Good question, this is a step in the right direction but since they all voted for it, might be too easy to circumvent? Hopefully with the swamp draining, the snakes will be cleared out shortly.
With respect, I have to ask whether you actually read the opinions as they are issued? If you’ve been reading them, you will conclude that this court is the most predictable in at least a decade or so. In particular.... which justice might you have expected to vote the other way, and which of their opinions/concurrences/dissents led you to believe that they would vote that way?
Sure we could’ve guessed how this one would go (though I am pleased there wasn’t even one dissenter, even though this would be blatantly unconstitutional but hey), but on other topics, as individuals, they’ve kind of been all over the place.
Good question, this is a step in the right direction but since they all voted for it, might be too easy to circumvent? Hopefully with the swamp draining, the snakes will be cleared out shortly.
Yes, a good step in the right direction.
Weird court. Completely unpredictable, and that is not a good thing.
They seem to be sticking to cases that have a SCotUS Precedent. or a closely related case. not really taking any risk....
With respect, I have to ask whether you actually read the opinions as they are issued? If you’ve been reading them, you will conclude that this court is the most predictable in at least a decade or so. In particular.... which justice might you have expected to vote the other way, and which of their opinions/concurrences/dissents led you to believe that they would vote that way?
Also how I interpreted that.
Sure we could’ve guessed how this one would go (though I am pleased there wasn’t even one dissenter, even though this would be blatantly unconstitutional but hey), but on other topics, as individuals, they’ve kind of been all over the place.