[CFW]

The vote is 6-3, with Alito dissenting joined by Thomas and Gorsuch.

Not good at all. I expressed my doubts about Barrett in an earlier thread.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf

[nonliberal]

Amy Commie Barrett wrote Murthy. Another dodge. The plaintiffs have no legal right to sue.

[DSH]

Not good at all. I expressed my doubts about Barrett in an earlier thread.

From what I've been able to tell, I think Barrett is likely to be a real problem going forward, perhaps even worse than the weirdo egotist, Gorsuch. Not that Barrett is some sort of plant or something. Just that, from what I've seen of, and read by, her, she comes across as something of an estrogen-drenched ditz. Biden has already gotten more out of Jackson, who's got some real Leftist brass to her.

All three of Trump's appointments are shaping up to be real duds. Kavanaugh was a known commodity: a midwit hack. A reliable vote for the favored few. But, at the same time, those types always end up being "statists" in the end, when individual liberty is at stake. Always.

It's all very disappointing. Maybe there isn't any jurist out there who's worth a shi*t nowadays? But 0-3, if that's how it should turn out, suggests something more than "coincidence." "Enemy action" is more like it.

[PghBaldy]

You are right to doubts about her.

[JohnBovenmyer]

Tracy Beanz has been following this case since the beginning. She says this ruling on Missouri v Biden is ONLY about no proof of standing for future harm, hence the overruled temporary injunction. Scotus didn't look at whether there was standing for past harm in suit as a whole, which continues in lower courts. So it's a setback, but not finality. Check out her video and pending posts for for further explanation.