Latest Breaking News

angrychair

(12,462 posts)

13. As I just posted a second ago

Thu Apr 30, 2026, 01:20 PM

Apr 30

Court rulings like this aren't relevant. Ironically the point they are making is still reality Even if the court rules that such requests violate the first amendment of "free speech" because at the end of the day you will have to defend that right in court and unless you have unlimited money and time, like being bankrolled by billionaires, more likely than not, like this organization in this case, you have no way to defend that so-called rights.

The Constitution is a paper tiger and has been weaponized by the wealthy and powerful. In most cases people have zero ability to fight for this stuff and I know if I ever get visited I will just delete everything and keep my mouth shut because what other choice do I have? I cannot pay some fancy lawyer a thousand dollars a second to defend me in court. That is why this ruling is meaningless and only for the wealthy and powerful.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

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