Bard spotting on Bluesky 24 February 2025

Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):

History is rife with SCOTUS jurists exploring a particular line of legal reasoning in oral arguments and even in previous decisions and then prestochangeo they come down against them in the final decision of the instant case. There are no stare decisis entrails to read anymore.

Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social):

This morning, SCOTUS heard arguments in an ongoing dispute over Texas's DNA testing procedures, but perhaps the most notable moment came when — in response to questions about that prosecutor's compliance — Justice Brett Kavanaugh detoured into U.S. v. Nixon in discussing a "recalcitrant defendant."

Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):

Like: Scalia was famous for pointedly drubbing the legal reasoning of Wickard v Filburn under the Commerce Clause, (a case allowing the US FedGov to regulate agriculture) — and then wrote the majority opinion in Gonzales v Raich, under the Commerce Clause, US FedGov regulating agriculture