Is it possible that Glenn Greenwald and Kelhus are the same person? Inflexible world view? Check. Baseless speculation about the motives of others? Check. Sanctimonious in the extreme? Check.

It all lines up.

What makes you think that U.S. courts can simply strike down laws with which they disagree? Federal courts can't strike federal statutes unless they are unconstitutional or violate some other provision on federal law.

Federal courts can strike down state statutes on preemption grounds, but that can't possibly be what you were referring to.

Apologies if it was not clear, I thought it was obvious I meant that their personal biases and policies preferences have tremendous influence on whether they view particular legislation as "constitutional" or not, to the extent that "constitutionality" is basically a figleaf.

To be clear, i view judges as political appointees and as political creatures and think any attempt to paint them as neutral arbitrators is a bit silly.

Yes, exactly. Scalia, for example, was not shy about changing up the framework by which he interpreted the Constitution as necessary to serve the conservative political outcome he desired. There is no check on the court that they rule with consistency rather than politically motivated capriciousness.

You and Suzzer missed the joke.

GG leveled you.

GG.

You’re incorrect.

Scalia was zealously civil libertarian in a way that benefited criminal defendants. His rulings restrained police greatly and probably were the most significant benefit to the AA community since Trump’s action to free those imprisoned for marijuana offenses.

This does not refute what I said. That he had some decisions that weren't abjectly horrible for Black people does not mean that he is not fast and loose with his interpretation framework in service of conservative political goals.

You’re still wrong.

Crawford is by far his most important decision. 50 or 100 random gun cases don’t come close to as important.

If he truly was going to bat for conservative politics he would have been on the other side of it.

There's nothing inconsistent with saying "judges make decisions largely based on their personal biases and political preferences" and saying "Scalia occasionally made decisions that civil libertarians applauded." Civil libertarians are a strain of conservatives, look at Rand/Ron Paul.

That Scalia wasn't consistent with, er, I dunno, Mitch McConnell is not a refutation of my claim that he was inconsistent with himself in service of his brand of conservatism. Textualism and originalism are not interchangeable interpretations, and he blatantly switched between the two even when they were in conflict with one another, as well as discarding both, in service of his own biases.

Try actually reading Wookie’s post. He specifically described Scalia as a lackey for “conservative politics”. His most important decision that probably dwarfs everything else he did on the bench combined was a massive L for conservative politics. Lmao

THE CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL OUTCOME HE WANTED . Rainbow Text

Stop trying to walk back your point and move the goalposts.

Just accept the L.

Is this the case you're talking about?

Based on the hype in these two posts I feel like it was a little oversold.

I watched it.

I'm pleased that she finds all human life sacred. She gave one of the best anti-abortion speeches I've ever heard.

Unfortunately, she is either too stupid or too evil to recognize the meaning of her own words.

In her defense (sort of), someone on her staff probably wrote that speech, and she may not have even had a clue what she was saying.

Wow authored a 9-0 decision. Impressive. brave. Well technically 7 with two concurrences.

Yeah sorry I missed the nuance when GG makes 100 terrible tweets bashing the Dem E - and one joke bashing the Dem E mixed in.

Hahaha I am old enough to remember when conservatives, both over there and here, were petrified that Sharia law was coming to their countries. Now, we realise, all they were afraid of was not being the ones in charge of enforcing it.

I think Scalia was his own thing. I compare him to Chomsky a lot. Someone whose brilliance I think is undeniable, but whose views are not.

I personally find any brand of textual originalism to be a bad idea, but that's more on account that I don't believe in necromancy. The idea that we can know what dead people would do is silly.

I also think choosing judges for the highest court based on how conservative they are or how liberal they are is generally a poor idea. It should be based on how good they are at the law, how well they can put that skill into writing and how fair they can be when putting it into practice. And I guess is a sign of the times that something as basic as that is probably seen as naive idealism.

If their job was only interpreting the law that'd be a good idea.

Scalia sided with the liberal wing on a few 4th Amendment and Sixth Amendment cases, and even wrote one or two very good opinions in those cases, but characterizing Scalia as some sort of champion for the rights of criminal defendants is an extremely charitable reimagining of his jurisprudence.

I wasn't even commenting on the tweet. I was making a general comment about GG.

Judges certainly can be political. But most cases don't have an overt political angle. Anyone who clerked for a federal judge certainly will confirm as much for you. And even at the Supreme Court level, a large percentage of cases don't have an obvious political angle. That's why most decisions don't break neatly along political lines.

This too. The 9-0 decision in Crawford is more of a testament to the weakness of the losing side's argument than a testament to Scalia's commitment to protecting the rights of criminal defendants.

lol Where did you pick up this little fairytale?

The only thing Crawford/Melendez-Diaz did for low level drug offenses was create a couple year window where everyone had to rejigger their staffing and budget for potential lab testimony. In that context, it just means the state has to spend more money on its cases to get the necessary person available to testify. Don’t believe it’s had any material effect on the level of prosecution of stuff like that. Any gains there are legislative or policy based.

Ten years later, I’d say that probably provides the most protection for top level fraudsters and drug organizers.