Clarence Thomas copied material from a gun extremist group for his bump stocks opinion

Clarence Thomas’ SCOTUS opinion on bump stocks includes copy and pasted illustrations from a gun extremist group that sells t-shirts on its website that say, “Abolish the ATF” and “Stack Up or Fuck Off.” https://t.co/QaICKVPe2z
— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) June 15, 2024

The Supreme Court is helping Trump by delaying the immunity decision

I’m sure this is deliberate. The Republican court majority works as part of the Republican party now. It’s disgusting.

Neither of Smith's cases are going to make it to verdict (if even to trial) before the election.

The delay tactics worked. The public will be deprived of judicial resolution of these issues prior to casting their votes.

Just as Trump hoped. https://t.co/75W8uTElIR
— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) June 14, 2024

It’s been SIX months since Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court for an expedited ruling on immunity so we could get to a trial on the January 6th case.

But hey, no rush. The Justices have been busy revising incomplete ethics forms, flying weird flags, and laboring over patent law.
— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) June 13, 2024

Judge Luttig: “ There was no reason in this world for the Supreme Court to take this case. The 3 Judge panel of The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had written a masterful opinion denying the President’s claims of absolute immunity.-“ pic.twitter.com/B0QwTeEnaH
— Mia Farrow 🏳️‍🌈 🌻🇺🇸💙 (@MiaFarrow) February 29, 2024

The Supreme Court is so right-wing they got rid of the bump stock ban from the Trump administration

Correct. The only way to carve out a loophole for bumpstocks under the federal ban is to torture the words of the statute until they mean something different from the plain text. Which is exactly what the Supreme Court just did. https://t.co/cBv9nHuCon
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 14, 2024

Koch-backed groups called on SCOTUS to overturn the federal bump stock ban.

Clarence Thomas secretly attended Koch fundraising events, but of course didn't recuse from this case — he wrote the majority opinion.

Our nation's highest court is beyond compromised. https://t.co/rUuE9vxkpN
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) June 14, 2024

Listen to the gunfire in these videos from the Las Vegas shooting. Automatic fire—a continuous spray of bullets enabled by a bumpstock. 60 people slaughtered in 10 minutes from 490 yards away. This is what the Supreme Court just legalized. https://t.co/NodYjeFuDL
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 14, 2024

The bump stock decision is radical, even for this Supreme Court. This Supreme Court is now on record as the Court which has guaranteed because of their extremism that more Americans will die from gun violence. They have also guaranteed that the talk of violence by MAGA, will… https://t.co/0tHdhdG0Ps
— Fred Guttenberg (@fred_guttenberg) June 14, 2024

As Justice Sotomayor said: "When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck." A semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock has the same effect as a machine gun. This decision puts Americans in danger. Congress must act. https://t.co/w3GFKxn1sg
— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) June 14, 2024

Today's extremist SCOTUS ruling on bump stocks has nothing to do with the Second Amendment; it absurdly argues that the ATF can't ban bump stocks because Congress hasn't given them the authority to do so. So now Congress must do exactly that… Outlaw this dangerous device NOW.
— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) June 14, 2024

“It’s really scary that we have lost Republican support for banning machine guns.”@ChrisMurphyCT joins @jaketapper to discuss the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a Trump-era ban on bump stocks. pic.twitter.com/4dF4miFIrZ
— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) June 16, 2024

Democrats are failing to do anything about Thomas and Alito

Roberts won’t do anything. All that Democrats will do is tweet and write letters. Its’ time to subpoena Roberts. There is no incentive for the justices to change their behavior since they know they are not accountable.

Here’s Chief Justice Roberts’s letter purportedly “explaining” his refusal to appear in Congress to address his colleagues’ obvious violations of 28 USC 455. Spoiler alert: His letter explains absolutely nothing. He might as well have said fu*k you! https://t.co/FzMPbtdm32
— Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ (@tribelaw) May 30, 2024

Once again, I am asking Democratic politicians to have a plan for taking on a Republican-controlled Supreme Court that isn't "send another letter begging John Roberts to do something about it" https://t.co/j30cn8hiYR
— Jay Willis (@jaywillis) May 30, 2024

He won't do anything. It's up to you. Enough with tweets and letters. Subpoena him.
— Harris Levy (@HarrisL585) May 30, 2024

You gonna do more than tweet?
— Harris Levy (@HarrisL585) May 30, 2024

Here's an idea Are you worried it would look partisan? Several Republican Supreme Court justices are functioning like they're working for the Republican party. https://t.co/QhzkTHX7vl
— Harris Levy (@HarrisL585) May 30, 2024

BREAKING: Chief "justice" John Roberts DECLINES the meeting request from @SenatorDurbin and @SenWhitehouse, and says it's up to Alito whether he recuses (he said he won't). Can we subpoena them now? Or are we gonna write more letters? pic.twitter.com/EbgO6XmQ9d
— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) May 30, 2024

John Roberts joins Alito in telling Senate Democrats to go fly a kite over their questions about recusal on Trump's immunity claim. Do @SenatorDurbin & @SenSchumer simply take "none of your business" for an answer? https://t.co/iKouWavTVo.
— Ronald Brownstein (@RonBrownstein) May 30, 2024

FFS Senate Democrats … grow a pair and issue a subpoena … 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️ https://t.co/73M0vpzVuH
— Kurt Bardella (@kurtbardella) May 30, 2024

Clarence Thomas opposes the Brown v. Board of Education 1954 ruling

Thomas is terrible,

I wasn’t aware the Justices were competing for worst headline of the week. https://t.co/OcGx3LlKb1
— Sheldon Whitehouse (@SenWhitehouse) May 24, 2024

In a ruling on racial gerrymandering, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas also got in a swipe at the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education—which struck down racial segregation in schools.https://t.co/r6FH57izC7
— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) May 24, 2024

Thomas implies that Baker v. Carr and Brown v. Board were incorrectly decided https://t.co/QXbQ11S6Kx
— Lawyers, Guns and Money (@lefarkins) May 24, 2024

After the Brown v. Board decision, white people across the South opened hundreds of private schools.

70 years later, most of the ones still open in Alabama’s Black Belt remain overwhelmingly white.

In this town, one school keeps kids divided. https://t.co/acLDbq7cWg
— ProPublica (@propublica) May 30, 2024

Today’s the anniversary of Brown v Board which was the first nail in coffin of segregation.

Some Republican appointees sitting on the Supreme Court have refused to say Brown is settled law.

Nothing is safe if Trump wins.
— Rachel Bitecofer 🗽💡🔭🦆 (@RachelBitecofer) May 17, 2024

Today I'm tackling one of Republican justices' most annoying habits:

Pretending their attacks on human rights have anything in common with Brown v. Board of Educationhttps://t.co/vLZASxP4iC
— Barred and Boujee aka Madiba Dennie (@AudreLawdAMercy) May 16, 2024

I've said it before. The Republican Party is still fighting Brown v. Boardhttps://t.co/WboIQCPwUu
— John Refior is on Mastodon (@jrefior) May 5, 2022

This is really important – a push by the right to undo the legal legacy of Brown v. Board itself. https://t.co/Pwpy7cFoqY
— Will Stancil (@whstancil) February 11, 2019

I wrote a post on X with over 1,200 likes

If Alito lied, will somebody do something
about it? Roberts? Schumer? Anyone?
— Harris Levy (@HarrisL585) May 29, 2024

Texas refuses to accept the Supreme Court decision on its border tactics

They only accept elections if they win

They only accept court decisions if they like them. The Supreme Court is 2/3 very conservative and even they thought Texas was wrong.

This is very dangerous.

“This language embraces the Confederacy’s conception of the Constitution as a mere compact that states may exit when they feel it has been broken. It’s dangerous rhetoric…And as before, it’s being used to legitimize both nullification and dehumanization.” https://t.co/nXbcsf1Qtc
— Ronald Brownstein (@RonBrownstein) January 26, 2024

I will check to be sure of this, but it appears that the TX John C Calhoun-style flat refusal to accept federal authority /Sup Court ruling at the border has not yet been on front page of NYT.

(Congressional standoff over immig bill, yes. States' Rights redux, apparently no.)
— James Fallows (@JamesFallows) January 31, 2024

Texas won't stop installing razor wire at the border, says Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — despite the Supreme Court allowing the Biden admin to remove it.https://t.co/16ZCwT2yKv
— Axios (@axios) January 30, 2024

See if you can guess how many articles the New York Times has published over the last week about the governor of the 2nd largest state, Texas, openly defying the U.S. Supreme Court and federal authority over the razor wire at Eagle Pass
— Will Bunch (@Will_Bunch) January 30, 2024

Texas’s embrace of neo-secessionism in defense of letting children drown in the Rio Grande belongs, with the Confederate cause, on the list of the worst causes for which a people ever fought, @adamserwer writes: https://t.co/j3wzFKC2BV
— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) January 29, 2024

House Speaker Mike Johnson says he spoke with Abbott:

"… It is the expectation of the U.S. House of Representatives that the Biden Administration will not interfere as Texas fulfills its responsibilities.”
— Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) January 29, 2024

This is 21st century know-nothingism, willfully facilitated by a cowardly press corp which will is too afraid to call out right-wing lies https://t.co/c6mxjYDeVj
— Will Stancil (@whstancil) January 27, 2024

the leaders of Trumpistan pic.twitter.com/GcNSmd7DQy
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 26, 2024

The fact that Congress believes that addressing the border can wait ten months also undercuts any argument that Abbot is acting with Congress’ consent or responding to some kind of imminent threat that “will not admit of delay” https://t.co/bEfb5uG58R
— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) January 26, 2024

Steve Doocy to Got. Stitt: "Have you thought this through? If you send you Oklahoma National Guard down there, and a bunch of other states send them down there, all Biden has to do is federalize all of them … your National Guard could be working for Joe Biden." pic.twitter.com/WXBT0XSq6u
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 26, 2024

Tweets on another potential terrible Supreme Court decision

Once again, the right wing extremists look like they will overturn decades of precedent and give more power to the right wing donors that put them there.

What you need to know abt repeal of Chevron: a stealth assault on consumer protection, environment, our health, *literally everything.* We’re abt to cede countless vital decisions to #FedSoc, wrested from Congress, POTUS, or voter control. Upcoming SCOTUS ruling will wreak havoc. https://t.co/X5tB9XGRXI
— Ric Fouad (@ricfouad) January 21, 2024

The Supreme Court looks ready to overturn 40 years of precedent—encompassing more than 17,000 federal court decisions—so it can award itself even more power over executive policy and veto every regulation it dislikes.

This case isn't really about herring! https://t.co/0aZEPjhDrC
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) January 17, 2024

It’s a catastrophic blow to the ability of government to be run by people who know what they’re talking about, instead of rich kids who got sent to Yale by daddy, and got a White Dude Affirmative Action appointment to the federal judiciary because they’re Republican partisans https://t.co/weRTNkC77s
— Will Stancil (@whstancil) January 22, 2024

It was a huge honor to participate in this program. And the issue is a huge one — will the Supreme Court grab enormous new power for itself at the expense of more accountable parts of the government? https://t.co/ueyT9iFLDu
— Paul Bland (@FPBland) January 20, 2024

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson spells out the legal chaos that will arise when the right-wing Roberts Court overturns the 1984 Chevron doctrine, which for 40 years has allowed federal agencies to make reasonable interpretations of undefined terms in federal statutes. pic.twitter.com/TIdgPSLUyD
— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) January 17, 2024

In Loper arguments, Kavanaugh suggested the danger of the Chevron precedent is “aggressive assertions of unilateral executive power.” Excuse me? Congressional Review Act? Appropriations process? Legislative committee oversight? Even impeachment? Oh, and judicial review under APA.
— Sheldon Whitehouse (@SenWhitehouse) January 21, 2024

Read this article! A SCOTUS decsion in the area of administrative law could have "disastrous consequences . . . by slashing the power" of regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, that police food safety, health care, pollution and many other aspects of Americans' lives. https://t.co/SEwGGzRz1D
— H. M. Seiler (@hattie09ky) September 23, 2024

Trump, not Colorado, has put the Supreme Court in an impossible position

The Supreme Court will rule on the decisions by Colorado and other states on Trump’s eligibility to be on the 2024 ballot. Colorado said he was ineligible because of the 14th amendment and his role in the insurrection.

I am not discussing the merits of the case.

Some people are mad at Colorado because whatever the court decides will cause a lot of anger on the losing side. I don’t think worrying about possible violence by the Trump cult should influence the decision. The decision will be seen as political especially if the Trump-appointed judges rule in favor of him. As far as I’m concerned, the court destroyed their credibility with the Bush vs, Gore decision in 2000. Whatever happens will increase distrust in and acceptance of the 2024 election results.

The anger should be directed at Trump, not Colorado, If Trump hadn’t incited an insurrection, we wouldn’t be at this point.

Supreme Court term limits are a fantasy

Setting term limits at 18 years for Supreme Court justices is a popular proposal. It would not produce results anytime soon and I doubt Republicans would support it. There is public support for it but Republicans in Congress won’t care.

If current justices are excluded, it would take decades to affect the 6-3 balance of the Supreme Court. Trump’s three picks will be around for decades.
Why would Republicans agree to this when they have had such success stacking the court with the current process? They have shown they don’t care about traditions, just power. I would never expect them to agree to a process that could cost them the court majority eventually.

It’s time for Supreme Court term limits. Staggered 18-year terms would bring regular turnover to the bench. The result would be a Court that better reflects public values. Here’s our proposal on how this would work:https://t.co/d22jjhBiMa
— Brennan Center (@BrennanCenter) July 17, 2023

You could set term limits for justices, but this has limited support, especially since it Republicans have nothing to gain from it. You'd also need 60 votes in the Senate. So, DOA. 7/n https://t.co/vCMkcZS57w
— Brynn Tannehill (@BrynnTannehill) July 15, 2023

A strong majority, across party lines, wants term limits for Supreme Court Justices. Via @NavigatorSurvey pic.twitter.com/eWANPXnuZR
— Nick Gourevitch (@nickgourevitch) July 18, 2023

Fox News national poll

• 81% favor term limits for Congress

• 66% favor 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices

• 71% favor mandatory SCOTUS retirement age

• 46% favor expanding SCOTUS

• 55% favor replacing electoral college for prez elections with popular vote
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) July 18, 2022

Support for term limits on Supreme Court Justices appears to be growing. New Quinnipiac poll shows Americans favor limiting the number of years Justices can serve by 69% in favor to 27% opposed. Even Republicans favor by 61% to 36%. No exact term specified in question. #SCOTUS
— Larry Sabato (@LarrySabato) May 18, 2022

It’s time for Supreme Court term limits. Staggered 18- year terms would ensure that the Court stays in touch with American society and that no justice has too much power for too long. Here are Brennan Center resources on how this would work:https://t.co/GjYAExvhSo
— Brennan Center (@BrennanCenter) September 8, 2023