3 ms·

Highly disagree. All of the recent decisions make perfect legal sense, this coming from the son of a Constitutional attorney who has described to me the rulings

Highly disagree. All of the recent decisions make perfect legal sense, this coming from the son of a Constitutional attorney who has described to me the rulings, reasons behind them, precedents, etc.. And he's a pro-choice, anti-gun Democrat. He still agrees with the legal decisions. I read the rulings myself too and they make total sense given what I've learned over decades of listening to him.

davidw 4y ago
They're pretty much at the point of flat out lying about things, like the prayer case. Sotomayor, in her dissent, included actual photographs of the coach huddling/praying with the whole team, which is quite coercive behavior. It wasn't a 'quiet prayer'. https://twitter.com/cristianafarias/status/1541427338826629124 https://twitter.com/cristianafarias/status/15414273388266291...
- rufus_foreman 4y ago
  >> included actual photographs of the coach huddling/praying with the whole team, which is quite coercive behavior The photo on the bottom right was from before the coach was asked to stop giving post-game talks that included prayer, an order he complied with. It is not the behavior at question in the court case, so absolutely irrelevant to the matter at hand. I think Sotomayor should have included a date on the photo to make this clear. Photo on the top right is of the coach being joined in prayer only by members of the opposing team, so if he was coercing the players on his own team, is was quite ineffective. It was a silent prayer, so yes, quiet. Photo on the left is the coach being joined in prayer by members of the public, not team members, so also not good evidence of coercion. Also a silent prayer, so yes, quiet.
waffleiron 4y ago
I think the dissenting opinion on this one makes a lot of sense. Even so, making legal sense doesn't mean they are not biased, seeing as the court decides which cases to rule on, and which ones to ignore.
Victerius 4y ago
> I read the rulings myself too [X] Doubt
- gsibble 4y ago
  You can doubt all you want, I read the rules, concurrences, and dissents on most SC decisions. The media doesn't really report the facts on them so I prefer to get them right from the source.

davidw 4y ago

They're pretty much at the point of flat out lying about things, like the prayer case. Sotomayor, in her dissent, included actual photographs of the coach huddling/praying with the whole team, which is quite coercive behavior. It wasn't a 'quiet prayer'. https://twitter.com/cristianafarias/status/1541427338826629124 https://twitter.com/cristianafarias/status/15414273388266291...

rufus_foreman 4y ago
>> included actual photographs of the coach huddling/praying with the whole team, which is quite coercive behavior The photo on the bottom right was from before the coach was asked to stop giving post-game talks that included prayer, an order he complied with. It is not the behavior at question in the court case, so absolutely irrelevant to the matter at hand. I think Sotomayor should have included a date on the photo to make this clear. Photo on the top right is of the coach being joined in prayer only by members of the opposing team, so if he was coercing the players on his own team, is was quite ineffective. It was a silent prayer, so yes, quiet. Photo on the left is the coach being joined in prayer by members of the public, not team members, so also not good evidence of coercion. Also a silent prayer, so yes, quiet.

waffleiron 4y ago

I think the dissenting opinion on this one makes a lot of sense. Even so, making legal sense doesn't mean they are not biased, seeing as the court decides which cases to rule on, and which ones to ignore.

Victerius 4y ago

> I read the rulings myself too [X] Doubt

gsibble 4y ago
You can doubt all you want, I read the rules, concurrences, and dissents on most SC decisions. The media doesn't really report the facts on them so I prefer to get them right from the source.