The Supreme Court discussion thread

Obviously the true DEI hire on the court is Clarence Thomas. He was only appointed because he's black, he would never have been confirmed he weren't black, and he was admitted to college and law school through affirmative action programs.
Probably the biggest hypocrite in the country.

would

Huh? Is this in response to me?

he was very probably a DEI hire but Jackson was as well: Biden explicitly said he wanted a black woman, that's definitionally what a DEI hire is, somebody selected because of his sex or race

Yeah that's true, and it was stupid of him to say that, but she's obviously more qualified and more intelligent than he ever was, and a white male with the same history would have been confirmed even more easily.

Every conservative Supreme Court justice is DEI. The vast majority of people that could be appointed to be a SCOTUS judge or write code at an adult level or do basic linear algebra etc are anti-conservative. Byproduct of being the dumb party.

Were you an adult and following the news at the time of the Clarence Thomas nomination? There's no way the democrats would have approved him if he had been white after all the sexual harassment allegations.

But he was taking the place of the first black justice, and they didn't want it to again be an all white court.

don't care about clarence thomas as he's a no in the would category for me dawg

rickroll is talking about sex or am I crazy?

That is what I thought

If you know anything about Clarence you know he likes to get down.

so are you guys more of a junk in the trunk sotomayor crowd?

If the supreme court says "you can't do that" to trump, what enforcement ability do they have, and what can they do if he simply ignores them?

A disagreement is "you say I shouldn't do this but I think I should, lets talk about it"

Contempt is "you ordered me not to do this but I did it anyway"

Roberts is a giant pussy and part of the subservient cult

Trump doesn't actually do anything. The people carrying out unlawful orders could be be arrested or sued. That bit works until the police/ nilitary won't.

Just assuming. Lawyers here may know

Much easier to fix the right 'wise men'

What was the context for this? I must be missing something.

Musk is pushing the attempts by a few house republicans to impeach several district judges who wrote inane injuctions against the Trump admin. Not just the latest one about the venezuelan immigrants being deported, but several others as well. It has been going on for weeks

I am no fan of Roberts, but he isn't the main problem right now. His options for action are fairly limited right now beyond accepting cases that are appealed from the lower appellate courts and ruling on those cases. For obvious reasons, SCOTUS judges don't go on TV and talk about how much the president sucks. Even the statement above is virtually without precedent.

Courts can hold people who ignore court orders in contempt, etc., and they can impose criminal sanctions in serious cases. But they obviously don't control the police and military.

Yes as "weak" as it looks to coordie, it's an incredibly powerful statement given that statutorily, congress has the entire power to decide who to impeach and why and no other power of government has ANY say at all on that in theory.

So it's a separation of powers issue and the chief justice is acting unconstitutionally?

Looooooooooooooooooooooool.

Hm no. It's just a very very very rare statement by a SCOTUS member (the sitting chief no less) on how another power of government should (morally, not legally) behave.

There is no attempted usurpation of statutory powers, just a suggestion about how to use them.

And that's simply exceedingly rare as rococo pointed out. And because of that, very powerful even if it looks meek to outsider who don't follow these issues

So now Congress can impeach a judge for whatever made up reasons it wants and it doesn't have to follow any prior standards, rules or case law?