#Justice amy Coney Barrett | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dontmean2bepoliticalbut · 2 years

Text

1K notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 8 months

Text

By Chris Williams

New Yorkers are known for having a temper. Some blame it on the traffic and dirty water hog dogs. Personally? I blame it on the cost of living. If you compare the value of $20 in 1970 New York to $20 in the Big Apple now, the cost of living has gone up a whopping 677.46%. A big part of that increase has been housing. Back in 2012, a man ran an entire campaign premised on the rent being too damned high. But, man, if you thought New Yorkers were pissed about rent prices back then… wait until they really can’t afford rent.

Before we even get to the obvious ethical issues involved with Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito sitting on this case despite receiving lavish gifts from landowners with a vested interest in this matter, it is worth taking a second to reflect on the Supreme Court’s drift from just a decade ago.

It would still be newsworthy if the Court decides to even hear the case. A little over a decade ago, James Harmon tried to bring a very similar case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the New York’s rent stabilization law constituted a taking. The Court ultimately decided against hearing Harmon’s case. With that in mind, read an assessment given based on that case a decade ago in The Tenant:

“If the Supreme Court chooses to consider the Harmons’ lawsuit, it would mean that four Justices—presumably Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito—believe there is a valid argument for a radical expansion of property rights, that destroying legal protections for tenants is as much an idea whose time has come as abolishing racial segregation was in 1954.”

It can be startling to see how quickly opinions on the judiciary can change. In framing the above quote, the author brought up the importance of precedent, citing cases like Roe, Brown, and Lawrence v. Texas. The thinking at the time was that even if the Court wasn’t the biggest fan of a given outcome, it’d respect the decisions of the jurists before them. Clearly written before Dobbs and Sackett, but the rest ages pretty well.

Now we’ve subbed Gorsuch into that foursome that couldn’t come together… and added Kavanaugh and Barrett.

The YOLO Court era has arrived. Because who’s to stop them?

If the Court gets rid of rent control, it is hard to understate the significance it would have on the lives of New Yorkers. From Lever News:

“Samuel Stein, a housing policy analyst at the Community Service Society, an anti-poverty organization in New York, said if the Supreme Court were to overturn the rent stabilization law, ‘It’s the end of New York City.’

‘Rents would go up significantly around the city,’ he continued. ‘There will be a tremendous amount of displacement. You will have a lot of people leaving New York City, you will have a lot of homelessness, you’ll have a lot of overcrowding.’”

There was a point in time you could rely on the Court to respect stare decisis. Dobbs and Bruen show that’s no longer the case. If ever a Court was willing to get rid of the 50+ years of rent control, it would be the Roberts court.

We should find out if they will hear the case by the end of September.

93 notes · View notes

canadianabroadvery · 10 months

Text

#us supreme court corruption #Justice Amy Coney Barrett #ethics

5 notes · View notes

cyarskj1899 · 8 months

Text

4 notes · View notes

odinsblog · 2 years

Text

It’s nothing less than BIG government, forced birthing. This is evil and draconian. People argue that America is already a late stage capitalist oligarchy, but if SCOTUS repeals Roe, it will be remembered as the turning point when America actually turned the corner and really became a fully Christofascist state—because conservatives won’t stop at overturning Roe v. Wade. The leak included references to to the landmark Loving and Obergefell cases.

“According to Alito's reasoning, Roe was "remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text." Alito notes that Roe rests not on any single constitutional provision, but on five: the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and 14th Amendments.”

Please recognize this for what it is. A complete grab for control by an illegitimate rightwing court.

SN: Please, do not add any #VBNMW fuckery to this post—that kind of blind sycophancy is exactly how we ended up with misogynistic anti-abortionists like Clarence Thomas, Joe Manchin, Henry Cuellar, Dan Lipinski, and too many others.

#politics #amy coney barrett #the handmaids tale #republicans #roe v wade #abortion #forced birth #reproductive rights #reproductive justice #healthcare #womens rights #womens health #womanism #feminism

900 notes · View notes

gloomyhallway · 8 months

Text

thinking abt making art so here is one of my favourite things i have ever made !!

she's about religion (particularly christianity cause that's what's prominent in my neck of the woods) as a tool of oppression and the little coloured triangles are all cellophane so she glitters in the sun like a stained glass window :D

#quote is attributed to US supreme court justice amy coney barrett btw #my art #collage

10 notes · View notes

angry-gryphon · 2 years

Text

The issue with America is that, since it's founding, it has been institutionally messed up. From the writings of the constitution, 200 years on.

You can't expect a codified and entrenched document written by a few rich, white, cis-gendered, heterosexual men, of whom were also colonisers, to really consider any human beings besides those within their class and social demographic.

From the get-go, it started wrong. In it's initial writing, slaves were only ⅗ of a person, and only 7% of the population is considered. Women weren't even included in it.

Not only that, they only had around 13 states when shaping that document, now it's 50 - they had no concept of globalisation as it stands today, with guns that can fire 10 bullets a second; they had muskets and guns that could fire 1 bullet a minute.

The Supreme Court had so little written about them (1,000 words roughly) that they easily have the most flexibility in power; literally gave themselves the power of Judicial Review when they set the precedent for it. No wonder AOC, a democratically elected official (and woman, minority, and ethical human being), says that limitations should be placed on the power of Judicial Review, created by the unelected body that uses it, which can essentially override any branch of government if the case is brought to them.

It's in my personal belief that the Supreme Court is the most powerful branch of government in the US. And by that, should they really be unelected individuals who can sit in that position for life (or until impeachment and retirement)? Should there not be more consideration for who is elected to it? Justice Jackson, (when she takes her seat), arguably had one of most frustrating Senate hearings of the Justices so far; asking her about critical race theory, what defines a woman, rambling about religion, a very partisan environment with very little said and asked about the actual job, when the only thing her job entails, or should, is specific cases; not a political agenda. She is easily the most qualified to sit on the court, having been in pretty much every legal court she can sit on, yet had some of the most irrelevant questions asked. Meanwhile, Republican Amy C-Barret could falsify an entire constitutional notion (super precedent; literally does not exist) and literally have such poor knowledge of the freedoms granted by the constitution that she didn't even know them all — yet be rushed through in 27 days and still be considered "well qualified" by the ABA (American Bar Association). Incorrect, she didn't even know the freedoms by heart, how is she well qualified to then literally interpret those freedoms case by case? Clearly the very appointment process is in need of work, especially since it is just 9 people determining the rights and law of millions, and some of it's members cannot even remember the basic freedoms.

The only branch that could overpower the SC is Congress, via constitutional amendment, yet they haven't. First, there's only been 27 amendments (2 of which were just about alcohol), and second, who then interprets that? SC. But honestly, do you not agree that the elected branch, particularly the law makers, should be in charge of such a highly political topic such as abortion? The Supreme Court is not meant to be political, yet here we have arguably the most political court to date.

The US has been broken from the start. The Founding Fathers had no concept of how today would look and therefore a document they wrote centuries ago has become fossilised, and the document itself was not perfectly functional, but in a country that salutes the flag in schools and is rife with propaganda, do we really expect it to improve?

If your rights are literally dependent upon whether an unelected judge can look at the words written centuries ago, words written by men who only considered <10% of the population when writing it, do you not think it's a broken system? You literally have to hope that each of those individual judges is nice enough to interpret it liberally enough that they permit your rights by majority.

But even those of a conservative, strict constructionist and originalist approach to the constitution, at least in regards to abortion, are blatantly wrong if they also support owning guns. The original meaning of the 2nd amendment is that the people of a militia have the right to bear arms, of which were basically muskets to protect a regularly invaded country — not every single average citizen with AK-47s. Yet, they support owning guns across the board; but not abortion? Abortion, an interpreted right brought in by a liberal, loose and living interpretation? But they support guns for everyone, which is arguably also a loose approach too, as if they truly interpreted the original words and context to it's writing then that average American should not have a gun, only a militia.

It's all backwards, really. The US system is riddled with so many imperfections that you would truly have to abandon the constitutional system as it is to fix it. Don't even get me started on elections.

I hope, as someone who supports human rights and common sense (one enables the other), that there is some way to legalise abortion across the whole US again; constitutional amendment, re-examining of the Mississippi Case (the recent ruling that abortion is not constitutional and the legality is thus to be determined by the individual states, overruling their previous ruling in Roe v Wade), etc. Some way, some how, I hope you get your rights, and I'm sure there are constitutional loopholes found by experts who may be able to aid in that.

But those same arguments against the constitutionality of abortion can be applied to aspects such as same sex marriage, voting rights, interracial relationships and even segregation. It starts here. It doesn't end here. Justice Thomas already wants to reassess same sex marriage (Obergefell v Hodges) and contraception. Either get a democrat leaning court, constitutional amendment via Congress, or remove the whole system, because that's your only way out.

I really wish common sense...was actually common among people. Or just, like, basic decency and critical thinking skills.

Rant temporarily over.

#usa #us #supreme court #mississippi case #roe v wade #constitution #congress #same sex marriage #supreme court justices #amy coney barrett #justice thomas #aoc #I don't hate the USA - I just wish that it made sense #women's rights #human rights #women's rights are human rights #sorry for any typos #im half asleep #and tired

13 notes · View notes

kyova · 2 years

Text

THEY LIED.

#roe v wade #abortion #justice kavanaugh #amy coney barrett

6 notes · View notes

william-r-melich · 1 month

Text

Shame on the Appeals Court - 03/20/2024

Late yesterday, the 5th Circuit Federal Appeals Court blocked Texas with a temporary injunction from enforcing their SB4 law which would allow Texas to arrest and deport migrants who enter their state illegally. Earlier yesterday, the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) issued an emergency appeal to remove a previous stay that was blocking SB4, a huge win for Texas. I didn't know that a Supreme Court appeal could be blocked by a lower Federal Court of Appeals, and they did so in the same day, crazy. So, Texas went from celebrating a victory for border security, to going back to being angrily frustrated at not being able to stop the stampede of illegal crossings. The 5ht circuit is entertaining arguments today on whether to stay the injunction, pending the outcome of an appeal at the SCOTUS.

“A majority of the panel has concluded that the administrative stay entered by a motions panel on March 2, 2024, should be lifted,” the unsigned order by the court reads. Yesterday, on March 19th, circuit judge Andrew Oldman disagreed: “I would leave that stay in place pending tomorrow’s oral argument on the question.” That was just hours after the SCOTUS had rejected an emergency request from the Biden jackasses to look at the administrative stay directed by the 5th Circuit's prior panel. The DOJ's (Department of Justice) stance on the law is that it violates the Constitution's Supremacy Clause which declares that states do not have the right to enforce immigration laws.

As per usual with emergency appeals, the Supreme Court did not give a reason for issuing their order. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amey Coney Barrett issued aligning opinions. Barrett wrote on regarding actions of the high court: “never reviewed the decision of a court of appeals to enter—or not enter—an administrative stay.” She continued, that it is “unwise to invite emergency litigation in this Court about whether a court of appeals abused its discretion at this preliminary step.”

Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson had dissenting opinions. Sotomayor said the order “invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement.” She went on to write that the law “upends the federal-state balance of power that has existed for over a century, in which the National Government has had exclusive authority over entry and removal of noncitizens.” - I say, bullstit! States have always had the legal right and shared responsibility for protecting their sovereignty. Yesterday, the Mexican government said that it will not accept any illegal migrants coming back to them no matter what. They said that anyone deported who is not a Mexican citizen does not have to be accepted by them.

All governor Abbott wants to do is to enforce the laws to keep his state safe and secure, and the Biden commies are doing everything they can to impede that. It's disgusting! Will this nightmare ever end? I sure hope so.

0 notes

dontmean2bepoliticalbut · 2 years

Text

274 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 11 days

Text

The Supreme Court on Monday said Idaho can enforce a law banning gender transition care for minors, stepping into the debate over an issue that has divided lower courts.

The court did so over the objections of the three liberal justices.

It’s the first case about restrictions on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender people under age 18 that the court has acted on. But it does not get to the underlying legal questions of the ban itself, an issue that has divided lower federal courts and is part of a wave of conservative legislation and litigation aimed at transgender Americans.

Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson, writing for herself and Justice Sonya Sotomayor, criticized the majority for granting Idaho’s request through its “emergency” route, rather than letting it proceed through the regular channels.

“This Court is not compelled to rise and respond every time an applicant rushes to us with an alleged emergency, and it is especially important for us to refrain from doing so in novel, highly charged, and unsettled circumstances,” Jackson wrote.

But Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, said the district court went further than it should have when it blocked the state from enforcing any aspect of the law while it’s being litigated. That decision threatened to suspend the law indefinitely because it can take years to reach final judgment, Gorsuch wrote.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote his own defense of the majority’s order in a concurrence joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Chief Justice John Roberts did not make his position public.

The court could also decide soon whether it will review such bans in Tennessee and Kentucky. That election-year decision would come as transgender issues have become an increasingly potent political issue.

Passed last year, Idaho’s law is being challenged by the families of two transgender teenagers.

After lower courts temporarily blocked enforcement, Idaho asked the Supreme Court to let it go into effect with an exception carved out for the challengers.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the two Idaho families, said that option won't protect the teenagers as medical providers won't want to risk triggering a law that could put them behind bars for a decade. Also, the teens would have to give up their anonymity.

AN 'AWFUL RESULT FOR TRANSGENDER YOUTH'

The ACLU called the Supreme Court's decision an "awful result for transgender youth and their families across the state."

"Today's ruling allows the state to shut down the care that thousands of families rely on while sowing further confusion and disruption," the group said in a statement.

Praising the court's decision, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said the law ensures minors will not be subjected to life-altering drugs and procedures.

"Denying the basic truth that boys and girls are biologically different hurts our kids," he said in a statement.

Filed as an emergency request, Idaho’s appeal to the high court is a prelude to the larger pending issue: Whether the justices will uphold such bans, which have proliferated in recent years.

KENTUCKY, TENNESSEE TRANSGENDER CASES MAY COME NEXT

Families of transgender children have asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling by the Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit allowing Kentucky and Tennessee to ban gender-affirming medical care for minors.

The Justice Department has weighed in on the side of the families, telling the court that its input is “urgently needed” to definitively resolve whether the bans are discriminatory.

“These laws, and the conflicting court decisions about their validity, are creating profound uncertainty for transgender adolescents and their families around the nation,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in a filing.

The court could announce as early as this month if they will hear the appeals.

Combined with other state actions to restrict the bathrooms transgender students can use and what sports teams they can join, the laws are expected to be a major issue in this year’s elections.

TRUMP SAYS HE WILL PUSH TO BAN GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE FOR MINORS

Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, has said he will press Congress to pass a law banning gender-affirming care for minors and will cut federal funding for schools pushing “transgender insanity” if he returns to the White House.

President Joe Biden has boasted about steps he’s taken to strengthen the rights of “transgender and all LGBTQI+ Americans.”

The issue has gained prominence with startling speed, despite the tiny fraction of Americans who are transgender.

Since 2022, the number of states taking steps to limit access to gender-affirming care for minors has grown from four to 23, according to the nonpartisan health research organization KFF. Restrictions were fully in effect in 17 states as of January.

That’s despite the fact that most major medical groups support youth access to gender-affirming care.

The American Medical Association has called the state bans a “dangerous intrusion of government into the practice of medicine and the criminalization of health care decision-making.”

“Gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based care that improves the physical and mental health of transgender and gender-diverse people,” Dr. Michael Suk, a member of the AMA board, said when the group reinforced its opposition to state bans in 2021.

DEPRESSION, ANXIETY AND SELF-HARM

One of the transgender teenage girls challenging Idaho’s law suffered from depression, anxiety and self-harm before starting gender-affirming medical care, according to filings. The mental health of the other teen likewise deteriorated as puberty began.

Their parents have told the courts they’re terrified about the impact on their daughters’ health and lives if they can’t continue treatment.

Labrador, Idaho's attorney general, argued the law is needed to protect “vulnerable children” from what he called “risky and dangerous medical procedures.”

“Idaho should be able to protect children from experimental medical procedures that cause irreversible and life-long harms,” Labrador wrote in his appeal to the Supreme Court.

Originally scheduled to go into effect in January, Idaho's law was temporarily blocked by a district court judge in Idaho while it’s being litigated. The San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision in January.

Despite the litigation swirling around transgender minors, the Supreme Court has largely been silent on the issue. In April, the high court sided with a 12-year-old transgender girl who was challenging a West Virginia ban on transgender athletes joining girls sports teams, temporarily blocking the state from enforcing the prohibition. The ruling came on the court's emergency docket and did not resolve the underlying questions in the case.

In January, the Supreme Court declined to decide whether schools can bar transgender students from using a bathroom that reflects their gender identity, leaving in place a lower court ruling that allowed a transgender middle school boy in Indiana to use the boys' bathroom.

9 notes · View notes

rabbits-of-negative-euphoria · 1 year

Text

personal beliefs are not a reason for recusal. judges hold beliefs. get over it.

#- HK #Amy Coney Barrett #303 Creative vs. Elenis #mobile #respublica #justice system #x

90 notes · View notes

cyarskj1899 · 8 months

Text

2 notes · View notes

wilwheaton · 19 hours

Quote

The conservative justices had an opportunity to rally to the defense of democracy, to gird the system against further attack, to righteously defend the rule of law, and to protect its own prerogatives and powers against a wannabe tyrant who is counting on them to be his supplicants. They could have drawn a sharp line. They could have summoned indignation and outrage. They could have overlooked their partisan priors in favor of principle – or more cravenly in favor of self-preservation. With the possible and limited exception of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, they did none of that. They failed in the worst possible way at the most crucial time.

Rogue SCOTUS Abandons Democracy In Her Hour Of Greatest Need

Say this with me: This SCOTUS majority is not an impartial arbiter of law. This SCOTUS majority has no respect for precedent, the will of the people, or its fundamental role in government.

This SCOTUS majority is doing through force what the other members of their movement could not achieve through elections: change laws to take equality and freedoms away from as many people as possible, to completely remake America into something we don’t recognize.

Donald Trump and his cult are the greatest threat America has ever faced in its history, with this corrupt, venal, activist group of unelected liars (and at least two rapists) enabling him.

Democrats absolutely have to expand the court and begin an impeachment inquiry into Thomas and Kavanaugh the instant they have congressional majorities.

I don’t think it’s too late, but it’s about five seconds away from being too late. If Congress doesn’t act hard and fast, these seven people will turn America over to corporations and megachurches.

We have to stop this, and the only way we have any chance at all is to turn out in massive numbers this November to overwhelmingly defeat the people who will put Project 2025 into action.

#uspol #scotus

392 notes · View notes

odinsblog · 2 years

Text

They all lied, and contrary to what they are now claiming, Susan Collins and Joe Manchin were not “fooled” by their lies. They knew. We all knew.

The John Roberts Court will go down in history as one of thee most corrupt, regressive, depraved, illegitimate, Christofascist courts in American history, and that’s no easy feat.

👉🏿 https://www.thedailybeast.com/on-roe-are-joe-manchin-and-susan-collins-stupid-or-do-they-just-think-we-are

👉🏿 https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings

639 notes · View notes

notreallyimportant · 2 years

Text

I better not see not na’am person try to blame Kentanji Brown Jackson for what happen on June 24th.

She will not be seated until June 30, 2022 after Justice Breyer retires.

Blame is solely on the following Justices that are still seated:

Amy Coney Barrett

Brett Kavanaugh

Clarence Thomas

Neil Gorsuch

Samuel Alito, Jr.

May Justice Brown Jackson have a blessed day and the five listed forever step in pushpins.

#roe vs. wade #justice kentanji brown jackson #amy coney barrett #brett kavanaugh #samuel alito #neil gorsuch

0 notes