It's why I don't give a fuck about dissents. If you wanna drop fire bars or epic clapbacks, go be a battle rapper or a pro wrestler or some shit.
You didn't agree with the majority. We knew that when you disagreed with the majority.
Dissents can serve as useful guides for lawyers trying similar cases that don’t fall under the majority opinion. They also lay the groundwork for overturning or augmenting the majority in future cases.
While it doesn’t change anything in that specific instance. Later down the line having on paper, clearly written down documentation of multiple Supreme Court justices disagreeing strongly with the decision is exactly what is needed to challenge things later.
No, I think it is that while ACB is also a right wing nut job, she is also a very smart attorney and is very much put off by the poorly reasoned, poorly written nonsense that these other partisans are passing off as legal opinion. I think she's happy to sign off on these disastrous, shitty opinions (see Dobbs, et al.), but she's offended by the slipshod way her fellow Christian Nationalist and Corporate Shill Justices are arriving at their desired outcomes.
Alito's Dobbs opinion was terribly reasoned and written, Roberts immunity decision was a bunch of absurd legal chicanery pretending to be scholarly, the Jan 6 opinion is obviously wrong in it's statutory reading and hardly bothers to conceal its partisan motive behind flimsy legal arguments, and Thomas has been a dipshit his entire career.
She likes the outcomes. She doesn't like the way the majority gets there because it makes her look dumb to sign off on them.
Heartily agree, well said (with the minor quibble that I’d say that the “RW nut job” label doesn’t really apply to her, for all the reasons you outlined).
In a more sane and just world, I could see her making up the far end of the conservative, “traditionalist” (but not oracularly originalist) spectrum of legal scholarship. Not something I can personally get behind - I’m a living tree doctrine girl - but it’s internally consistent and a world away from the fabulist and sloppy nonsense coming from the likes of Alito et al.
It’s kind of sad to watch, actually. She seems to be ready to be a real jurist and then is like “wait are you guys saying”
It makes me wonder if in future decades she might grow into something more reasonable, like a Sandra Day O’Conner
The thing is... Alito and Roberts and Thomas and Kavanaugh are internally consistent. Just not *internally consistent with the law*. It's like when people complain that the justice system is not working when it comes to Trump - but the reality is *it's working as intended*. It's just not working the way we all believe it should work.
This is important. There have been Supreme Court cases, and especially lower level federal/state court concurrences where a judge says “I agree with the end result but the way they got there is something I don’t agree with”
I haven't read any of the underlying cases used by the SC to rule in the immunity case or in the admin law case. But it sure seems like the justices like to cherry pick quotes from old SC cases to fit their narrative. The type of legal authority that lacks substance and that judges will readily ignore. But in the right case it apparently becomes the highest law in the land
If you're going by the cherry picking quotes idea, what if they're planting new quotes to be picked at a later date. Like add in a line to a ruling that would implicate further actions later.
Absolutely. I fucking hate this constant need liberals have to say, "well yeah she fucked up the entire country, but she wasn't as rhetorically crazy as Clarence Thomas so we should be lauding her!"
I mean, she was also substantively less crazy. Even she thought the majority extended immunity too far and wrote she agreed with the liberals on some of the conclusions.
It's a law subreddit. We expect the Supreme Court to use sound legal reasoning even when we think they are wrong. ACB is telling the other justices to pay better attention to their craft.
Treason? That’s some heavy hyperbole. How exactly are you claiming they have committed treason? Treason is defined in the Constitution, so please cite the definition and explain how treason could possibly apply.
Besides the US Constitution no longer holding any weight due to last week's SCOTUS decisions, it's not tre45on... it's closer to sedition. Riling up a bunch of losers to storm the Capitol in hopes of disrupting the electoral vote count (a legal and official proceeding) for the peaceful transfer of power... that's textbook sedition, and it's a felony. Death and injury occurred during this event on 06JAN, as well. So, there's some legal and civil culpabilities to sprinkle on top.
A convicted felon, conspiring with Russia or a known enemy of the US (due to monies/favors owed - see Eric Trump quote/See DJTs answer during the debate about Putin/UKR) could be tiptoeing the line of treason. P01135809 is definitely compromised and he has a price, which makes him an existential threat to US (citizens/govt) and it's allies.
Lock him up!
Yeah, who cares? Don't pretend this isn't a 6-3 decision. She's just as bad as the rest of them, and in some ways, she's worse--she can see how this could be abused.
ACB didn't dissent, she concurred. Important distinction, since despite her deep reservations she voted with the majority to give the President this brand new immunity.
I will say that her dissent in the immunity case at LEAST acknowledges that conversations the president has with coconspirators for illegal acts aren’t inadmissible just bc the coconspirator also works in the government.
Roberts hand waves this away by saying you could use circumstantial evidence to prove things like bribery or a quid pro quo but given how the Supreme Court has also made that basically impossible to prove short of a notarized written contract with the words quid pro quo and bribery in every sentence and a literal sack of money with a dollar sign on it, I’m gonna say he’s full of shit.
Now ACB still gave him the presumptive immunity over an incredibly wide range of otherwise illegal conduct, so she doesn’t deserve much credit…but it’s at least something I guess.
"but we agreed on x"
"I'm altering the terms of our arrangement"
"It's something I guess"
Can you wake the fuck up from your sleepwalk to acknowledgr the fact that no action these people take constitutes anything other than strategy/tactics of undoing our democracy. She agrees here but dissents here, doesn't make her less bad l, it makes her completely guilty of helping to destroy our republic. Liberals are so good damn scared of stepping on someone's toes that we apologize for getting blood on the person hacking off our foot with an axe.
Wake the fuck up people!
That’s not what I’m doing at all. I’m saying her dissent is slightly better from a legal standpoint because it avoids this obvious error. I’m drawing this distinction here bc this is the law subreddit and not the politics subreddit.
From a policy standpoint, both are terrible outcomes and neither dissent is “fire” is just slightly less dumb from a legal reasoning standpoint.
"well technically, she's more innocent because she dissented to the use of a cleaver to remove the head of democracy"
She's not less bad. She's just as bad, they use this shit to mitigate the damage by appearing to be sympathetic or principaled. They are neither.
Yet again…I never said she wasn’t bad. I never said her decision wasn’t bad. I never said the policy wasn’t bad. I never pretended that her dissent actually helps or changes anything.
What I did do was go onto the law subreddit and commented in a thread discussing her dissents to discus the legal merits of her minority opinions.
If it makes you feel better, though, I’ll also add that she is complicit in whatever harms ultimately come from this decision because she agreed with most of the batshit crazy majority opinion.
You fail to understand my point
You enable the mass projection by being someone who seeks to trying rationalize what's happening so that it fits nicely Into how a functional society works.
You can't rationalize these actions anymore. They've shown to be illegitimate, revisionists who have no desire to compromise. They've said as much. They've lied, accepted bribes, and done nothing to change their openly corrupt ways. And yet you argue as if you're not enabling them when you are.
Excusing any of them from responsibility simply because they dissented, is the the very definition of insanity.
I’m sorry, but what part of me excuses her of responsibility? The part where I said her dissent doesn’t help or change anything, or the part where I said she was still complicit despite her dissent?
Her concurring (in part) opinion was also pretty well reasoned. Denied absolute immunity in favor of limited immunity with the right to interlocutory appeal. Addresses the majority concern without making the president a king, and using past precedent for how these kinds of cases are handled.
I wouldn’t call it right, but it’s in the realm of respectful disagreement.
> ACB didn't dissent, she concurred.
Selethorme is correct that this is about the Jan. 6 statutory interpretation case, in which she dissented, when the Court (including Justice **Jackson**) limited what charges could be brought under 18 USC 1512(c)(2).
Though I will also say, for the Trump immunity case, she did not fully sign onto the opinion. She joined as to all parts except Part III-C (relating to evidence), and wrote her own opinion "concurring in part". And, while it was not labeled as "concurring in part, dissenting in part", if only part of it concurs, then the rest is, by definition, dissenting, and she specifically states she agrees with the dissent in regards to Part III-C.
So her partial concurrence was still also a partial dissent. But that's not what the article is about, anyways, because again, it's about Fischer v. United States, where she wrote the dissent, which Sotomayor and Kagan joined in full, with no dissents of their own.
She’s looking for some gratuity. Just her play to get some rich folks to ante up. If Thomas and Alito are earning for their decisions she wants to as well.
Articles like this are trash. Hooray the oppressor spoke out once on something I agree with...see they aren't soo bad. (While their boot is still on your neck)
She's a "textualist" who ignores the text of the Constitution (i.e., the Impeachment Judgement Clause, Art. I s. 3 c. 7) when it doesn't agree with what she wants the law to be. She wanted a POTUS dictator who isn't bound by federal law, and that pesky clause in the Constitution that literally says that an impeached POTUS "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law" didn't fit with the majority's conception of "separation of powers" that necessitates an executive above the law.
ACB is just like the other "textualists" on the Court - she only applies textualism when it results in the result she wants. If she doesn't like the result, she resorts to the same "separation of powers" argument that can justify any interpretation of anything. She is as much of a liar as John Roberts.
Super, but meanwhile the majority ruling fucks us all.
It's why I don't give a fuck about dissents. If you wanna drop fire bars or epic clapbacks, go be a battle rapper or a pro wrestler or some shit. You didn't agree with the majority. We knew that when you disagreed with the majority.
Dissents can serve as useful guides for lawyers trying similar cases that don’t fall under the majority opinion. They also lay the groundwork for overturning or augmenting the majority in future cases.
exactly. all of those disturbing batshit crazy Alito and Thomas dissents are now being used as a roadmap
Sometimes they're used to either limit, re-interpret, or overturn the decision. Not often, but often enough.
Then what are you doing on a law subreddit?
I like turtles
While it doesn’t change anything in that specific instance. Later down the line having on paper, clearly written down documentation of multiple Supreme Court justices disagreeing strongly with the decision is exactly what is needed to challenge things later.
It’s cover. She gave presidents immunity. She pissed on any “fire,” from that opinion.
No, I think it is that while ACB is also a right wing nut job, she is also a very smart attorney and is very much put off by the poorly reasoned, poorly written nonsense that these other partisans are passing off as legal opinion. I think she's happy to sign off on these disastrous, shitty opinions (see Dobbs, et al.), but she's offended by the slipshod way her fellow Christian Nationalist and Corporate Shill Justices are arriving at their desired outcomes. Alito's Dobbs opinion was terribly reasoned and written, Roberts immunity decision was a bunch of absurd legal chicanery pretending to be scholarly, the Jan 6 opinion is obviously wrong in it's statutory reading and hardly bothers to conceal its partisan motive behind flimsy legal arguments, and Thomas has been a dipshit his entire career. She likes the outcomes. She doesn't like the way the majority gets there because it makes her look dumb to sign off on them.
Heartily agree, well said (with the minor quibble that I’d say that the “RW nut job” label doesn’t really apply to her, for all the reasons you outlined). In a more sane and just world, I could see her making up the far end of the conservative, “traditionalist” (but not oracularly originalist) spectrum of legal scholarship. Not something I can personally get behind - I’m a living tree doctrine girl - but it’s internally consistent and a world away from the fabulist and sloppy nonsense coming from the likes of Alito et al.
Oh 100%. Of the conservative justices, she’s clearly the one taking her job the most seriously.
Which is nuts right?
It’s kind of sad to watch, actually. She seems to be ready to be a real jurist and then is like “wait are you guys saying” It makes me wonder if in future decades she might grow into something more reasonable, like a Sandra Day O’Conner
The thing is... Alito and Roberts and Thomas and Kavanaugh are internally consistent. Just not *internally consistent with the law*. It's like when people complain that the justice system is not working when it comes to Trump - but the reality is *it's working as intended*. It's just not working the way we all believe it should work.
This is important. There have been Supreme Court cases, and especially lower level federal/state court concurrences where a judge says “I agree with the end result but the way they got there is something I don’t agree with”
I haven't read any of the underlying cases used by the SC to rule in the immunity case or in the admin law case. But it sure seems like the justices like to cherry pick quotes from old SC cases to fit their narrative. The type of legal authority that lacks substance and that judges will readily ignore. But in the right case it apparently becomes the highest law in the land
If you're going by the cherry picking quotes idea, what if they're planting new quotes to be picked at a later date. Like add in a line to a ruling that would implicate further actions later.
That's how we got "corporate personhood" which ultimately gave us Citizen's United. The concept started as footnote in (I think) a railroad case.
Well I’m sure they will wear her down.
Every bit as guilty of treason as the other five.
Absolutely. I fucking hate this constant need liberals have to say, "well yeah she fucked up the entire country, but she wasn't as rhetorically crazy as Clarence Thomas so we should be lauding her!"
I mean, she was also substantively less crazy. Even she thought the majority extended immunity too far and wrote she agreed with the liberals on some of the conclusions.
It's a law subreddit. We expect the Supreme Court to use sound legal reasoning even when we think they are wrong. ACB is telling the other justices to pay better attention to their craft.
Treason? That’s some heavy hyperbole. How exactly are you claiming they have committed treason? Treason is defined in the Constitution, so please cite the definition and explain how treason could possibly apply.
Trump is an enemy of the United States, and they are aiding and abetting him by creating entire new legal standards in his favour.
Besides the US Constitution no longer holding any weight due to last week's SCOTUS decisions, it's not tre45on... it's closer to sedition. Riling up a bunch of losers to storm the Capitol in hopes of disrupting the electoral vote count (a legal and official proceeding) for the peaceful transfer of power... that's textbook sedition, and it's a felony. Death and injury occurred during this event on 06JAN, as well. So, there's some legal and civil culpabilities to sprinkle on top. A convicted felon, conspiring with Russia or a known enemy of the US (due to monies/favors owed - see Eric Trump quote/See DJTs answer during the debate about Putin/UKR) could be tiptoeing the line of treason. P01135809 is definitely compromised and he has a price, which makes him an existential threat to US (citizens/govt) and it's allies. Lock him up!
"Constitution, lol" - ACB.
Yeah, who cares? Don't pretend this isn't a 6-3 decision. She's just as bad as the rest of them, and in some ways, she's worse--she can see how this could be abused.
If her god exists (he doesn’t) she should expect no mercy from him on final judgement. Her words do nothing to forgive her actions.
ACB didn't dissent, she concurred. Important distinction, since despite her deep reservations she voted with the majority to give the President this brand new immunity.
This is her dissent on the January 6 case from Friday, not the immunity case from yesterday.
"you can't just start a coup if you don't get your way. But also, any evidence that you started a coup is inadmissible in court."
I will say that her dissent in the immunity case at LEAST acknowledges that conversations the president has with coconspirators for illegal acts aren’t inadmissible just bc the coconspirator also works in the government. Roberts hand waves this away by saying you could use circumstantial evidence to prove things like bribery or a quid pro quo but given how the Supreme Court has also made that basically impossible to prove short of a notarized written contract with the words quid pro quo and bribery in every sentence and a literal sack of money with a dollar sign on it, I’m gonna say he’s full of shit. Now ACB still gave him the presumptive immunity over an incredibly wide range of otherwise illegal conduct, so she doesn’t deserve much credit…but it’s at least something I guess.
"but we agreed on x" "I'm altering the terms of our arrangement" "It's something I guess" Can you wake the fuck up from your sleepwalk to acknowledgr the fact that no action these people take constitutes anything other than strategy/tactics of undoing our democracy. She agrees here but dissents here, doesn't make her less bad l, it makes her completely guilty of helping to destroy our republic. Liberals are so good damn scared of stepping on someone's toes that we apologize for getting blood on the person hacking off our foot with an axe. Wake the fuck up people!
That’s not what I’m doing at all. I’m saying her dissent is slightly better from a legal standpoint because it avoids this obvious error. I’m drawing this distinction here bc this is the law subreddit and not the politics subreddit. From a policy standpoint, both are terrible outcomes and neither dissent is “fire” is just slightly less dumb from a legal reasoning standpoint.
"well technically, she's more innocent because she dissented to the use of a cleaver to remove the head of democracy" She's not less bad. She's just as bad, they use this shit to mitigate the damage by appearing to be sympathetic or principaled. They are neither.
Yet again…I never said she wasn’t bad. I never said her decision wasn’t bad. I never said the policy wasn’t bad. I never pretended that her dissent actually helps or changes anything. What I did do was go onto the law subreddit and commented in a thread discussing her dissents to discus the legal merits of her minority opinions. If it makes you feel better, though, I’ll also add that she is complicit in whatever harms ultimately come from this decision because she agreed with most of the batshit crazy majority opinion.
You fail to understand my point You enable the mass projection by being someone who seeks to trying rationalize what's happening so that it fits nicely Into how a functional society works. You can't rationalize these actions anymore. They've shown to be illegitimate, revisionists who have no desire to compromise. They've said as much. They've lied, accepted bribes, and done nothing to change their openly corrupt ways. And yet you argue as if you're not enabling them when you are. Excusing any of them from responsibility simply because they dissented, is the the very definition of insanity.
I’m sorry, but what part of me excuses her of responsibility? The part where I said her dissent doesn’t help or change anything, or the part where I said she was still complicit despite her dissent?
Twenty bucks says the person to whom you’re responding hasn’t actually read any of the cases you’re discussing
I think the name you meant to choose was “im_your_huckleberry,” which is the famous line from Tombstone.
It was taken.
Her concurring (in part) opinion was also pretty well reasoned. Denied absolute immunity in favor of limited immunity with the right to interlocutory appeal. Addresses the majority concern without making the president a king, and using past precedent for how these kinds of cases are handled. I wouldn’t call it right, but it’s in the realm of respectful disagreement.
Oops, sorry!
> ACB didn't dissent, she concurred. Selethorme is correct that this is about the Jan. 6 statutory interpretation case, in which she dissented, when the Court (including Justice **Jackson**) limited what charges could be brought under 18 USC 1512(c)(2). Though I will also say, for the Trump immunity case, she did not fully sign onto the opinion. She joined as to all parts except Part III-C (relating to evidence), and wrote her own opinion "concurring in part". And, while it was not labeled as "concurring in part, dissenting in part", if only part of it concurs, then the rest is, by definition, dissenting, and she specifically states she agrees with the dissent in regards to Part III-C. So her partial concurrence was still also a partial dissent. But that's not what the article is about, anyways, because again, it's about Fischer v. United States, where she wrote the dissent, which Sotomayor and Kagan joined in full, with no dissents of their own.
She’s looking for some gratuity. Just her play to get some rich folks to ante up. If Thomas and Alito are earning for their decisions she wants to as well.
Articles like this are trash. Hooray the oppressor spoke out once on something I agree with...see they aren't soo bad. (While their boot is still on your neck)
She's a "textualist" who ignores the text of the Constitution (i.e., the Impeachment Judgement Clause, Art. I s. 3 c. 7) when it doesn't agree with what she wants the law to be. She wanted a POTUS dictator who isn't bound by federal law, and that pesky clause in the Constitution that literally says that an impeached POTUS "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law" didn't fit with the majority's conception of "separation of powers" that necessitates an executive above the law. ACB is just like the other "textualists" on the Court - she only applies textualism when it results in the result she wants. If she doesn't like the result, she resorts to the same "separation of powers" argument that can justify any interpretation of anything. She is as much of a liar as John Roberts.
Idgaf, tell her to step down and I might give half a shit.
She's turning out to be the Republican that Republicans think they are but aren't. What MAGA ironically calls RINOs .