Actually I would have said that the worst SCOTUS since Dredd Scott was Trump v USA and/or Plessy v Ferguson, closely followed by Citizens United, Shelby County, and Heller.
In some very important ways they are all related by a single thread, descendants of Dredd Scott.
I don’t see how that impacts my statement. All of those cases ended up improving the situation of one element of our society at the expense of other elements.
Yes, the comparison to Roger Taney is valid, but the sin is not Alito's banning of racially drawn voting districts, which are obviously wrong, but rather the presidential immunity decision.
The Supreme Court is at sea without a paddle. We demand it do something, supervise the constitution, it is poorly equipped to do. Time to look for an alternative.
Stop criticizing and start coming up with good IDEAS for the future. Democrats USED to have good ideas...like....workers' rights, social security for working people, infrastructure projects under the New Deal, civil rights laws, Medicare for retirees, paid overtime, minimum wage, collective bargaining, the GI bill (educational and housing benefits for veterans), using farmer's excess foods for school food programs. Trump is crazy, but he has an idea (albeit, bizarre) a minute! DEMOCRATS NEED IDEAS...NOT CRITICISMS.
Stay in your lane, which is political gossip. Unless you've been reading Supreme Court cases for decades, you have zero idea what the Supreme Court has done or is doing, or why. Carville on this is jusyt a dumb guy in a bar, mouthing off political buzzwords. A really unimpressive writeup.
Actually I would have said that the worst SCOTUS since Dredd Scott was Trump v USA and/or Plessy v Ferguson, closely followed by Citizens United, Shelby County, and Heller.
In some very important ways they are all related by a single thread, descendants of Dredd Scott.
Oh? Have you actually read the cases? OR read Dred Scott? Or did you just watch someone on TV who hasn't read them either?
Having taught American history for over 40 years, I’d suggest that it is not myself who hasn’t read them or understood their implications.
I don't teach, I just practiced appellate law for 30 years and read a few hundred Supreme Court cases.
I don’t see how that impacts my statement. All of those cases ended up improving the situation of one element of our society at the expense of other elements.
Totally agree. This court’s decisions have been as far from the thoughtful court decisions expected at this level.
Yes, the comparison to Roger Taney is valid, but the sin is not Alito's banning of racially drawn voting districts, which are obviously wrong, but rather the presidential immunity decision.
The Supreme Court is at sea without a paddle. We demand it do something, supervise the constitution, it is poorly equipped to do. Time to look for an alternative.
Stop criticizing and start coming up with good IDEAS for the future. Democrats USED to have good ideas...like....workers' rights, social security for working people, infrastructure projects under the New Deal, civil rights laws, Medicare for retirees, paid overtime, minimum wage, collective bargaining, the GI bill (educational and housing benefits for veterans), using farmer's excess foods for school food programs. Trump is crazy, but he has an idea (albeit, bizarre) a minute! DEMOCRATS NEED IDEAS...NOT CRITICISMS.
Stay in your lane, which is political gossip. Unless you've been reading Supreme Court cases for decades, you have zero idea what the Supreme Court has done or is doing, or why. Carville on this is jusyt a dumb guy in a bar, mouthing off political buzzwords. A really unimpressive writeup.