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

reACTIONary

(7,263 posts)

9. The most recent example is...

Reply to angrychair (Reply #7)

Thu Apr 30, 2026, 12:25 PM

Thursday

.... the sea shell indictment. It's time for this shit to stop.

As the justices, all of them, said...

"Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the Attorney General’s. Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights."

It's time for this shit to stop... Whichever side is doing it.

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 Thursday #4

"If the system is supporting and protecting people... reACTIONary Thursday #6

This case angrychair Thursday #7

The most recent example is... reACTIONary Thursday #9

As I said in post 19... pat_k Thursday #20

Regarding unanimous decisions... Polybius Thursday #17

I did angrychair Thursday #18

9-0 eggplant Wednesday #2

It likely does not angrychair Thursday #8

Since the 1950s.... reACTIONary Thursday #10

Courts are for people that can afford it angrychair Thursday #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 Thursday #22

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

**********THIS IS A 9-0 RULING*************** Prairie Gates Thursday #5

The court asks us to just ask ourselves... reACTIONary Thursday #11

As I just posted a second ago angrychair Thursday #13

I don't understand this. I think you are maintaining that.... reACTIONary Thursday #14

I think you are missing my point angrychair Thursday #15

So you want the Supreme court to undo a precedent.... reACTIONary Thursday #16

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