I never react to a SCOTUS ruling based on the policy outcome, but read the opinions and precedents involved first. And Kavanaugh's opinion in Jones v Mississippi shows *everything* that's wrong with modern conservative justices. They don't even have the balls to admit when...1
...they are simply throwing out/ignoring precedent to get a policy outcome they want. And they *lie* about it so casually. Its indisputable this ruling overrules the standards of Miller v. Alabama & Montgomery v. Louisiana. Indisputable, excerpt for conservative judges who...2
...are willing to assert something demonstrably untrue as being contained in a precedent - or simply twist underlying facts to get what they want. This tactic was started by Scalia at the end of his career, perfected by Alito - the court's most arrogant liar ever - and now...3
...that same approach has been adopted by Kavenaugh. He states "We are abiding by the precedent of Miller" and then proceeds to lie about what Miller says. He ignores paragraph after paragraph of the Miller ruling, and just says "Nope. We followed it." ....4
...this group of "conservative" justices (Not all of them - Alito, Thomas, Kavenaugh are the worst) preen about being "textualists" and then ignore the explicit text. The first time I saw this was with Scalia and the Heller decision. The *policy* outcome on a DC gun control...5
...law was correct, based on precedent. But Scalia used that case that only needed a metaphorical hop onto the curb to instead jump to the moon: He rewrote the 2nd Amend. For the first time ever, a SCOTUS justice held that certain words in the Constitution had no meaning...6
...the reason: Those words in the Constitution presented a blockade against broader policy outcomes conservatives wanted, so Scalia made up the concept of a "preferatory phrase" which he held was basically throat-clearing by the Founders that meant nothing. So, by *ignoring*...7
...the text - not interpreting it, ignoring it - he edited the 2nd Amend to say what he wanted it to say, throwing out the words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." Then he took ANOTHER convoluted dive, because he clearly saw his new 2A..8
...would allow private citizens to obtain and store any military weapon they wanted - Stinger missiles, atomic bombs, whatever - so he added a footnote that essentially said "Of course, this doesnt mean people can have THESE kinds of military weapons because I dont like that"...9
...these people who lie about what they are doing, who ignore text, who overrule precedent and then claim they are being pure textualists, are a disgrace to the Court. You want to overrule a precedent? Have the balls to admit you did it, and just do it. Dont pretend you....10
...haven't. You want to drop out certain words from the Constitution, because they block you from getting to the policy position you want? Then admit youre doing it - admit that the Supreme Court has been corrupted beyond repair by cowards with no respect for precedent, who...11
...consider themselves members of the Republican Party who are lifetime Senators, and not people who are supposed to rule on Constitutional matters with a coherent jurisprudence. There is no coherent jurisprudence anymore. There is just the GOP platform, substituting for...12
...the Constitution. Now, is the *policy* from the Jones case right? I wasn't sure. Then I read specifics of that case. It is outrageous that an abused kid, who kills a relative during a impassioned, violent confrontation between them, can be sentenced to life "just 'cause"...
...the idea that the court doesnt have to make findings, doesnt have to reach an incorrigibility determination (as Miller requires) and can just say "not gonna tell you why, but I don't like you, kid. Life without parole." Go to one judge, get 10 years, another - life. No...
...standards, no consistency, no explanation. A judge could literally sentence a child to life without parole because he is mad at his wife that day, and there is nothing to be done about it because the judge has been given *no standard of review* to make sure these sentences...
...are equitable. Should a crime committed as a minor never get a life sentence? Under the Miller standard coupled with other usual sentencing elements - a horrific crime by a lifetime incorrigible that was not committed in the heat of passion? There are arguments both ways...
...but a kid who just got the wrong judge, who does not have to make any determinations whatsoever, who sentences one kid who committed a crime in the heat of passion to life and another who planned his crime to 10 years? That is not justice.....
...it throws out reasoned precedent and in its place sticks backflips and lies, all to get a policy outcome that undermines deterrence (inconsistency of sentencing is shown to be a key element undermining deterrence), ignores rehabilitation, and tosses out proportionality....
...until Alito, I was never much concerned about liberal justices or conservative ones, because I maintained my belief that history had provided basis for to believe that all justices would respect precedent. After Alito, precedent is like a used kleenex. They just toss it out...
...when its inconvenient. Make no mistake: The most activist court in history is the Roberts court. While the Warren court did overturn precedent (like Plessy v Ferguson), it didn't deny that was what it was doing and it explained why. Roberts court just does it and moves on...
...under the Roberts court, our Constitution may or may not have meaning depending on the GOP platform, precedent may or may not be respected, and when they reverse precedent, they may or may not admit it. This is how you destroy a Constitutional republic.
end
end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
