I’m confused. Very confused. Given their past shitty ruling, this seems like an easy one for the conservatives on the court to take the chance to remind part of the population that they can be treated like shit.
Why not take the case? Lawyers out there?
IANAL, but I think that it’s likely that the court simply only has room for so many cases on their docket, as each case takes a major investment of time. I don’t think this particular case was likely to break new ground given similar recent cases, and was hardly a landmark case on which to carve out a major rebalance of the church and state status quo.
Actually its more because the conservative wing of SCOTUS is extremely gun-shy of actually upsetting the status quo with rulings which can be widely applied. The threat to conservatives with Civil Rights is far more useful for fundraising, vote mobilization, than actually overturning or destroying them.
Typically a conservative decision is narrowly tailored for a specific outcome for a given party. Loaded with carveouts, exceptions and limitations to avoid applying them elsewhere. To avoid a real sweeping decision on the subject that will backfire on them.
I think you’re right about that, but I also think that part of it is that they ultimately want to move closer to Gilead, but they are waiting for the right case to do so. They need a case that has a bit more meat on it to get people riled up about it enough to push forward the narratives that will pay off politically as well. And this case ain’t it.
I think there is a realization for judges supporting fascism that fascism tends to makes judges obsolete.
Roland Freisler might disagree.
But he might agree that fascism tends to make non-Nazi judges obsolete.
His “People’s Court” was much harsher than Judge Wapner!
Never got to Nuremberg. He was killed by allied bombing.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.