They aren’t objections. That implies a personal opinion. It’s a legal ruling which by its nature is non-partisan. At least they are supposed to be.

February 16, 2026 - 19:52 UTC

1
0
0
You wouldn't call this an objection?

"The government claims it alone has the power to erase, alter, remove and hide historical accounts on taxpayer and local government-funded monuments within its control. Its claims in this regard echo Big Brother’s domain in Orwell’s 1984."
2
0
1
I’m calling it exactly what it is…a legal opinion. She clearly “objects” in her legal decision but the second you apply partisanship to it you’re making it political and a personal opinion when it’s not that at all. That only serves to undermine tue non-partisan nature of of judiciary.
0
0
1
Do you believe that all nine members of the US Supreme Court are nonpartisan actors whose actions on any given case have nothing to do with politics?
1
0
1