FWIS3

Yes, you read that right: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng- ... ill-access

Every single justice upheld it. Even Thomas, despite his snide comments about "abortionists". Even fucking Barrett.

I wonder if the recent corruption scandals around SCOTUS are starting to scare the conservatives, and they're trying to look less biased in front of the public.

No. I just think that this case/argument was so fucking dumb because the people involved were not harmed, and there's a billions of dollars pharmaceutical industry that very much didn't want this to happen. If it was purely a case of "we aren't biased" a few of them would have ruled against, IMO.

I am sure Trump et al will use this regardless to point at "look, we can be reasonable!" so it's important to remind people that this ruling would not change the Comstock Law they want to put into place if Trump gets reelected.

Thanks, Rommie, and noted

Yeah, the important thing to recognize here is it was a procedural ruling, bc they couldn't find someone actually harmed by the standard, so there's nothing stopping them from finding someone who was "harmed" and trying again.

That makes sense. Alas.

Might also be another side of buffering really bad rulings, like they did last time. This for instance: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/art ... n-decision

I kind of wonder if they're gearing up to rule in favor of Trump re his crimes in office.