Today, the Court takes the important step of finally overruling Korematsu, denouncing it as “gravely wrong the day it was decided.” Ante, at 38 (citing Korematsu, 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting)). This formal repudiation of a shameful precedent is laudable and long overdue. But it does not make the majority’s decision here acceptable or right. By blindly accepting the Government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security, the Court redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one “gravely wrong” decision with another. Ante, at 38.
Our Constitution demands, and our country deserves, a Judiciary willing to hold the coordinate branches to account when they defy our most sacred legal commitments. Because the Court’s decision today has failed in that respect, with profound regret, I dissent.
The end. Whenever the court gets around to deciding this was ridiculous, that dissent is going to be cited like Jackson's to Korematsu.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Democracy functions just fine and Gorsuch is a capable, qualified Justice. With limited political capital, what's needed is a permanent remedy for the next time somebody tries that shit.
Spend your energy on the Amendment.
The court is our 3rd assembly, and the most powerful one if it is biased.
The Government’s invocation of a national-security justification, however, does not mean that the Court should close its eyes to other relevant information. Deference is different from unquestioning acceptance. Thus, what is “far more problematic” in this case is the majority’s apparent willingness to throw the Establishment Clause out the window and forgo any meaningful constitutional review at the mere mention of a national-security concern. Ante, at 32, n. 5.
Exactly.
This term has been about nothing but trying to find any excuse to keep from doing their actual fucking job.
Eh, they are doing their job, just very cautiously. It's just that their job is to cement us as a Republican run autocracy, and they are a little bit worried about demographic trends and voter age distributions leading to them spending their final years broke and accursed rather than on the court.
The stolen court seat will go down in american history as a huge stain, and the Democrats should be ashamed of how they handled the situation. It's insane how spineless they were about it.
We will keep getting decisions like this for years because they couldn't do anything.
Mitch McConnell has agency too, you know.
the gop is the institution that pulled the trigger, but them being evil is a given. The Democrat's only job is to stop this from happening, and they had tools in their toolbelt to do it. but they were convinced Trump wouldn't win and just didn't give enough of a fuck in their hubris to do anything about it. It makes me incredibly angry.
Not exactly, everyone thought Trump would lose - including Trump! There were bigger reasons why they didn't act on the outside vectors, which is off-topic.
You should be angry, but aim the anger at the right people. Hindsight is 202/20 and all that. Elections have consequences, this one of them. The bigger question is - what's going on with the current judges that they're ok with the status quo?
Harry Dresden on
+2
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
The majority distinguished the Crisis Pregnancy Center from the previous case where the SCOTUS said doctors could be forced to talk about alternatives to abortions by claiming the disclosure required by the CA law is unrelated to a medical procedure.
That is so obviously pulled out of their rear after searching for any distinction at all.
Abortion is safer than childbirth.
Sorry, all of this is getting lost in me panicking about the Muslim Ban, whats going on with abortions?
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Credentials fraud and fake clinics that lie to people seeking healthcare with literal fake doctors are legal now, but only if you want to Save The Babies.
And, being an exercise of the war power explicitly granted by the Constitution for safeguarding the national life by prosecuting war effectively, I find nothing in the Constitution which denies to Congress the power to enforce such a valid military order by making its violation an offense triable in the civil courts. Compare Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447; 155 U.S. 3, and Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U.S. 177. To find that the Constitution does not forbid the military measures now complained of does not carry with it approval of that which Congress and the Executive did. That is their business, not ours.
Korematsu had a Kennedy too!
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
And, being an exercise of the war power explicitly granted by the Constitution for safeguarding the national life by prosecuting war effectively, I find nothing in the Constitution which denies to Congress the power to enforce such a valid military order by making its violation an offense triable in the civil courts. Compare Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447; 155 U.S. 3, and Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U.S. 177. To find that the Constitution does not forbid the military measures now complained of does not carry with it approval of that which Congress and the Executive did. That is their business, not ours.
Korematsu had a Kennedy too!
But remember, this is completely different because this court found the moral clarity to condemn rounding up us citizens during a war 70 years ago. Next up, they will demonstrate more great leadership by condemning the tax policies of George the 5th
Basically the message I get from this court is that infringements upon Christianity, particularly the evangelical protestant brand of Christianity, are unconstitutional; however, infringements upon other faiths are not. Which is a violation of the bloody establishment clause in and of itself.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
This is false. This is just plainly, factually, false.
Because the governments own data showed that there was no threat to the United States from terrorist action from any of the countries on the list. Discrimination aside, if you try to say "Its because of national security" and your own data factually states "There is no national security threat from these countries" then you fail the rational basis test.
Terrorism isn't actually the stated objection. Nobody in the thread has mentioned what these countries failed in that justified the ban (at least according to Roberts.)
Until I read the opening I don't think I'd seen it mentioned in any form either.
The travel ban ruling reads almost exactly like Korematsu with the nouns changed.
+15
Options
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
What the Supreme Court decision means with respect to the travel ban is that the president can rant and rail about the evils of certain ethnic and religious groups and if his goons follow up with a policy and couch it in neutral legalese then it’s fine.
This decision is wrong on all counts. The legal analysis conveniently ignores everything the architect of this policy, the President of the United States, has said about the policy. The immortality of this decision is... staggering..
I had hoped that maybe, MAYBE, Gorsuch might be a principled jurist, concerned with the law and trying to adhere to the principles this county was founded on, even when we have failed to practice them so many times. He has proven time and again that he is not, and today is no different. He is another of Trumps goons, except we’ll be dealing with him long after Trump is gone.
Roberts is no better. He is a callous and cruel politician like no other. He once said during his confirmation hearings that judges should just be calling balls and strikes. Well today the pitcher flipped off the batter, threw the ball at his fucking face, and the umpire called a strikeout.
Alito is a zealot. Thomas is a sociopath. I don’t know what the fuck Kennedy is thinking.
I do not know how they could read this twitter thread and feel anything but shame over what they did. But they would not, and they do not.
Have people ever tried picketing wherever the hell it is SCOTUS meets, and has it ever had an effect?
People have picketed the SCOTUS building, yeah, for both the ACA and gay marriage, but since they don't really have any spokepersons or issue public statements, gauging its effectiveness is vague at best.
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
I mean, I guess I had more in mind a mass march, but I also understand that ultimately the SCOTUS is designed to exist apart from public opinion.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
This court probably thinks Korematsu was rightly decided.
About that:
Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).
So I guess that's nice.
The bolded worries me for when Kiddie Korematsu makes it to SCOTUS.
"This isn't unconstitutional but trust us we'd strike it down if we thought it was. Also it's not always our place to act as a check on the executive"
Historically, these cessations of authority to fascist rulers happen fairly far apart and not together in the same fucking court decision
It easily gets lost among the other terrible news today, but the court ruling that a consumer protection law covering "crisis pregnancy centers" in California violates the 1st amendment is fucking wild, and even more nakedly partisan than a lot of the stuff we're seeing now.
+22
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
It easily gets lost among the other terrible news today, but the court ruling that a consumer protection law covering "crisis pregnancy centers" in California violates the 1st amendment is fucking wild, and even more nakedly partisan than a lot of the stuff we're seeing now.
I am at least a little hopeful that it might be used to push back against some parts of the ridiculous red state abortion laws.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
It easily gets lost among the other terrible news today, but the court ruling that a consumer protection law covering "crisis pregnancy centers" in California violates the 1st amendment is fucking wild, and even more nakedly partisan than a lot of the stuff we're seeing now.
I am at least a little hopeful that it might be used to push back against some parts of the ridiculous red state abortion laws.
I don't have it on hand but as I was reading it earlier they get around that by claiming the CA law had nothing to do with health care
Have people ever tried picketing wherever the hell it is SCOTUS meets, and has it ever had an effect?
People have picketed the SCOTUS building, yeah, for both the ACA and gay marriage, but since they don't really have any spokepersons or issue public statements, gauging its effectiveness is vague at best.
Honestly the only outside influence I would expect to have any impact on them, and I'm not really sure it would do anything, would be if the Pope instructed they were no longer to receive communion.
Which would be a whole other big pile of horribleness for other reasons but would be glorious schadenfreude.
It easily gets lost among the other terrible news today, but the court ruling that a consumer protection law covering "crisis pregnancy centers" in California violates the 1st amendment is fucking wild, and even more nakedly partisan than a lot of the stuff we're seeing now.
It is just as horrifying for different reasons. These “clinics” can now perpetrate fraud and literally endanger the lives of both mother and fetus because they find abortion icky.
It easily gets lost among the other terrible news today, but the court ruling that a consumer protection law covering "crisis pregnancy centers" in California violates the 1st amendment is fucking wild, and even more nakedly partisan than a lot of the stuff we're seeing now.
I am at least a little hopeful that it might be used to push back against some parts of the ridiculous red state abortion laws.
I don't have it on hand but as I was reading it earlier they get around that by claiming the CA law had nothing to do with health care
You try it and you lose the electorate. Not even FDR had the juice to get it done. It's a fools errand, a progressive fantasy. You have a better chance of passing an amendment or, even better, winning some state legislatures.
It'd be almost as politically costly as holding a SCOTUS seat hostage by refusing a nominee a hearing. Violations of political norms have been so incredibly costly electorally in the last decade that Donald Trump is President and the Republican party holds both Houses.
By Roberts’s logic, cornerstones of Jim Crow law, the grandfather clause, and the literacy test would be entirely constitutional. Grandfather clauses barred people from voting if they could not vote prior to emancipation, but there were free black Americans prior to the abolition of slavery, and there were blacks capable of passing literacy tests in states where those tests were not deliberately impossible to pass. These laws did not affect all black voters, and neither did they explicitly mention race—so, to apply the tests Roberts has proposed, these devices, meant to secure white supremacy in the South after Reconstruction, were not discriminatory.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Have people ever tried picketing wherever the hell it is SCOTUS meets, and has it ever had an effect?
People have picketed the SCOTUS building, yeah, for both the ACA and gay marriage, but since they don't really have any spokepersons or issue public statements, gauging its effectiveness is vague at best.
Honestly the only outside influence I would expect to have any impact on them, and I'm not really sure it would do anything, would be if the Pope instructed they were no longer to receive communion.
Which would be a whole other big pile of horribleness for other reasons but would be glorious schadenfreude.
Treating them as terrible people everywhere they go could help.
+13
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
Well, the immigration ban sticking is terrifying. I guarantee this is now the groundwork for limiting it from South America and Mexico.
Something will need to be done about the court, barring some really fortunately timed deaths. A scenario in which progressives win super majorities and then have all their work undone by 5 lifer hacks is real.
Something will need to be done about the court, barring some really fortunately timed deaths. A scenario in which progressives win super majorities and then have all their work undone by 5 lifer hacks is real.
If Congress was actually Congress they could pass laws etc but hey
Can someone explain this to me like a five year old who stayed up all night?
SC reversed the TRO [on the ban] and remanded it back to the lower court "for such further proceedings as may be appropriate"
Do we get another bite at this or not? My understanding of a TRO was that it was a "stop doing this shit while we sort it out" vs "keep doing this shit while we sort it out"
Are we now in the latter scenario, or is there no further appropriate proceeding?
If it's dead: What's the legal reason to only do a rational basis review if this was the main event?
So the only way this case remotely squares with Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye (and the baker case) is that's okay for the executive to spout racist dipshittery as long as the resulting policy is neutral on its face, but not for anyone else to have any opinion whatsoever on any issue because that will poison any neutral policy.
Something will need to be done about the court, barring some really fortunately timed deaths. A scenario in which progressives win super majorities and then have all their work undone by 5 lifer hacks is real.
If Congress was actually Congress they could pass laws etc but hey
The argument that 'The Democrats could pass laws to resolve this' is a lie told by the conservative wing of the court to placate the liberal wing (and a section of the voters). Note how the court is never unwilling to act in defence of Republican priorities even if former congresses under Democratic control passed clear laws describing exactly what was to be done.
If the Democrats were swept into power in 2020, with 61 votes in the Senate, the Presidency, and the House then without question this court would just start saying that Democratic priorities were unconstitutional. They just don't want to do so now so that they can retain the fig leaf of legitimacy that saying "We need the Congress to resolve this" whenever a potential Democratic win comes in front of them gives them.
Something will need to be done about the court, barring some really fortunately timed deaths. A scenario in which progressives win super majorities and then have all their work undone by 5 lifer hacks is real.
If Congress was actually Congress they could pass laws etc but hey
The argument that 'The Democrats could pass laws to resolve this' is a lie told by the conservative wing of the court to placate the liberal wing (and a section of the voters). Note how the court is never unwilling to act in defence of Republican priorities even if former congresses under Democratic control passed clear laws describing exactly what was to be done.
If the Democrats were swept into power in 2020, with 61 votes in the Senate, the Presidency, and the House then without question this court would just start saying that Democratic priorities were unconstitutional. They just don't want to do so now so that they can retain the fig leaf of legitimacy that saying "We need the Congress to resolve this" whenever a potential Democratic win comes in front of them gives them.
Nah. I think there are definitely places Congress could act to fix laws or pass new ones that would solve the problems SCOTUS has identified with the law.
Something will need to be done about the court, barring some really fortunately timed deaths. A scenario in which progressives win super majorities and then have all their work undone by 5 lifer hacks is real.
If Congress was actually Congress they could pass laws etc but hey
The argument that 'The Democrats could pass laws to resolve this' is a lie told by the conservative wing of the court to placate the liberal wing (and a section of the voters). Note how the court is never unwilling to act in defence of Republican priorities even if former congresses under Democratic control passed clear laws describing exactly what was to be done.
If the Democrats were swept into power in 2020, with 61 votes in the Senate, the Presidency, and the House then without question this court would just start saying that Democratic priorities were unconstitutional. They just don't want to do so now so that they can retain the fig leaf of legitimacy that saying "We need the Congress to resolve this" whenever a potential Democratic win comes in front of them gives them.
Nah. I think there are definitely places Congress could act to fix laws or pass new ones that would solve the problems SCOTUS has identified with the law.
I can think of one big law, to start with....
But the big counter example is the VRA, which was re-upped by Congress only a few years before John Roberts deemed it no longer necessary.
Posts
The end. Whenever the court gets around to deciding this was ridiculous, that dissent is going to be cited like Jackson's to Korematsu.
The court is our 3rd assembly, and the most powerful one if it is biased.
Eh, they are doing their job, just very cautiously. It's just that their job is to cement us as a Republican run autocracy, and they are a little bit worried about demographic trends and voter age distributions leading to them spending their final years broke and accursed rather than on the court.
Not exactly, everyone thought Trump would lose - including Trump! There were bigger reasons why they didn't act on the outside vectors, which is off-topic.
You should be angry, but aim the anger at the right people. Hindsight is 202/20 and all that. Elections have consequences, this one of them. The bigger question is - what's going on with the current judges that they're ok with the status quo?
Sorry, all of this is getting lost in me panicking about the Muslim Ban, whats going on with abortions?
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Korematsu had a Kennedy too!
Lindsey Graham literally a minute later:
Good job Supreme Court!
But remember, this is completely different because this court found the moral clarity to condemn rounding up us citizens during a war 70 years ago. Next up, they will demonstrate more great leadership by condemning the tax policies of George the 5th
Terrorism isn't actually the stated objection. Nobody in the thread has mentioned what these countries failed in that justified the ban (at least according to Roberts.)
Until I read the opening I don't think I'd seen it mentioned in any form either.
But it's totally a rational basis.
This decision is wrong on all counts. The legal analysis conveniently ignores everything the architect of this policy, the President of the United States, has said about the policy. The immortality of this decision is... staggering..
I had hoped that maybe, MAYBE, Gorsuch might be a principled jurist, concerned with the law and trying to adhere to the principles this county was founded on, even when we have failed to practice them so many times. He has proven time and again that he is not, and today is no different. He is another of Trumps goons, except we’ll be dealing with him long after Trump is gone.
Roberts is no better. He is a callous and cruel politician like no other. He once said during his confirmation hearings that judges should just be calling balls and strikes. Well today the pitcher flipped off the batter, threw the ball at his fucking face, and the umpire called a strikeout.
Alito is a zealot. Thomas is a sociopath. I don’t know what the fuck Kennedy is thinking.
I do not know how they could read this twitter thread and feel anything but shame over what they did. But they would not, and they do not.
Feeling profoundly lost and let down today. This is worse than November 2016 because it validates so much of Trump’s behavior.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
People have picketed the SCOTUS building, yeah, for both the ACA and gay marriage, but since they don't really have any spokepersons or issue public statements, gauging its effectiveness is vague at best.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
"This isn't unconstitutional but trust us we'd strike it down if we thought it was. Also it's not always our place to act as a check on the executive"
Historically, these cessations of authority to fascist rulers happen fairly far apart and not together in the same fucking court decision
I am at least a little hopeful that it might be used to push back against some parts of the ridiculous red state abortion laws.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Clearly we do. I will.
NNID: Hakkekage
I don't have it on hand but as I was reading it earlier they get around that by claiming the CA law had nothing to do with health care
Yeah
Honestly the only outside influence I would expect to have any impact on them, and I'm not really sure it would do anything, would be if the Pope instructed they were no longer to receive communion.
Which would be a whole other big pile of horribleness for other reasons but would be glorious schadenfreude.
It is just as horrifying for different reasons. These “clinics” can now perpetrate fraud and literally endanger the lives of both mother and fetus because they find abortion icky.
Law professor:
It is pretty much a meaningless distinction.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Treating them as terrible people everywhere they go could help.
If Congress was actually Congress they could pass laws etc but hey
SC reversed the TRO [on the ban] and remanded it back to the lower court "for such further proceedings as may be appropriate"
Do we get another bite at this or not? My understanding of a TRO was that it was a "stop doing this shit while we sort it out" vs "keep doing this shit while we sort it out"
Are we now in the latter scenario, or is there no further appropriate proceeding?
If it's dead: What's the legal reason to only do a rational basis review if this was the main event?
Wonderful distinction. Just wonderful.
The argument that 'The Democrats could pass laws to resolve this' is a lie told by the conservative wing of the court to placate the liberal wing (and a section of the voters). Note how the court is never unwilling to act in defence of Republican priorities even if former congresses under Democratic control passed clear laws describing exactly what was to be done.
If the Democrats were swept into power in 2020, with 61 votes in the Senate, the Presidency, and the House then without question this court would just start saying that Democratic priorities were unconstitutional. They just don't want to do so now so that they can retain the fig leaf of legitimacy that saying "We need the Congress to resolve this" whenever a potential Democratic win comes in front of them gives them.
Nah. I think there are definitely places Congress could act to fix laws or pass new ones that would solve the problems SCOTUS has identified with the law.
I can think of one big law, to start with....
But the big counter example is the VRA, which was re-upped by Congress only a few years before John Roberts deemed it no longer necessary.