I’m aware, which is why I altered that gif as I did.
Yes, it seems that for growing numbers of occupants, even SCOTUS seats have become valued more as access sites to wealth than ways to serve the public (a notion that itself has come to seem rather, quaint. 
).
Yeah, and perhaps even more disappointing, is seeing KBJ’s name on this list. I knew Sotomayor had conflicts. I’ve brought it up before. Kagan is notoriously squeaky clean on conflicts like this. I was hoping the newest Justice would take her cues from Kagan more than Sotomayor, but I guess not.
The long arm (or curse) of Bennett Cerf?
Here’s a pretty good summary of what happened. It’s complete bullshit. SCOTUS has no business intervening here. There’s no need for emergency relief even if what the legislature did violated the ligislator’s rights (and it probably didn’t).
I will add, though, that there is a difference between this case and the Zooey Zephyr case. Zephyr was barred from speaking based on things she said during a legislative session. It was bullshit, but it was for things she said on the floor of the legislature. The Maine representative was censured for a Facebook post. Now, it was an egregious post that revealed details about a high school student and put that student at risk, but it was still speech made outside the state legislature, so it’s going to be in a different category from what happened to Zephyr. It may not be entirely without merit (the lawsuit), but there was nothing so urgent that the Court needed to grant emergency relief. That’s bullshit.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part in the decision, recusing from the case early on, presumably given her ties to the Notre Dame law clinic that supported the Catholic diocese, but she did not explain her decision.
Unsigned. I’d really like to know who sided with the liberals. Although, the unsigned part gave one of them the freedom to do that without worrying about blowback.
I will lay you money that’s why it’s unsigned.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/30/scotus-parole-immigration-trump/
A divided Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way, for now, for the Trump administration to revoke the temporary legal status of more than 530,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela who have been allowed to live and work in the United States while their immigration cases play out.
Leopard’s are feasting on Cuban faces today.
That was a crucial backstop last election, when college students voting by mail in red states (like one of my kids) were NOT TOLD their ballots had been rejected for a handful of spurious excuses (hers was: signature didn’t match), but if they knew to look it up in time, they had the ability to file a provisional ballot to force their vote to be counted.
Both the school district and a coalition of red states, however, argued that federal law does not clearly prohibit “unintentional” discrimination against disabled people. In his concurrence, Thomas embraced that argument. And he wrote that Congress must use clearer language under the Constitution’s spending clause if it wishes to outlaw such unintentional discrimination.
Wow. “It’s fine to discriminate, as long as they can’t prove that you meant to discriminate. Like, for instance, literacy tests are objective, right?” And this asshole is a SCOTUS justice? (Of course, this standard could be applied pretty universally to the executive branch, and largely in the legislative, so I guess, yeah…)
