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

bucolic_frolic

(55,847 posts)

1. "interpreters of the law" is a tell.

Reply to Chasstev365 (Original post)

Sun May 17, 2026, 11:05 AM

Sunday

A plausible case can now be made that they don't use precedent, history, settled law. They just whim and rule. The 6 are not a SCOTUS, they are not fulfilling SCOTUS functions. They are partisanizing everything. A powerful Democratic president or Congressional majority might consider such an approach. It's plausible, it would sell to the faithful, it describes reality. Facts are the basis of law, politics, judgment. SCOTUS-6 have abandoned a lot of that.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

Wednesdays

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If Democrats gain power in the near future, one thing that could get court expansion across the finish line would be: [View all] Chasstev365 Sunday OP

"interpreters of the law" is a tell. bucolic_frolic Sunday #1

A lot of this 3-term stuff is IMO a red flag to get Vance (or whoever takes over from trump) in in2herbs Sunday #2

Vance would have to begin Jan. 21, 2027 or later Wednesdays Sunday #3

impeaching a few of these hacks wouldnt hurt. mopinko Sunday #4