SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

Tim Simmons

Alito retiring. 

Bye bitch.

josevolution

Tim Simmons said:

Alito retiring. 

Bye bitch.

Yeah but that means this president gets another pick to install! 

Tim Simmons

Heh. NPR put up the article by mistake. Not retiring. 

Well, yet

gimmesometruth27

Tim Simmons said:

Heh. NPR put up the article by mistake. Not retiring. 

Well, yet

he hasn't done enough damage. he will be back to fuck it all up even worse.

Tim Simmons

Interesting, the NPR article was supposed to go up on Friday.

Tim Simmons

But also, the biggest Ego jack-off, drama queen ass shit, to announce his retirement on the 4th of July. These people are so fucking weird. 

gimmesometruth27

Tim Simmons said:

Interesting, the NPR article was supposed to go up on Friday.

kinda like when the decision to strike down roe v wade got leaked early.

gimmesometruth27

Tim Simmons said:

But also, the biggest Ego jack-off, drama queen ass shit, to announce his retirement on the 4th of July. These people are so fucking weird. 

how long until trump appoints barron to the court?

josevolution

https://share.google/UHDUwGqz0CwYYTZvv

🖕🏽🖕🏽🖕🏽🖕🏽You and the three POS humans behind you. 

mickeyrat

rando adbook post....

As she often does, Justice Jackson takes straight aim at Clarence Thomas in her concurring opinion about birthright citizenship. Without all the fuss that other justices engage in, she takes the fight exactly where it needs to be taken: "Even worse, JUSTICE THOMAS’s telling elides the entire point of the Second Founding: The Reconstruction Amendments were an anticaste, antisubordination reset for the Nation, not a mere spot treatment for the dark stain of slavery."

...

"That bears repeating: Freed Blacks did not advocate for a unique set of rules that catered only to their situation. Nor did they seek to advance their own position relative to, or at the expense and exclusion of, other marginalized groups. Instead, those whose gatherings helped galvanize the push for full equality understood that '[a] diverse origin does not disprove a common nature, nor does it disprove a united destiny.' The firmest foundation for freedom would require an anticaste reset—'both for his sake and for ours'—and would benefit all.

"During his U. S. Senate candidacy, Abraham Lincoln developed a similar vision. In the lead-up to the now-famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln explained that the promise of liberty and equality in the Declaration of Independence 'was held sacred by all, and thought to include all.' Lincoln expressly and intentionally linked the fate of Black Americans and immigrant groups ('among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all' of the Founders), and noted that the Nation’s future hinged on a universal definition of citizenship that excluded neither. He explained that the Declaration’s promise that 'all men are created equal' was the 'electric cord . . . that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together,' regardless of race or descent.

"The case was made. First, there was war. And then, the delegates’ (and Lincoln’s) universalist view of citizenship made its mark on the Constitution."

...

"As I have shown in this opinion, the Fourteenth Amendment is not color-blind; rather, its core principle is that our Nation does not tolerate racial caste—i.e., the systemic subordination that many (even some who opposed slavery) had wished to perpetuate after the Civil War. So, the architects of the Second Founding did not think or pretend that race didn’t matter. Quite to the contrary, they understood that race made an enormous difference to the lived experiences of all concerned—and to the fate of our union. Indeed, it is for that very reason that a radical restructuring was required....

"Putting a finer point on this: When colonizationists objected to changing their norms to accommodate the equal citizenship and rights of freedmen, freed Blacks and their allies organized to push for a Constitution that would bring their own antisubordination vision to fruition. That kind of ambitious transformation—nothing less than the remaking of the soul of a Nation beset by rank, entrenched race-based prejudice and inequity—did not come for free, or purely by the say-so of those who claimed to be 'color-blind.' It required heavy lifting, a fundamental shift—the very thing for which the Fourteenth Amendment stands: a repudiation of the notion that there is a 'superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens,' and a willingness to see, and strive to eliminate, all remaining vestiges of historical subjugation....

"Thus, even in cases where the protagonist was not a Black American, this Court’s Fourteenth Amendment cases have focused, at bottom, on the same universal liberty and equality interests that motivated the Fourteenth Amendment itself. The question is (and always has been): Does the affected individual or group enjoy equal dignity? And the correct answer is (and has always been) to heed the Fourteenth Amendment’s universalist, antisubordination command. Our Nation did not undergo something as profound and world-shifting as 'Reconstruction' for naught."

...

"Freed Blacks fought for the shared humanity of all people. And the Great Emancipator eventually foresaw that the only path forward that could prevent a return—in any form—to slavery and
race-based subordination was to link the fates of all."

...

"Ultimately, then, it is the Government and JUSTICE THOMAS who have 'repurposed the Fourteenth Amendment.' By ignoring that our Constitution stands firmly against caste and subjugation—on all axes and in all manners—they deny the clear, universalist vision shared and proclaimed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s
Framers: to 'rebuild a shattered empire . . . to plant deep and solid the corner-stone of eternal justice, and to erect thereon a superstructure of perfect equality of every human being before the law.'"

mickeyrat

ALTNATPARKSERVICE adbook post 

The Supreme Court handed Republicans one of the biggest campaign finance victories in decades, and it’s a much bigger deal than many people realize.

The case was brought by JD Vance, along with the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). They argued that federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and their candidates violated the First Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court agreed.

Before this ruling, political parties could work with their candidates, but there were strict limits on how much they could spend in direct coordination with those campaigns. Congress created those limits to prevent parties from becoming a backdoor way around campaign contribution restrictions.

Those limits are now gone. That means national party committees like the RNC, NRSC, and NRCC can now spend unlimited amounts while coordinating directly with Republican candidates on advertising, messaging, voter outreach, and campaign strategy.

Republicans currently have a massive fundraising advantage. The Republican National Committee reportedly has roughly $125 million in cash on hand, while the Democratic National Committee has around $15 million and is carrying debt. With coordinated spending limits removed, Republicans are in a stronger position to put those resources to work ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

This also strengthens Trump’s influence over the Republican Party. Because he remains the party’s dominant figure, candidates he endorses can potentially benefit from closer coordination with party organizations that are no longer constrained by the previous spending caps.

Looking ahead, the decision could also benefit JD Vance if he becomes the Republican presidential nominee in 2028. His campaign would be able to coordinate far more closely with the Republican Party’s fundraising and advertising operations than candidates were allowed to under the old rules.

This ruling is a win for oligarchs and big money, not the American people. It gives political parties greater freedom to coordinate unlimited spending with candidates, further increasing the influence of wealthy donors in our elections.

mickeyrat

We found that the Supreme Court is deciding more consequential rulings than ever before in largely unsigned orders with little to no explanation of how they voted or the reasons why.

Read our full analysis: https://propub.li/44indUS