I fail to see how this is a valid example of a corrupt decision.
And if you're going to start prosecuting Presidents for official acts, we definitely should start with the one that was executing US citizens via drone strikes without a trial.
> The context of the Supreme Court choosing to reverse 50 years of precedent regarding abortion is pretty important there. Especially as the justices involved were going against their explicit answers from their confirmation hearings, that it was settled law.
So a judge can never change their mind on anything? And once a ruling is decided, it's carved in stone forever?
By that bankrupt logic we'd be stuck with Plessy v. Ferguson.
> Schumer also did not threaten violence.
I'd love to hear what other consequences you think he was eluding to when he said they will "pay the price". It's clearly not at the ballot box as SCOTUS are appointed for life.
I fail to see how this is a valid example of a corrupt decision.
And if you're going to start prosecuting Presidents for official acts, we definitely should start with the one that was executing US citizens via drone strikes without a trial.
> The context of the Supreme Court choosing to reverse 50 years of precedent regarding abortion is pretty important there. Especially as the justices involved were going against their explicit answers from their confirmation hearings, that it was settled law.
So a judge can never change their mind on anything? And once a ruling is decided, it's carved in stone forever?
By that bankrupt logic we'd be stuck with Plessy v. Ferguson.
> Schumer also did not threaten violence.
I'd love to hear what other consequences you think he was eluding to when he said they will "pay the price". It's clearly not at the ballot box as SCOTUS are appointed for life.