Because there were not enough justices for a quorum—the court needs at least six and only Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson remained—the court affirmed the judgment of a lower court to dismiss the lawsuit.
Clever. Appearing to do the right thing at face value coincides nicely with getting the case against you dropped. It’s likely impossible to sue a majority of the Supreme Court if they don’t care to be sued.
It’s likely impossible to sue a majority of the Supreme Court if they don’t care to be sued.
Only as long as you have the majority. If this had been a case against the liberal minority, they would not have been able to do the same.
The lower court’s decision was upheld. A lower court that didn’t have the issue of defendants being asked to preside over their own case.
Sure, but do you think if the lower court decided that the case could move forward, the justices would’ve sat out? I doubt it.
Do you have an example of them doing that? Or are you simply lampooning them despite them making the best decision available.
It’s a frivolous troll lawsuit and this is a clickbait article
https://casetext.com/case/mactruong-v-abbott
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is an inventor of “Tele-Sex or Tele-Mining on Jupiter and other planets of the Solar System,” and appears to assert a claim for copyright infringement and constitutional violations.
In his brief, Plaintiff makes fantastical allegations, stating, for example, that “Defendants are dangerous liars, criminals, traitors and co-conspirators.” Dkt. 18 at 31. He further states that Supreme Court Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett “deserve the death penalty or at least to be disbenched from the U.S. Supreme Court.” Dkt. 18 at 40.
This is a tactic Oregon representatives use quite often. So we voted on a bill stating that if you miss 10 or more sessions you’re in eligible to run for office again.
They’re already trying to weasel out of it by claiming that the language of the law means they still get to serve one more term.
SYAC:
“In a rare move, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett all sat out deciding whether to hear MacTruong v. Abbott, a case arguing that the Texas Heartbeat Act (THA) is constitutional and that the state law violates federal law. The six justices were named as defendants in the case. They did not give a detailed justification as to why they chose not to weigh in, and are not required to do so.”The six justices were named as defendants in the case. They did not give a detailed justification as to why they chose not to weigh in, and are not required to do so.
As Hunter Thompson said: “To ask the question is to answer the question.”
And that’s the original meaning of “begs the question”
I guess I don’t understand. Can you elaborate how that fits the meaning? wikipedia: “Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not been demonstrated to be true. In modern usage, it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it.”
So there’s a bunch of different things going on.
Real historically, it meant to assert something without proving it, and base your logic on the unproved assertion and go on from there. “I couldn’t have been driving drunk, because I wasn’t driving.” You can keep saying that any number of times, and insist that your logic is flawless (because in terms of the pure logic, it is), but if someone saw you driving, it’s kind of a moot point.
Saying “begging the question” to mean that is weird. The phrase is a word-for-word translation of a Greek phrase into pretty much nonsensical English. Wikipedia talks about it more but that’s the short summary.
So after that meaning came what Wikipedia calls “modern usage,” which is where “begging the question” means not just something you haven’t proved, but the central premise under debate. You assume it’s true out of the gate and it’s obviously true, and then go on from there. “We know God exists, because God made the world, and we can see the world all around us, and the world is wonderful, so God exists. QED.”
In actual modern usage, no one cares about any of that, and just uses “begs the question” to mean “invites the question.” Like you’re saying something and anyone with a brain in their head is obviously going to ask you some particular question. It has nothing to do with the original meaning, but the original meaning never actually meant that in English, so pedants like myself that prefer the original meaning are engaged in a pure exercise in futility.
Thank you for your explanation! My head hurts but I think it’s worth it.
who do these trolls work for
So. Ultimately a woman has no autonomy over her own body with deviant growths still? Is that what I’m reading?
6 of the worst human beings in the world. Dead women’s and dead girls, for that matter, blood is on their hands. I do not understand how it has been one and a half years since they literally made women unequal in law and nothing has been done about the monopoly they have on the entire country.
They are not enacting the will of the people. They do not represent the common voice. Why should they be allowed to force disease death and suffering onto millions of women? Why should they be allowed to do that? What kind of democracy allows such a thing?
If you look at the US objectively, it doesn’t hold up because we’re actually, right now? Not. Not really. Not anymore. Maybe again one day and hopefully soon. But not now.
Sounds like we need to resize the court and add enough justices for justice to be served.
I really wish I could “sit out” of my job and not get fired.
Cough drone strike cough
Ugh dry air… Did that sound like words?
Badas noted that MacTruong has other pending cases involving the same issue, but it is likely that they will end like this case, “with him losing and the courts issuing decisions arguing that he lacks standing.”
I thought standing didn’t mean anything anymore.
The six justices were named as defendants in the case.
Makes sense they sat out then. Presiding over your own trial doesn’t make much sense.
Nope that’s not it.
They have the majority, so if they all sit out the SC can’t hear the case.
So it’s more of a pocket veto than anything else.
Especially since the lower courts decision was to dismiss the case against the Justices who vetoed the SC case
So it’s more of a pocket veto than anything else.
“the court affirmed the judgment of a lower court to dismiss the lawsuit”
They upheld the judgment from the lower court. Should they instead preside over their own case? That hardly seems like a better choice than upholding the lower court’s judgement.
