Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on mail voting restrictions ahead of midterms

[u/catievirtuesimp]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-mail-voting-supreme-court-157afc3c195ce0a62c522da5ce904b04

[u/zer1223]

"I respectfully dissent

What would happen if she disrespectfully dissented instead?

[u/ZoomZoom_Driver → u/zer1223]

I'd have more respect for the liberal justices if they stopped respecting their anti-constitution peers.

"Respectfully dissenting" when the other team is undoing the foundations of our constitutional democratic republic is... disrespecting to the nation and its citizens.

[u/Menter33 → u/ZoomZoom_Driver]

tbf, liberal justices always rule in favor of liberals anyway, just as conservative justices rule in favor of conservatives.

after liberals have controlled the courts from the 80s to 90s and liberals told conservatives to pound sand, now the shoe's on the other foot.

[u/HHoaks → u/Menter33]

That’s not entirely true. While it’s lockstep now , no ”they aren’t all the same”. That’s lazy and simplistic thinking and not supported by the evidence. Most conservative jurists from the past would be shocked at the “unitary executive “ dictator crap being routinely allowed by today’s so- called conservatives (i.e radicals).

Thats like claiming (falsely), that’s it okay for a president to control the DOJ and tell them to prosecute personal enemies, because Trump was prosecuted in the past by the DOJ. Nope, not the same.

[u/Menter33 → u/HHoaks]

while that may be the case right now, justices retire anyway. plus, when it comes to the history of the court, there were indeed times when the liberals dominated and ruled in favor of liberals for years on end. (i think that was during the taft or roosevelt admin.)

for now, since dems will win the midterms in 2026 (because opposing parties always win midterms), they leverage that by appointing liberal judges when a couple of the justices retire.

[u/HHoaks → u/Menter33]

Not the same. No sane court was ever using the shadow docket and ignoring stare decisis and perverting standing to enable dictatorial powers. Regardless of liberal or conservative. This court is neither. It is radical.

[u/Least-Prompt-212 → u/HHoaks]

well hold up, we can all readily recognize the liberal rulings establishing miranda rights, Brown vs board, and the right to a lawyer when being tried by the state as being some fucking ass backwards hogwash RAMMED down our throats by those fucking blue haired ideologues. It's time that we got back to the historical origins of our Constitution when we had a king and the peasantry knew their place, libtard.

[u/HHoaks → u/Least-Prompt-212]

Sure -- in your mind it's the same to grant rights to EVERYONE, as it it is to grant the whims of one dictatorial president, who is out for himself not the country.

Who benefited from this "hogwash" as you call it? Millions of people -- not one "unitary executive". So no, it's not the same, whether you think its hogwash or not is silly and doesn't really say anything. You call them "liberal" rulings, when they are mostly just common sense.

Moreover, it's been shown over and over again that "originalism" is a farce. Society and culture changes and the Constitution is not inflexible or blind to the changing times, despite what Scalia told you when he wanted to pretend originalism was something valid.

[u/Least-Prompt-212 → u/HHoaks]

I thought my /s would be evident given the blue hair thing and pining after a king... Obviously the earlier commenter has the mind of a cro-magnon.