4 ms·

"A different theory of legal review" which here means coming to a predetermined policy decision, and then inventing legal justification for it, no matter how fl

• lolinder 4y ago
  I've had plenty of educated, well-informed individuals make exactly the same legal arguments to me for decades. Whether or not I agree with the reasoning, it's not hard for me to believe that the Supreme Court justices believed the principles they're following long before they arrived at this decision. You can disagree with the legal justification, but that you disagree is not evidence that it was invented to achieve a specific goal.
  • Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
    Thomas is carrying out a personal and vindictive agenda without regard to the harm caused to hundreds of millions of people. He’s neither principled nor objective. Kavanaughs an angry drunk coasting off connections, wealth, and privilege. Barrett’s a perjured radical theologist trying to legislate handmaids tale into reality from the bench. https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-told-clerks-he-wants-to-make-liberals-miserable-2022-6?amp https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-told-clerks-...
  • philosopher1234 4y ago
    Because its not provable. But it is still true. Sticking our heads in the sand because theres still percentage points of doubt leads to disaster.