The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Had it up to HERE with this [SCOTUS], Thread
silence1186
Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered User regular
Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered User regular
All rise, the new SCOTUS thread is back in session. It was an eventful almost 3 years 13 months, which saw the long dreaded overturning of Roe v. Wade, the longstanding desire of the conservative movement they spent almost 50 years attempting to turn back, as far back as the initial ruling in 1973.
A few ground rules, as previously noted:
scotusblog.com is the go to place for things relevant to what's going on.
The most high profile ruling lately was SCOTUS formally overturning Roe v. Wade after 50 years in the Dobbs decision. We actually had a separate discussion thread just for this ruling here. We also have a general thread to discuss Abortion here. Much digital ink has been spilled on the subject and I'm not remotely qualified to explain the nuances, so let me just say that the ruling was a massive judicial overreach by a group of partisan hack justices with no basis in jurisprudence that is going to cause widespread death and suffering in intentionally cruel ways for literally no benefit tangible or otherwise.
The other big news was the retirement of Stephen Breyer, who was replaced by Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman justice.
The court has a legitimacy problem. Feeling empowered and unassailable, the conservatives wing of the court is writing baseless rulings to explicitly push culture war issues and enable their own party's behavior. For the first time, less than half of the country has a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the judicial branch of the US government headed by the Supreme Court.
In case you've never heard of the Shadow Docket, which sounds spooky like something out of Yugioh, I've left the explanation I tagged last thread. Briefly: Shadow Docket explained.
Last thread. Not sure I have the energy to pun the title of a thread that is increasingly dire to read, but I'm always accepting suggestions.
I know it's infuriating at times, but there's a lot of high effort in the weeds discussion in here, so I hope it can continue.
A few ground rules, as previously noted:
Expectations for this thread
1. This is not the general politics or lol this party sucks thread.
2. This is a thread about the US Supreme Court, if it doesn't have anything to do with SCOTUS, it doesn't belong here.
3. Not all things about SCOTUS belong here. Some cases dealing with certain issues, already have a thread or their own gosh darn separate thread that is more appropriate to discuss a certain SCOTUS rulings or cases.
4. In the event that a tangent regarding something involving SCOTUS has it's own thread created after the discussion starts in this thread, then move the discussion over to the new thread. (Also appreciated if people link to the new thread to help others out).
5. In the event that we get a SCOTUS vacancy in the lifetime of this thread, this would probably be the best place to discuss such an appointment given how low traffic this thread is likely to be. (leaving this for posterity and lols - SIG)
5a. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are seated. My feelings on the matter can be found here. I don't know if there's much ground for meaningful discussion in screaming into the void at the injustice of it all, or having the same multi-page arguments with the few posters who do approve of the Federalist Society Robots. Probably for the best to stick to just the facts, and discuss new things going forward.
scotusblog.com is the go to place for things relevant to what's going on.
The most high profile ruling lately was SCOTUS formally overturning Roe v. Wade after 50 years in the Dobbs decision. We actually had a separate discussion thread just for this ruling here. We also have a general thread to discuss Abortion here. Much digital ink has been spilled on the subject and I'm not remotely qualified to explain the nuances, so let me just say that the ruling was a massive judicial overreach by a group of partisan hack justices with no basis in jurisprudence that is going to cause widespread death and suffering in intentionally cruel ways for literally no benefit tangible or otherwise.
The other big news was the retirement of Stephen Breyer, who was replaced by Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman justice.
The court has a legitimacy problem. Feeling empowered and unassailable, the conservatives wing of the court is writing baseless rulings to explicitly push culture war issues and enable their own party's behavior. For the first time, less than half of the country has a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the judicial branch of the US government headed by the Supreme Court.
In case you've never heard of the Shadow Docket, which sounds spooky like something out of Yugioh, I've left the explanation I tagged last thread. Briefly: Shadow Docket explained.
Last thread. Not sure I have the energy to pun the title of a thread that is increasingly dire to read, but I'm always accepting suggestions.
I know it's infuriating at times, but there's a lot of high effort in the weeds discussion in here, so I hope it can continue.
+3
Posts
I absolutely agree which is why I tried to flag it in my post. I normally wouldn't bring it up either. The whole line started because there is a fear that the liberal justices will be functionally silenced forevermore at some point. It is important in those moments of real fear to look at the technical stuff to see if those fears are rooted in fact or feeling. We are in an extremely shitty place with this court, and it doesn't look to be getting better soon. I don't think we are close to a space where the liberal justices are just window dressing for the majority of the work though, and have tried to back that up with data.
Affirmative Action is coming up soon.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
2008. Black president, American can't be racist.
You mean the only President in living history to have his status as an american-borne citizen questioned, because "reasons."
Yep! He got voted in as president, so American can't be racist. Even though only like 23% of the country actually voted for him (69,498,516 votes vs 304,100,000 total population), he got voted in, so racism has been solved.
(Narrator) the framers absolutely imagined active measures to correct injustice.
He's all that and deep into Respectability Politics territory. Seems to believe in having to "earn" one's spot in society. Which is exactly the opposite of what the law says is the case.
Stunning. Completely unexpected.
Your Ad Here! Reasonable Rates!
The Netanyahu maneuver.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
There's now allegations it was Alito. Cue my shocked face.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/19/politics/2014-supreme-court-decision-leak-hobby-lobby-samuel-alito
Being Gullah and learning that creole as his first language has dramatically shaped his vision on race.
From Andrew Chung, longtime SCOTUS reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner:
Which illustrates why not having ethical standards for the Justices continues to be a bad thing and that there really should be something done about that.
ed:goddammed quotes
Folks, is it in the name of security to shield from public scrutiny the professional entanglements of the spouses of the some of the most powerful unelected officials in the country?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Edit: To clarify, I'm frustrated with the Tweet and not DP
I'm guessing it's probably a little provision included in these judicial privacy measures which comes from the good intensions to increase protections for federal judges.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Definitely mixed on this.
I don't see anything for family members in the language here but I'm not discounting it either, and tbh I'm not gonna scour the NDAA text.
EDIT: She's retweeted this, which has an image that breaks it all down:
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Yeah, but is the provision a poison pill add-in for the judicial protection that was previously put in? Do we know the lawmakers?
I trust it's happening because it sounds like absolute fuckery, but I need to know who is supposed to get my ire. I'll write any damn senator who is proposing Ginny Davis Protection Policies.
Here's the actual text
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2340/text
Yeah, it's time to call up some Democrats and put the fucking armbar on them. This is absolute horseshit.
The bill explicitly mentions removing any public protests as a consequence for a judges actions.
Oh noes someone called a judge a traitor we can't fucking have that
Welcome to the ramifications of our culture of judicial inviolbility.
Called them a traitor and also for their explicit murder.
I guess living like any LGBTQ person in America for 1 day was too much for them.
This of course does not address why we have democrats suddenly lining up to knowingly protect Ginny Thomas.
Thats basically any US politican at this point and we already have mechanisms for dealing with that stuff; why do judges need more protection now?
Also if the article didn't want to be called out for listing "called a traitor" as some sort of terrible offense against the judges, they could have just not mentioned it.
The furthering of the judicial caste system in America is just insulating these asshole judges from the direct consequences of their decisions and actions. Police aren't going to help liberal judges who rule against their mob mentality so this really is about protecting conservative originalists as they burn the country down.
This all tracks considering how aghast the beltway media and centrists in Congress were that people would *checks notes* interrupt a judges very expensive steak dinner.
We're basically making sure federal judges never have to sleep in the bed they made. I'm sure that will work out wonderfully.
Those mechanisms are evidently inadequate in the face of the resurgence in political violence. Local and federal politicians also need increased Federal protections given the rise in assassination attempts and successful terror campaigns driving election officials from office.