Stephen Breyer trying to sell decisions based on pure narcissism as a commitment to some higher principle is embarrassing, especially since the "principle" in question is pretty much "the Easter Bunny and tooth fairy are real" lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/07/jehova…
"The Supreme Court is an apolitical institution" is the highbrow version of "the NCAA should remain committed to the Noble Ideals of Amateurism"
One thing Breyer's friends should try to make him understand is that if he's replaced by a Republican president he will be remembered for NOTHING else. RBG had real accomplishments that make her legacy complex; Breyer is just a replacement-level Elite Liberal Law Guy
The amazing thing remains that the last three justices nominated by *Republican* presidents who ended up as liberals all retired strategically, and the first one is the reason why Breyer has his job in the first place
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The thing is that as a senator J.D. Vance would act exactly like Josh Mandel and cast exactly the same votes. Whether Vance "really" believes in Trumpism is immaterial if he would have to be a Trumpist in full to get and maintain the Republican nomination, which he would
Feel free to laugh heartily when Peter Thiel's fake-Appalachian messenger boy becoming a particularly undignified Trump supplicant doesn't save him from getting crushed in the primary is what I'm saying
Right: Mitch McConnell, Josh Hawley, and J.D. Vance
"But I've been to Seattle and you can't buy anything but IPAs!" No, sorry, this is just abject nonsense
Of course, I suspect the real issue here is that for people for whom hating IPAs is a major part of their identity a taproom with 3 non-IPA taps is preferable to a taproom that has 6 IPAs out of 25
“We cannot enforce the statute as written because it would stop too much vote suppression and we *like* vote suppression” is almost literally the holding of Alito’s opinion
I've already excerpted EK's description of how Alito's opinion is at war with the plain text of the statute, but I also enjoyed her observation that the ad hoc bullshit Roberts used to rationalize striking down Section 4 instantly vaporized because it isn't a real legal doctrine:
In Shelby County, Roberts defended his (indefensible) decision to strike down Section 4 by noting that Section 2 is still in effect. In a bait-and-switch anyone could see coming, the Court has now effectively made Section 2 a nullity: nbcnews.com/think/opinion/…
One thing Kagan's dissent communicates very effectively is that Alito and the 5 other Republican justices are engaged in an act of nullification here. He doesn't like the choice Congress made to ban voting restrictions with a disparate impact, so he refuses to enforce the law:
While these vote suppression measures affect a relatively small number of voters, 1)elections -- including AZ's most recent presidential election! -- are often decided by small margins, and 2)there is no "must effect a significant percentage of voters" qualification in the VRA