The Supreme Court discussion thread
7 States have passed bills this year which place new restrictions on abortion. Alabama's new law, in particular, is a ne
I think we all agree there should be term limits and a age restriction but in todays political system never going to happen .
Probably not in the exact environment of today, but there have been times in the relatively recent past when the court was more balanced. In those times, I'm not sure it would have been a hopeless endeavor, especially if the new rules only applied to newly appointed justices.
I think the problems are significant. I just refuse to pretend as if coming out strongly in favor of progress and thoughtful decisions is anything more than feel good rhetoric. Everyone is in favor of what they define as progress and thoughtful decisions.
I think the problems are significant. I just refuse to pretend as if coming out strongly in favor of progress and thoughtful decisions is anything more than feel good rhetoric. Everyone is in favor of what they define as progress and thoughtful decisions.
No most people are in favour of doing pretty much nothing but blaming the other lot.
The rest is untrue
? the answer should be almost none if they weren't selected under political lenses from both sides.
I didn't claim that politics was irrelevant to their appointment or that 6-3 decisions are unusual. But there are a great many cases where the politics don't really point in one direction or the other. And even in cases where politics are a factor, 6-3 isn't some sort of inevitability. That's why Republicans were mad at ACB for a while.
I didn't claim that politics was irrelevant to their appointment or that 6-3 decisions are unusual. But there are a great many cases where the politics don't really point in one direction or the other. And even in cases where politics are a factor, 6-3 isn't some sort of inevitability. That's why Republicans were mad at ACB for a while.
Yes but check what i was answering: someone purporting that democrats don't select their judges based on politics. I just said the amount of 6-3 is proof they do.
Republicans were mad at ACB for one specific instance in march 2025 where she (+ Roberts) voted in favor of the disbursement of a few billions to USAID contractors that Trump wanted to impound yes.
Anyway yes ofc 6-3 isn't inevitable, and we also had some 6-3 with the 3 liberals + the 3 "centrists" (relatively) vs the 3 rightwing (recent FCC subsidies case as well if i recall), still the fact is a rapid check of decisions shows both democrat appointeed and republican appointees are ideologically selected with great care by the respective presidents and senate majorities.
Yes but check what i was answering: someone purporting that democrats don't select their judges based on politics.
What chez wrote was entirely accurate. He just framed it in terms of judicial outcomes rather than partisian politics, which is probably a better way to think about it.
In perhaps the most psychotic decision by judges yet this presidential term, Indira Talwani just decided that she controls the power of the purse instead of Congress.
She issued a TRO to force the administration to keep funding planned parenthood even if the BBB (which as of today is the law of the land) specifically singles that organization out of some medicaid funding.
Afaik she gave no opinion to justify that order.
Another rubbers stamp from the rubber stampers
"This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution," the coalition said in a statement. "While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy."
Another rubbers stamp from the rubber stampers
Lol even Sotomayor concurred with the decision
Court of Appeals finds Trump’s EO on birthright citizenship unconstitutional. Too bad the SC wasn’t brave enough to come to this conclusion.
I should have linked earlier.
Adler in the WSJ makes a point rococo tangentially made recently about the IEEPA tariffs decision.
That guy is my number 1 expert to follow for SCOTUS stuff so i am worried.
Tldr: the case is closer than i thought (and ofc rococo told me that already recently)
yep
https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...
A dozen federal judges across the political spectrum have spoken out against the Supreme Court’s handling of cases involving President Trump amid intense public scrutiny of lower court rulings.
I wonder when the justice department roots these guys out and files bogus charges against them.
Which are ?
well if it’s the continuation of the trump tendency we keep seeing , amazing judges that represent freedom and justice wants more federal
Intervention into states law and agrees mostly with trump increase of federal powers and interventions….
I guess when if it something they like , past principle goes out the window despite the constitution says .
3rd president term by trump is coming baby !
Ummm...., the explanation is we have a supreme court that supports a dictator. Nothing more, nothing less.
The Supreme Court on Monday backed President Donald Trump’s push to allow immigration enforcement officials to continue what critics describe as “roving patrols” in Southern California that lower courts said likely violated the Fourth Amendment.
The court did not offer an explanation for its decision, which came over a sharp dissent from the three liberal justices.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme...
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed President Donald Trump to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission despite a federal law that is intended to restrict the White House’s power to control the agency.
No third term. He just doesn't leave until he dies. Then the next dictator takes over.
I heard that every day when Justice Sotomayor comes to work, security throws her up against the wall until she shows her passport.
I heard that every day when Justice Sotomayor comes to work, security throws her up against the wall until she shows her passport.
It won't be too long before the justice department goes after her and the other ones that haven't bended the knee. The majority will rule that it's perfectly ok.
Ummm...., the explanation is we have a supreme court that supports a dictator. Nothing more, nothing less.
reversing Humphrey's executor isn't fascism jfc you guys are truly gone.
but yes it would be better if they explained in detail why and how they are reversing it, but these are emergency filings and SCOTUS usually doesn't explain anything in emergency decisions
SCOTUS accepted to take the IEEPA tariffs case.
On Tuesday afternoon, the Supreme Court did just that. It instructed the Trump administration to file its opening brief on Sept. 19, with the challengers’ briefs to follow on Oct. 20. “The cases will be set for argument in the first week of the November 2025 argument session,” which begins on Nov. 3.
/
So we basically won't have a decision until december at least, and potentially far later on
