in 
, via 
| she/her
Calling SCOTUS decisions left/right is a bit loose. For example, how is Crawford v Washington (overturning Ohio v Roberts) labeled? That's Scalia's crusade, & Breyer dissented in all of Crawford's progeny. That era was pragmatists vs principles w/r/t crim pro.
The Supreme Court is back in session today & @ameliatd looks at how the Roberts court treats precedents differently: it's not more likely to overturn precedents, but it is more likely to do so with a *narrow majority*, without trying to build consensus:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-supreme-court-heading-for-a-conservative-revolution/ …pic.twitter.com/F4GTadt9qS
-
-
-
A bit loose understates it. Further, “altering” precedent is also a loose standard as most SCOTUS cases are precedent altering; the Court is not a matter of right appellate court. Articles like this impress as seeking to delegitimization decisions before they are rendered.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And, THIS with RBG still on the court.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“Without trying to build consensus” is one way to frame it
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The Court is no longer a legitimate body.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is that what balls & strikes look like on a bad graph?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.