Generic Business Oriented Website

Toilet Fleet wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:39 am She’s a corrupt sack of turds pretending to be a principled jurist

Toilet Fleet wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:39 am She’s a corrupt sack of turds...

Toilet Fleet wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:53 pm Can I just make one mehhhh constitution mehhhhhhhh point here

Her scholarship on "superprecedents" is fuckin genuinely retarded and positivist, which is not surprising coming from a so-called originalist

That there aren't justiciable controversies to the degree of those assailing Roe compared to Brown doesn't fuckin mean anything in the context of their judicial validity: it's fake line-drawing that artificially lends validity to the purely political interests at play in assailing specific decisions that are just as time-honored, if not more so, than some of the other alleged superprecedent cases that haven't seen significant clawback over the years. West Coast Hotel effectively overturned Lochner in the goddamn 1930s, two decades before Brown, and that expansive view of the Commerce Clause has only grown since then. Why is that not superprecedent to Barrett et al? Because Scalia and Thomas, along with all FedSoc slugs, get their dicks hard at the idea of going back to Lochner, all because their rich benefactors want it. That's the dividing line. If overturning Brown would enrich oil barons, Barrett and Kavanaugh would write dissents with ample dicta about the improper reasoning in that case and Bolling tomorrow. It's so blatantly transparent.

(Yes, Brown and Bolling are badly-decided on a purely argumentative basis, which is why it's so confusing that Brown qualifies for this superprecedent treatment despite the fact that the decision was as nonoriginalist and made-out-of-whole-cloth as you can get.)

godofdeadlydeath wrote: The thing that really stuck in me was her having no problem drawing a hard line at "racism = bad, I not racist" but can't say "Climate change exists" because that's too much of a partisan policy matter? Fuck her.