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

Latest Breaking News

angrychair

(12,424 posts)

8. It likely does not

Reply to eggplant (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 30, 2026, 12:10 PM

17 hrs ago

To be fair I am not a lawyer but in the past this court has been very careful to craft rulings with as limited a scope as possible to ensure it doesn't harm any Republican talking points or objectives. More likely than not this case is limited to this specific instance and no one else.
This court is not interested in helping regular people but just furthering the agenda of people like Leonard Leo and the Christian Taliban.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court Sides With Anti-Abortion Clinic in Fight Over Donor Records [View all] Polybius Wednesday OP

SCOTUS angrychair Wednesday #1

Nine to Zero... reACTIONary Wednesday #3

It is fascist angrychair 19 hrs ago #4

"If the system is supporting and protecting people... reACTIONary 19 hrs ago #6

This case angrychair 17 hrs ago #7

The most recent example is... reACTIONary 17 hrs ago #9

As I said in post 19... pat_k 9 hrs ago #20

Regarding unanimous decisions... Polybius 10 hrs ago #17

I did angrychair 10 hrs ago #18

9-0 eggplant Wednesday #2

It likely does not angrychair 17 hrs ago #8

Since the 1950s.... reACTIONary 17 hrs ago #10

Courts are for people that can afford it angrychair 16 hrs ago #12

As a person who pursued a pro se case for more than five years against the servicer and noteholder of two mortgages pat_k 6 hrs ago #22

That is clearly Gorsuch's Christian nationalist agenda -- i.e., declare it "constitutional" to impose PERSONAL religious pat_k 8 hrs ago #21

**********THIS IS A 9-0 RULING*************** Prairie Gates 19 hrs ago #5

The court asks us to just ask ourselves... reACTIONary 17 hrs ago #11

As I just posted a second ago angrychair 16 hrs ago #13

I don't understand this. I think you are maintaining that.... reACTIONary 16 hrs ago #14

I think you are missing my point angrychair 15 hrs ago #15

So you want the Supreme court to undo a precedent.... reACTIONary 13 hrs ago #16

Not a bad decision. They can challenge. Doesn't mean they'll win. pat_k 9 hrs ago #19