comment: >
  
  Except the total of illegal immigrants has actually gone down over the last decade. Neither side can Google or count.
context: Four of the justices in the majority — Neil Gorsuch joined the left of the Court in dissent — previously held (at the height of the pandemic’s death toll, no less) that health policies could not restrict religious services. But now that COVID-19 is largely at bay, Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Barrett now think COVID is a fine reason to restrict immigration? The math’s not mathing. That is until you see the through line is current conservative political goals, not any sort of jurisprudential theory.
  
  This can not be overstated. Judges are supposed to be impartial. I understand that true impartiality doesn’t exist but certain SCOTUS judges could at least cut down on the blatant political bias. >
  
  That Gorsuch sided with the liberals is absolutely telling of jiggery-pokery. >
  
  TBH, my impression of Gorsuch is that, while he's a shite human being he still harbours the illusion of being a grand jurist with SCOTUS as a pristine institution.  Yes, he'll twist  facts, etc. in his decisions, but he's still going to try and maintain the vaneer. >
  
  Indeed.
  In an era of YOLO outcome-determinative jurisprudence he at least does have a legal principle theory of law that he sticks to. 
  His institutionalism is appreciated the same way I appreciate Pence for not participating in J6. >
  
  He understands that the legitimacy of the court is entirely how those partisan political decisions will manage to last.
  The idea of stare decisis isn't some mystical reverence for past decisions or the people making them. The idea is that once sound reasoning had been applied by enough courts that it got to the Supreme Court of the US, and the SCOTUS ruled reasonably and fairly, the bar to overturn that precedent is now extraordinarily high. It's not set in stone, but it's that the reasoning is so sound that it would take a remarkable case to reintroduce ambiguity or uncertainty.
  Gorsuch understands that all these batshit insane, illogical decisions made by this court are simply going to welcome decades of challenges. Eventually, they will all be overturned. Can't imagine how annoying it must be working with the likes of Bret Boofer and that bible-thumping weirdo ACB. >
  
  I simply can’t imagine being on the left side of the court and not strangling the YOLOs. I’d do time for that. >
  
  Im sure they'll soon rule that Biden's loan forgiveness plan is invalid because the Covid pandemic is no longer an emergency, while simultaneously maintaining that 'Remain in Mexico' must be enforced because the Covid pandemic is a pressing emergency. >
  
  What frustrates me the most about that lawsuit is the company the plaintiffs claim to be suing on behalf of has said repeatedly that they had no problem with the loan forgiveness.  In fact, they were drafting an email telling borrowers that their loans were forgiven.  The lawsuit has no basis since it hasn't caused anyone any harm, but nooooo how dare we try to lessen the burden on the Gen X and millennials who were lied to about how a college education would open all the doors. >
  
  I dont expect a fundamental issue like lack of standing to get in the way of this conservative Court's activism. If this iteration of SCOTUS was sane and predictable, they'd just dismiss all of this this for lack of standing and/or defer to the Dept of Ed. under the Chevron doctrine until such a time that Congress decides to revisit the Heroes Act or address the issue of student loan forgiveness more directly. But the SCOTUS hasnt been sane or predictable for a while and I dont see that changing anytime soon. >
  
  Oh absolutely.  That's why when it was announced it was going to SCOTUS for a final judgement, I knew it was dead.  I mean, they have no issues erasing a huge precedent that stood for 40+ years in one day.  Not making certain congressmen testify (cough cough Lindsay Graham), letting Trump delay investigations over claiming privacy over some classified documents, etc.  They are off their rocker and I super hope we can get a Senate and House soon that will set term limits and expand the seats. >
  
  They actually denied Graham and 45*, but there's no way they're not killing the debt forgiveness because this is America and that program might have helped poor people. Cant do that. >
  
  
  Its Contempt For Consistency
  
  Tony Scalia replacement - "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,"
  Ruth Bader Ginsburg replacement - FUCK YOU >
  
  She also should have stepped down like she was asked to. This would have solved this problem. >
  
  The fact that she didn't has jeopardized so many. I get she was an Icon but seriously the fact that she didn't may have fucked us for so long I feel that her legacy will be smeared by that. >
  
  Her legacy is now merely catastrophic hubris. >
  
  yup, another ego driven centrist.  As far as I'm concerned she may as well be considered another (R).  All she did was delay them, and then hand them the keys >
  
  
  yup, another ego driven centrist.
  
  You do know why she stayed so long, don't you???
  She knew the Democrats couldn't get anyone approved as liberal as she was.
  And she was right. >
  
  Was she?  Because what we got was way worse. >
  
  She was right.  She said we would get something worse.  We did.
  On top of that, Mitch McConnell is responsible for Mitch McConnell's actions. >
  
  We need term limits, age limits, and an expanded court. These activists are dismantling democracy before our eyes. >
  
  FDR and Democrats in Congress at the time threatened enacting age limits for the court when they were dealing with an elderly, highly conservative Supreme Court that kept harpooning New Deal policies. It worked, the court backed off. Not sure how effective that would be today though. >
  
  An important difference is that FDR had the spare seats to make good on his threats, the Dems need at least 10 more seats to have a chance of pulling it off. >
  
  FDR had 70 Democrats in the Senate.
  For a brief period after Obama was first elected, he had 60 seats (for about 72 days), and used that to (barely) pass the ACA. 
  Even with 60 seats (the minimum to be filibuster proof), it was still a compromise. >
  
  Which is even funnier being that the ACA was very similar to the HEART act, written by the Heritage Foundation and floated by the republican leadership in the early 1990s. >
  
  Modern GOP is nothing but a platform designed to create hate against Liberals so that the GOP can continue to pull money out of the government and into private business while avoiding their proper tax liabilities. They don't do anything except lie to their base. Climate change. Election fraud. ANTIFA. COVID. Even immigration issues where their base has no idea that the border issue is mostly caused by asylum seekers and nothing Biden has done has caused the issue. In fact, their claims that the border is open and that liberals will give them free stuff is part of what drives people to come here, only to get stacked up at the border. The GOP is a party of lairs, conmen and dopes, and nothing more.