• @ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    265 months ago

    In their recent Presidential Immunity ruling there was a long response by Clarence Thomas that included a section questioning the legality of Jack Smith’s appointment. Which is the same reasoning Cannon gives in her ruling.

    The dissenting opinion in their recent Chevron Deference ruling criticises Thomas and others for using this tactics repeatedly to overturn laws they don’t like. They write opinions about one thing but include a bunch of questions about something only tangentially related. Then they’ll suddenly take up a case that seems to centre exactly around that question they had. A case that was only filed after the initial ruling.

    Cannon using Thomas’ words is no mistake. It’s the way these judges have been legislating from the bench.

    • @Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      115 months ago

      Wait wait wait are you saying that Republicans crying about “activist judges ruling from the bench” for the last 20 years was just more projection!?

      Say it ain’t so! Republicans projecting their intent? Never!

      • @tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        The Federalist Society identified 40 years ago what they considered to be the problem, liberal activist judges.

        They have spent the last four decades working their way into the judicial system and nomination process to achieve the current Supreme Court balance for their ultimate objective, conservative activist judges.