Scalia wrote some really interesting opinions for sure. Feel like the arguments are only going to get worse :(

Amy Coney Barrett has somewhat taken up the mantel, but her legal reasoning is probably superior.

Thomas wants to pretend he's the OG originalist, but I don't think he is anywhere near Barrett's peer.

Kavanaugh strikes me as principled, but in kind of a Type-A, "well, actually" sort of way where he will get pulled into rabbit holes and want to die on random textual hills.

He is all over the map, but not in a way that seems consistent or predictable.

Kavanaugh votes either way, but I don't think this is out of principle... I just think he's just kind of an idiot and thinks he can write a justification for just about any of his biases without making those biases obvious. It's kind of apparent if you read his opinions; they tend to be very verbose (his dissent here is 63 pages!) without saying a whole lot, and he gets sloppy with citations, selectively citing precedent in some cases while others he simply hand-waves. Take his opinion in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo (the "Kavanaugh stop" case): there's a reason why no one joined his concurrence.

His reputation will be forever tarnished by "Kavanaugh stops"

You need to be cautious with the notion of “his votes go either way”. In Hungary, where I’m from, and a Trump kinda guy rules for 16 years, judges vote either way… but they vote against the government only when it doesn’t really matter for the ruling party. Either the government wants a scapegoat anyway why they cannot do something, or just simply nobody cares or even see the consequences. Like the propaganda newspapers are struck down routinely… but they don’t care because nobody, who they really care about, see the consequences of those. So judges can say happily that they are independent, yet they are not at all.

This fake independence works so well, that most Hungarians lie themselves that judiciary is free.

Weren’t Sotomator and Jackson the same with Biden? Kagan is much more principled.

its truly bizarre that anyone with this view could get approved by congress. its so antithetical to the entire american political system. just blows my mind how spineless congress as an institution has been for decades.

It’s not an absurd scenario. The law was written specifically to allow blocking imports from a country.

The nuance is that nothing Congress passed granted to right to tax. Additionally, they did grant the power to partially block imports. Nothing says you have to enact “no imports from Japan” vs. “no imports of networking equipment from Lichtenstein.”

> discussion about the nuances of this ruling are happening on X

I'm sure they are lol.

I remember being shocked, albeit not surprised, when I read that he had quite a lot of contact with Ron de Santis.

https://americanoversight.org/email-suggests-that-supreme-co...

But the toys are so cheap. It can’t possibly be just a matter of the money, there has to be some blackmail involved. Either that or he was always self hating.

What liberal justices do has no bearing on OP's argument at all. You must be able to recognize the fallacy?

Why are conservatives always so angry?