That seems to be about the right percentage of time SCOTUS is on target now.

SCOTUS, actually doing their job: hey, even a broken clock is right, twice a day.

I haven’t. Will have to look it up.

I caught a huge one a year later at Lake Marion, while bass fishing. It was 4 or 5 feet long, and I would have had to cut it in half to fit in my Coleman cooler. My father-in-law, a b-i-i-g catfish eater, would have loved it. There's no way the bass net would handle it, so I worked it around to the (low) transom. As I reached to grab it, my line broke and the cat and my $5.00 bass jig quietly sank into the murk. Papa was disappointed he didn't get to see it, but it's just as well. We would have been eating that gnarly old thing for a week.

Blarman had the same thought. You could be right. We know Roberts is compromised. Barrett, Kavanagh and Gorsuch and Thomas have read the Constitution. The rest are legislators in robes.

Read the ones CG posted then:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...

I like Epoch. Lots of articles that wouldn't be posted by others, and not as aggressively biased as others.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/caniglia-v...

Now that is funny!

Yes, I meant not hearing a case against a nasty piece of legislation.

OK, I usually get along with you guys but I draw the line at catfish. Catfish are just plain gross. If you've ever had a bite of bass, then took a bite of catfish, you'd know what I mean.
I caught a big catfish a couple of years back, along with several much more edible bluegill. He had been dead in my cooler since noon, and it was around 6PM. I cut off the head, (forgetting, I will admit, that you have to skin it front-to-back, like a shark) and was standing there wrestling with the fish and pliers, when I looked back and the head was staring at me, gulping air. I know he was thinking (say it in a somber, hollow voice:) "That's MY body you're skinning." I had to turn the infernal head around so he couldn't watch me. Needless to say, he didn't go to the Siamese soon enough. Bleccch.

I was thinking it might be something as simple as "we won't hear this case" - such as the NRA one they declined arguing that it was moot because New York changed their policies. Deciding not to hear a case is just as effective at establishing precedent in many cases due to the overwhelmingly partisan nature of many of the Federal Appellate Courts.

That could be. A quid pro quo for AR ban

Amazing that they got a 9-0 ruling on this. I'm hoping its not an anomaly or political favor-currying among the justices, ie "I'll go along with you on this one but you have to go along with me sometime down the road..."

I cannot read the article you quote. This has happened before with the Epoch Times.

The Epoch times forces one to subscribe (for free) to read articles. I really don't want to give my email out as I get so much spam already.

I made the mistake of filling out a Republican survey .many years ago and I still get spam emails and phone calls from all the mail lists they sold my name to.

Although I am cynical too, I am hopeful some proposed gothic 2nd Amendment legislation will get flipped too. This case skirts the 2nd, but you can bet the totalitarian gun grabbers were watching closely.

What? We agree on something!

Could do without the snide little remark about a paper that covers stories that others bury, and behaves like a paper, but hell!

It's my opinion catfish are part of the food group. My favorite catfish site is closed due to lack of waitstaff help. Why don't people go back to work?

That I do follow. Thanks!

Indeed! And this was a real good one . Even the left, constitution-interpreted-for-what-I-want Justices overturned the three lower court decisions!

Says something about the lower courts. They are not racist. They are totalitarian!

The Fourth Amendment is so unequivocal. It's unfortunate that even a part of the Constitutional the spells it out so clearly needs to be defended.

I don't understand why there's an exception in the case of vehicles, and I certainly don't see why that dubious exception could be expanded.

Here is something on it from a real newspaper: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...

I also liked the ACLU amicus brief:
https://www.aclu.org/cases/caniglia-v...

its obvious that some of the scotus judges are compromised. It is also obvious that at least half are leftist activists. Why would supposedly conservative appointee's not vote to uphold the constitution? To cover their asses or to cover the asses of those holding their note (or their dirt).
Sure it aligns with what they need to prevent someone getting wind of what the SCOTUS judges or their lien holders have been doing (and they no doubt have been doing), so why would they allow for easier, more spontaneous, and legal access? Having to get a warrant by a judge gives those concerned fair warning, or the ability to quash things, in advance of execution/seizure/apprehension.
In this instance, considering previous decisions, I think it was unanimous because it favors them to do so.

They are either Constitutions centric or they are not. History says not, particularly more so recently. Unanimous? Of course, even the leftists can agree to cover their own asses, even if we benefit.

Apologies I'm very cynical these days.

Good to see one time the political ratchet did not click toward the far left.

Just pulled in another one. The 1" bait-fish work pretty well after dark sometimes.
Dinner was delicious.

Catfish is a favorite of me dino.
But do not buy a catfish dinner at Captain D's~~BLAUGH! Nasty! Never again!