Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

reACTIONary

(7,271 posts)

3. Nine to Zero...

Reply to angrychair (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 29, 2026, 11:30 PM

Apr 29

.... so the liberals on the court are now fascist?

In principle, this is a ruling that supports first amendment rights in the face of legal harassment. Doesn't sound fascist to me.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Rhiannon12866 Polybius

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court Sides With Anti-Abortion Clinic in Fight Over Donor Records [View all] Polybius Apr 29 OP

SCOTUS angrychair Apr 29 #1

Nine to Zero... reACTIONary Apr 29 #3

It is fascist angrychair Apr 30 #4

"If the system is supporting and protecting people... reACTIONary Apr 30 #6

This case angrychair Apr 30 #7

The most recent example is... reACTIONary Apr 30 #9

As I said in post 19... pat_k Apr 30 #20

Regarding unanimous decisions... Polybius Apr 30 #17

I did angrychair Apr 30 #18

9-0 eggplant Apr 29 #2

It likely does not angrychair Apr 30 #8

Since the 1950s.... reACTIONary Apr 30 #10

Courts are for people that can afford it angrychair Apr 30 #12

As a person who pursued a pro se case for more than five years against the servicer and noteholder of two mortgages pat_k Apr 30 #22

That is clearly Gorsuch's Christian nationalist agenda -- i.e., declare it "constitutional" to impose PERSONAL religious pat_k Apr 30 #21

**********THIS IS A 9-0 RULING*************** Prairie Gates Apr 30 #5

The court asks us to just ask ourselves... reACTIONary Apr 30 #11

As I just posted a second ago angrychair Apr 30 #13

I don't understand this. I think you are maintaining that.... reACTIONary Apr 30 #14

I think you are missing my point angrychair Apr 30 #15

So you want the Supreme court to undo a precedent.... reACTIONary Apr 30 #16

Not a bad decision. They can challenge. Doesn't mean they'll win. pat_k Apr 30 #19