Merrick Garland should be on the SCOTUS. Instead, we have those 3 tRump/McConnell lightweights

[Sibelius Fan]

The Rs are disgusting.

[Aristus]

1. I suppose there's some justice in the fact that Trump's SCOTUS picks won't automatically

dance to whatever tune he calls.

[lagomorph777]

3. They sure ruined his day today!

Though, to be honest, I haven't looked up the votes yet.

[Aristus]

5. The conservatives are in the majority.

If SCOTUS ruled against Trump, it means that at least some of them voted that way.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Only four justices are needed to grant a cert petition.

So this means Trump couldn't even get four of "his" conservatives to vote to hear these election cases.

[Aristus]

8. I didn't know that.

Cool.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. They don't publish which justices, if any, voted for or against the petitions.

And only four would be needed to grant certiorari, but they couldn't even get four.

[redstatebluegirl]

2. He is really smart and thoughful. They would not want someone smart and compassionate on the court.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Nevertheless, the court is kicking Trump's ass today.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

6. I dunno...

I kinda look forward to Garland going after the insurrectionists and homegrown terrorists. It's his jam.