Yeah because they always write up how the decision came about. The logic and reasoning based on law and precedence. I mean if they did not then it would just be invalid and void.
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2025
152 points (95.2% liked)
News
32071 readers
2085 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
She wrote that she believed the 7-2 Roe v Wade ruling that established those federal abortion rights had “usurped the will of the American people”
Fuck you Amy. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. But stay the fuck out of other people's personal decisions.
Even more strangely, she seems to think that stomping on rights is okay, even if most of the country was against that? The will of the people doesn't matter now, but it did back then?
Abortion should be legal, but tying it to an amendment to make it seem like it's protected by the constitution was always a lie that shouldn't have gotten through.
I feel like making the President above the law was usurping the will of the people but you fucking did it anyway
‘People’ as established by Citizens United.
It's a bit late in the game for that isn't it?
I mean - she's right, but the SC has already cast aside law, precedent and the Constitution at this point, and is ruling almost entirely based on opinion. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say, "preference."
In the book, set for publication on 9 September, Barrett asserted her belief that the June 2022 ruling that struck down abortion rights nationally “respected the choice” of Americans.
Ah... so she's not just contradicting the plain reality of the current SC, but her own statements.
Or more precisely, just spewing whatever line of bullshit might serve her current purposes.
Which is undoubtedly the reason she was nominated in the first place, and the exact thing she was expected to contribute.
Helluva timeline we're living in here....
And she's not even in the top 4 worst justices
This; painfully, this.
>“I want Americans to understand the law – and that it’s not just an opinion poll about whether the supreme court thinks something is good or … bad,” Barrett said. “What the court is trying to do is see what the American people have decided.”
Weird. I thought the court’s job was to determine the constitutionality of laws as accurately as possible.
Fuck these spineless twats. Their rulings are worthy of adorning toilet paper.
Calling them spineless suggests that they aren't part of the attack on democracy.
Complicit is the word theyre searching for. Accomplices would also suffice. Co-conspirator might be giving them a bit more agency than they deserve, though.
Oh, the fucking irony.
Ask that bitch her opinion on women having fewer rights than men in this country, then tell her to sit down and shut up like good breeding stock
Gotta salvage her cred as a hateful conservative hypocrite.
But it is an opinion poll, just one with a small sample size. Having a law degree may be a factor but it’s still opinion-based.