Posted on 04/30/2021 11:06:19 AM PDT by White Lives Matter
You might consider rephrasing, flies and honey vs. vinegar and all that.
I mean come on
You’re lucky if they even read the headline here
Then they are all in.....emphatically
Always been that way
Socratic method is for pussies
Not if it gets in the way of a good rant or scold
Here’s the actual decision:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-863_new_5426.pdf
I read it. As others have stated the reasons why; I agree with the decision. Illegal “rights” being a settled matter; the Court got this one right.
This was a case of lazy, abusive or incompetent .gov in action. Apply the self test to this one - what if they did it to me?
Weird that Thomas and ACB joined the commies, though.
Instead, the dissents came from Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Alito. Clarence Thomas siding with the commie judges on this one was a big WTF moment.
And even weirder, SCOTUS voted 9-0 this same week that illegal aliens being allowed to stay in the USA for safety reasons as endangered refugees does NOT entitle them to apply for green cards to become "permanent residents". How they got the wise latina and butch lezbo Kagan to vote the "right way" on that one, I'll never know.
It's like all the weird coalitions taking place in Israel right now. FReepers rightfully criticizing the otherwise staunchly conservative Naftali Bennett for making deals to include socialist parties and leftists Labor MKs in his government, along with Ra'am and some "Joint List" Arab Parties, unheard of in Israeli politics. But the bloc loyal to Netanyahu who is voting AGAINST the "change coalition" includes the Israeli Communist Party, and Bibi himself is apparently trying to woo "Joint List" on his side (after bashing Bennett for doing so), and they've reported Likud tried to offer even "sweeter deals" than Bennett, but they're not taking the bait.
Politics does indeed make for strange bedfellows.
Wow, what’s up with Thomas on this one?
Sounds like and absurd case that shouldn’t have gotten near the SC.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/elena-kagan-brett-kavanaugh-borden.html
Kagan being a c-word, trolling Kavanaugh for actually talking his job seriously
What could the Supreme Court do with the election? It was a political issue. No way I would touch that. Sucks but that’s the way it works. If we were not happy, we should had protested on November 4th. But we all had jobs to go to and families to support so we couldn’t just drop everything what we were doing and march in the streets.
Interesting. The article goes in depth about the decision and explains what seemed to be bizarre positions at first. Apparently it was really a “4-1-4” decision with no majority, not 5-4 one. Gorsuch again voted to the LEFT of Roberts and agreed with the reasoning of the three commie RAT judges, Thomas wrote his own “concurrence” reaching the same conclusion for different reasons, and Kavanaugh, Alito, Roberts, and Barrett opposed the decision, with Kavanaugh being the ringleader on that and continuing to go back and forth arguing against Kagan’s points:
While the Borden case came out 5–4, there was no majority opinion; Kagan wrote the plurality opinion for herself and three others, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Clarence Thomas, meanwhile, authored a solo opinion concurring in the judgment. Kavanaugh dissented along with the rest of the conservatives. So the decision was really 4–1–4.
Kagan’s and Thomas’ analyses differed, but they ended up in the same place. Kagan wrote that the phrase “use of force,” when combined with the words “against the person of another,” implies intent: An individual must intend to harm someone else, so mere recklessness doesn’t cut it. Thomas wrote that the phrase “use of force,” on its own, denotes intent, which similarly excludes “reckless” crimes from ACCA’s elements clause. Kavanaugh, in dissent, claimed that both Kagan and Thomas got it wrong, insisting that reckless crimes do qualify. This debate can be illustrated with the real-world example of a fleeing shoplifter who jumped from a balcony and unintentionally landed on a woman, seriously injuring her. To Kagan and Thomas, that crime would not count as a “violent felony” under ACCA because the shoplifter did not intend to hurt her victim—she was reckless, not intentionally violent. To Kavanaugh, it would.
Kavanaugh attempted to undermine Kagan and Thomas in several ways, all of which failed. First, he decried the fact that their opinions, combined, created a majority to exclude reckless crimes from ACCA’s scope. He was especially irked that Thomas sided against him, even though Thomas dissented from a previous decision striking down a part of ACCA that would have encompassed reckless crimes. In a lengthy footnote, Kavanaugh tried to depict Borden as Potemkin precedent, its facade concealing internal divisions that rob it of coherence.
Kagan, in response, dismissed Kavanaugh’s complaint as “a complicated counting exercise” apparently meant to show “how unfair it is” that his “view has not prevailed here.” She added that “there is nothing particularly unusual about today’s line-up.”
At one point, Kagan used an extended metaphor comparing Kavanaugh to an amateur magician.
Later, Kagan mocked Kavanaugh for “reprising (if at higher volume) the government’s flawed argument.” She scorned him for “essentially repeating what the government says, though with a distinctively question-begging quality.” In one brutal passage, Kagan even accused Kavanaugh of engaging in “machinations” by rewriting ACCA to mean what he wanted it to say, adding: “Statutory construction does not work that way: A court does not get to delete inconvenient language and insert convenient language to yield the court’s preferred meaning.”
At one point, Kagan used an extended metaphor comparing Kavanaugh to an amateur magician who inadvertently revealed his trick to the audience. Kavanaugh, Kagan explained, “is putting the rabbit in the hat” by adding words that do not appear in ACCA. Her kicker: “We must construe the elements clause as it is—without first inserting the word that will (presto!) produce the dissent’s reading.”
Presto! It’s great writing. (Though I must note that it may be inspired by Justice Antonin Scalia’s joke about the “Supreme Wand,” which was punctuated not with a “Presto!” but a “Poof!”) As satisfying as it may be, however, it feels slightly out of place in an opinion with comparatively low stakes.
Perhaps Kagan was simply having fun and assumed Kavanaugh could roll with the punches. If so, she miscalculated. Kavanaugh’s dissent contains not an iota of humor. He did not take up Kagan’s invitation to spar, as Chief Justice John Roberts often does. Instead, Kavanaugh seemed offended, almost wounded, by Kagan’s rhetoric. His dissent is interminable—longer than Kagan’s and Thomas’ opinions combined—and whiny. Kavanaugh spilled much ink suggesting that Kagan had imperiled the public by allowing lenient sentences for dangerous criminals. He even used the classic ploy of describing, in graphic detail, brutal assaults that no longer qualify as “violent felonies” under ACCA thanks to Borden.
Advertisement
“Today’s decision will have significant real-world consequences,” Kavanaugh huffed, asserting that there will be gruesome “human costs” to Kagan’s “erroneous decision.”
Presumably, while she and Kavanaugh were going back-and-forth behind the scenes, Kagan recognized that her colleague had not taken well to her roasting. She could have toned it down, but instead seems to have amped it up. Her opinion in Borden does not evince deep concern for Kavanaugh’s feelings or respect for his intellect. Like Sotomayor, Kagan sounds as if she is done trying to appease Kavanaugh, to woo him over to her side.
SCOTUS has been REALLY sucking in GENERAL lately (including several disappointing votes by "good conservative" justices like Kavanaugh and Thomas) if you've kept up their rulings lately. This time it was 7-2 to uphold Obamacare, moreso than their original vote to uphold Obamacare. And no matter how much FReepers curse out Roberts and bash Bush for appointing him, it won't change the fact that Trump's guy Gorsuch is to Robert's LEFT and is a Sandra Day O'Connor type justice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.