying to put themselves in a positive light before them.
Perhaps, but at least for Neil Gorsuch he has a history of siding with tribal nations/American Indians and respecting their sovereignty. He has consistently sided with the liberal side of the...
Perhaps, but at least for Neil Gorsuch he has a history of siding with tribal nations/American Indians and respecting their sovereignty. He has consistently sided with the liberal side of the Supreme Court multiple times (for a prominent example, see McGirt v Oklahoma). At least for him it's genuine.
The court is nowhere near as hyper partisan as politicians and the media would have you believe. If you look into the history and jurisprudence of each judge, this decision is not surprising at all.
The court is nowhere near as hyper partisan as politicians and the media would have you believe.
If you look into the history and jurisprudence of each judge, this decision is not surprising at all.
Does it really though? At least if they showed their true colors, the much needed (IMO) reform to the SCOTUS appointment system might be more likely to happen.
Does it really though? At least if they showed their true colors, the much needed (IMO) reform to the SCOTUS appointment system might be more likely to happen.
Yeah, I'm generally not a fan of accelerationist arguments either... but I think when it comes to SCOTUS something definitely needs to encourage Congress to finally so something about it. And if...
Yeah, I'm generally not a fan of accelerationist arguments either... but I think when it comes to SCOTUS something definitely needs to encourage Congress to finally so something about it. And if RBG's refusal to retire, and Clarence Thomas' recently surfaced ethics issues haven't been sufficient to push them into finally doing something, then I don't know what will, other than something ever more drastic and blatant like an accelerationism path. :/
The Supreme Court on Thursday preserved the system that gives preference to Native American families in foster care and adoption proceedings of Native children, rejecting a broad attack from Republican-led states and white families who argued it is based on race.
It is extraordinarily hard for me to not be cynical about the decisions coming from the Supreme Court.
With this and the Voting Rights Act case last week, I can't help but think 1) it's an effort following the decisions last summer and all of the corruption and scandals this spring to try to appear more principled and just, and 2) there are going to be some absolutely devastating decisions in the next couple weeks and this is just the court trying to put themselves in a positive light before them.
Perhaps, but at least for Neil Gorsuch he has a history of siding with tribal nations/American Indians and respecting their sovereignty. He has consistently sided with the liberal side of the Supreme Court multiple times (for a prominent example, see McGirt v Oklahoma). At least for him it's genuine.
The court is nowhere near as hyper partisan as politicians and the media would have you believe.
If you look into the history and jurisprudence of each judge, this decision is not surprising at all.
I think we should be happy that the Supreme Court wishes to appear principled and just. It beats the alternative.
Does it really though? At least if they showed their true colors, the much needed (IMO) reform to the SCOTUS appointment system might be more likely to happen.
Well, maybe, but Congress doesn't seem up to the job, so I don't think an "accelerationist" argument works all that well in this case.
Yeah, I'm generally not a fan of accelerationist arguments either... but I think when it comes to SCOTUS something definitely needs to encourage Congress to finally so something about it. And if RBG's refusal to retire, and Clarence Thomas' recently surfaced ethics issues haven't been sufficient to push them into finally doing something, then I don't know what will, other than something ever more drastic and blatant like an accelerationism path. :/