Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: ***SCOTUS hearing Colorado case, [View all]Sympthsical
(10,978 posts)12. Barrett's always an interesting listen
Because she can often be highly skeptical, even when you figure she's on the conservative side of an argument.
I remember listening to Haaland v Brackeen, and she kept poking at the attorneys. With a kind of eye-rolling, "Are you seriously arguing this?"
It's interesting so far.
Sotomayor seems to have become the most prominent of the liberals. She's definitely the most challenging so far.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
62 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
THomas asks him if there is any history of this happening. Duh. Dumb question.
lindysalsagal
Feb 2024
#22
Roberts trying to claim no standing for states to stop national candidates. He's already decided.
lindysalsagal
Feb 2024
#24
If states can't stop candidates, who can? How else can this amendment be enacted?
lindysalsagal
Feb 2024
#41
Interesting, isn't it, we and the SC 'only now' recognizing 'difficulty' of federalism,
elleng
Feb 2024
#38