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.
[SCOTUS] thread defers to King Biden.
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 ~20 months. The country is still reeling from 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 court has been releasing a bunch of decisions for the term recently. Still outstanding are whether or not Chevron Deference lives, allowing agencies regulatory discretion, and whether the President (or one specific ex-president) is above the law. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-immunity-capitol-attack-acebc079bdaa6257bfd70a90a71a2ca0
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 two threads ago. 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 court has been releasing a bunch of decisions for the term recently. Still outstanding are whether or not Chevron Deference lives, allowing agencies regulatory discretion, and whether the President (or one specific ex-president) is above the law. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-immunity-capitol-attack-acebc079bdaa6257bfd70a90a71a2ca0
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 two threads ago. 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.
Hahnsoo1 on
+2
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
I mean, Cannon is right there, and I know there were other federal judges he appointed that had no idea what they were doing.
If you're talking about the SCOTUS picks he made, Kavanaugh had a fair bit of time on the bench already, though Barrett was only serving for I think 3 years beforehand.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
I think they were implying reinstating the VRA and/or other measures that mathematically protect Democratic majorities. The problem with that though is it takes time to solve systemic issues and Congress flips every two years because voters are fucking stupid.
I don't think there is a way to fix what's broken in Congress from the top considering Republicans broke it from the bottom.
Ultimately it needs to be fixed from the bottom as is appropriate for a democracy. Every voter should vote as if their vote was the deciding vote.
During Trump's reign, there were 10 nominations (with later confirmations) that got "not qualified" ratings by the ABA, which is such a low bar to clear it's kind of incredible just how inadequate the noms really were.
Also fits the guy who appointed them, though.
It does reference a great Onion video though:
Republicans actually know the game here and so their main qualifications for judicial appointments are loyalty and youth.
This naturally leans them towards completely unqualified candidates.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I'm assuming at this point they send it back to the circuit to relitigate rather than make a ruling, with the goal being to not actually take a stand and make us fix this shit at the polls.
I hope that her and Sotomayor's dissents are studied for years because of how expertly they dismantle so many arguments used by the fascists on the court.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
This is just a wacky, wacky case.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/scotus-anti-corruption-portage-indiana-james-snyder/index.html
So does that mean you can tip government officials after a contract is awarded now?
If you do it before the award, it's corrupt.
If you do it after the award, it's a tip?
Edit: I wonder if there is any motivated reasoning from particular members of the court
Teeechhhnicalllly they're saying that it very well could be a bribe but this statute doesn't cover the situation, and the States need to decide if it was a bribe by updating / clarifying their own shit rather than relying on a distortion of the federal law to cover their asses.
Which is still a pretty shaky argument. Jackson's dissent is a treat in this case.
And really, giving a judge a gratuity is not corrupt? The whole concept of a gratuity is that there's a quid pro quo happening.
It's real fucking rich to have them go "look the law isn't clear so we can't rule on it" when they have no problem bending themselves into pretzels to say the plain reading of other laws don't mean what they say.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
You know we have some utterly atrocious rulings coming up, because they have issued some marginally not terrible ones in order to seem 'fair and balanced' in advance. The guns to domestic abusers one is telling us clear as day they have something REALLY bad coming, because limitations on gun rights are a big right wing no no. Their recent decisions in lesser cases have been structured to give them cover in the more significant ones.
But I also don't expect most of the current SCOTUS members to understand bribery and ethics. Especially given what's come out over the last year or two.
They understand (the first of those) very well, thank you; they merely pretend not to, so they can keep taking them.
Make up your minds!
I love that textualism always reveals itself as "the authors intended whatever I believe"
Has there ever been a meaty textualist opinion that didnt align politically with a justice's party's political agenda?
I know! Its so strange that all these textualists never have to write, "Sadly, despite its clear contrast to my parties deeply held beliefs, and recent judicial opinions I have expressed I am FORCED to admit that the founders wanted the exact oppisite of everything I think is right"
My favourite comment on textualism remains "if they actually cared about textualism they'd be appointing and hiring historians, not law school grads".
Odds for one of the conservatives intentionally leaking this so that the right can mobilize for a shit show?
Come Overwatch with meeeee