Today in Supreme Court History

Today in Supreme Court History: September 9, 1806

|

9/9/1806: Justice William Paterson dies.

 

NEXT: WSJ: DOJ Will Sue Texas, As Soon As Thursday

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. At least they didn’t literally claw at the Supreme court’s front door attempting to disrupt his swearing in, like they did for Kavanaugh.

    1. Dunno if you want to make references like that, given your minimizing of Jan 06.

      1. Where “minimizing” means not exaggerating.

        You literally had people clawing at the door.

        1. Right. But you literally had people break into the Capitol and commit numerous acts of violence and property destruction.

          1. Much worse happened in all Burn Loot Murder riots over the summer, with government actively participating and encouraging, including turning over sections of cities o the Burn Loot Murder squads.

            1. We could play this all day by talking about all the unnecessary violence the police commit against people and property that ultimately lead to demonstrations.

              1. Oh yes; but you skipped right over the very consequential summer riots, ignored the police malfeasance which triggered them, and went straight to the very minor Jan 6 riot. Your priorities are not rooted in anything like fundamental justice.

                1. Very minor? Sure, Jan.

                  1. Compared to all the Burn Loot Murder riots, absolutely minor. No guns, the only deaths were from cops, no arson, minor looting. That you refuse to acknowledge that with any actual examples of how it was worse is very telling.

                    1. I didn’t say it was better or worse. Just that it’s not “very minor” to take over the capitol and put elected officials at risk for the purpose of maintaining the power of someone who lost an election.

                    2. Pretty poor weaseling. “Minor” is a relative word, except when it related to adults vs children. Your pretense otherwise doesn’t change that.

          2. You literally had a small minority of those who entered the Capitol break in, and a still smaller minority commit a few acts of violence and property destruction. And we’re told we have to describe this as an “insurrection” or be minimizing it.

            Not to minimize it, but all that happened on January 6th is that, for once, the Right sank to the Left’s level in terms of civil disobedience. And then when reminded they were better than that, stopped.

            Anyway, like I said, at least Gorsuch didn’t have to deal with mobs invading the Capitol, (As happened during Kavanaugh’s hearing, but was somehow viewed as mere high spirits.) or attacking the Supreme court building as he was sworn in. I’d venture to say this was probably because Gorsuch didn’t shift the numbers on the Court, as he was replacing Scalia, but Kavanaugh was more consequential, replacing RBG.

            1. That minority was literally trying to disrupt the process to keep the loser of an election in power. If that isn’t an insurrection, then nothing is. You’re minimizing it by pretending that’s not what happened.

              “And then when reminded they were better than that, stopped.”

              LOL. That is not what happened. They had to be cleared out, dude.

              Republicans caught a real lucky break that these freaks didn’t actually get in contact with elected officials. If they had, and there was violence and murders, you’d have a harder time rationalizing it. Though I have ZERO doubt in my mind that if the torture and murder of a congressperson occurred on a live stream you and people like you would be minimizing and/or praising it.

              1. But they did clear out. Compare and contrast with any Burn Loot Murder riot. Show your work.

                You can’t. It would be fun to watch you try, but you can’t, and you won’t, because you know you can’t.

                1. I don’t need to compare anything, because you don’t seem to understand what the capitol riot was about.

                  1. You don’t seem to understand the English language. You are dodging the comparison by blaming me for understanding your dodge.

                    1. No. I don’t need to make the comparison at all. You’re bringing up an irrelevancy to try and defend an attempt to subvert an election. Instead of ridiculously minimizing it why don’t you say what you really think: you’re sorry it didn’t work, that you didn’t see dead Democratic elected officials, and you wish that Trump had the guts to send in armed thugs to help them.

                    2. nstead of ridiculously minimizing it why don’t you say what you really think: you’re sorry it didn’t work, that you didn’t see dead Democratic elected officials, a

                      To be fair, he and his ilk also wanted to see a dead Mike Pence.

            2. That was a Hong Kong style pro-democracy protest against the permanent one party state Democrats want to install by cheating.

  2. The whiff of illegitimacy will always cling to him.

    1. It’s much worse for ACB. She was installed after people had already started voting and every senator who claimed that the American people deserved a voice in 2016 as the reason for blocking Garland revealed themselves to be liars in the extreme in 2020. This still grates on me so much because it was so contemptuous of Americans. And she decided to reward that lie by accepting the nomination. Hugely revealing of her character and her contempt for people. Oh and she had no qualms about a superspreader nomination party either. Never heard any contrition from her about that.

      1. I also think it was dirty politics but look, if you’re offered a Justice position YOU TAKE IT.

        1. Putting a commitment to small (d) democratic principles or general moral principles about telling the truth ahead of narrow self-interest may be difficult, but it is not impossible.

          1. I think both Gorsuch and Barrett, fully aware of their illegitimacy, have been shamed into being less conservative on the bench than they otherwise would be.

            1. I think it’s generally a mistake to assume other people share your own opinion of them. There’s no particular reason for either of those two to think they hold their positions illegitimately; They were nominated by a sitting President, and confirmed by the Senate.

              Legally, that makes them legitimate, and as judges, why wouldn’t they think that’s the end of it? There are no legal questions about their right to hold their positions at all. Just partisan complaints, and why would they share those, when they’re coming from the opposing party?

              1. “why would they share those, when they’re coming from the opposing party?”

                Because they might be accurate.

              2. Similarly, Sandra Day O’Connor was perfectly aware of the illegitimacy of the Bush v. Gore decision, which she voted for, and in which the Court brazenly and cynically installed Bush in office, which is why she waited until Bush had been re-elected by legitimate means before retiring.

                1. I believe that’s also been a rumor as to why Rehnquist chose not to retire in the first term.

                2. “why she waited until Bush had been re-elected by legitimate means before retiring”

                  Her husband got Alzheimer’s. It had nothing to do with this imaginary guilt feelings you think [without evidence] she had.

                  1. That’s why she retired then instead of staying on. He’s suggesting she didn’t retire earlier because of Bush v. Gore.

                    1. “He’s suggesting she didn’t retire earlier because of Bush v. Gore.”

                      She didn’t retire earlier because her husband didn’t need her to do so.

                      It had nothing to do with cc’s active imagination.

                      Its insulting to her in addition to being complete BS.

        2. “I also think it was dirty politics but look, if you’re offered a Justice position YOU TAKE IT.”

          And if you are in a position to enlarge the Supreme Court, arranging a Court that reflects modern America rather than the bigoted, backward Federalist Society, you do it.

          See you down the road apiece, clingers.

  3. “Whoever smelt it, dealt it.” Nothing the slightest bit illegitimate about him.

    1. Ivy indoctrinated, know nothing, big government, Washington acculturated, douche bag, a catastrophe for the country. Also a slick weasel smoothly justifying abominable judgments.

  4. I love the smell of liberal tears in the morning!

    1. Don’t you mean taste? I mean isn’t the conservative troll thing to have mugs that say “liberal tears?” You can’t really smell tears very well (although I think that there was a team of scientists who thought men had physiological responses to the smell women’s tears, but I don’t know how much that has been substantiated).

      I mean I know you’re making a reference to Colonel Kilgore, but I don’t think it quite works in this context. I’d try again with less mixed figurative language.

    2. If that provides a brief respite from deplorable life in America’s desolate backwaters, getting smacked around by your betters in the culture war, knowing that the backward and bigoted are being painted into increasingly small corners of our society by the liberal-libertarian American mainstream . . . enjoy yourself, Bob from Ohio!

Please to post comments