All things SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US)

[Samson]

Win a lot of votes from whom? The people who are enjoying having the Court and, soon enough, Congress, aren't going to budge. If Biden is going to nominate new Justices, he'd have to do it before November for them to be confirmed by the Senate. If not, voters would have to return both the White House and the Senate to the Democrats in 2024.

The 50% of the population who have just had their right to modern medicine removed for a start. Then the majority (?) who think everyone should not be allowed to walk around with a pistol stuck in their waistband.

I really do not get american politics, and I am sure I am wrong, but it seems to me that the SCOTUS is doing everything in their power to make such a platform broadly popular.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The 50% of the population who have just had their right to modern medicine removed for a start. Then the majority (?) who think everyone should not be allowed to walk around with a pistol stuck in their waistband.

I really do not get american politics, and I am sure I am wrong, but it seems to me that the SCOTUS is doing everything in their power to make such a platform broadly popular.

I mean, sure, some people think these Court decisions could drive the mid-terms towards the Democrats. I'm not sanguine, though. And I'm genuinely concerned that if Trump does run again (I don't think he's going to, but if he did) that he could win again. The conservatives I know are already getting excited about Ron DeSantis in 2024.

Don't get me wrong, I hope you're right and these decisions by the Court (a) fire up voters to turn out in massive numbers for the mid-terms, and (b) turn undecideds and independents towards the Democrats. At least one of the people who speaks highly of DeSantis also said she doesn't like the idea of one party being completely in charge of everything. If there are enough people like her, and they're thinking ahead, they could vote for Democrats in 2022 in anticipation of voting for a Republican President in 2024. You'll forgive me if I don't bet my savings on that.

 

[schlaufuchs]

It doesn’t matter what the people want since you need 2/3 majority of senators to pass anything and the Supreme Court can strike down any law by fiat. Also SCOTUS is going to hear a suit in their next session about whether a state legislature can draw electoral maps unilaterally with simple majority even against the presence of something like a constitutionally created independent panel, and if they decide in favor then Republican-controlled states (currently 32/50 of them, including swing states like Michigan, Arizona, and Georgia) could be able to just arbitrarily redraw districts ahead of elections to make democratic victory mathematically impossible.

 

[El_Machinae]

which specific reasoning given is less legitimate than, say, scotus setups of the past 20-30 years?

to illustrate, compare roe and 2nd amendment rulings to those that uphold civil forfeiture. which decisions were more or less legitimate, and why?

Oh, don't confuse the perceived legitimacy of the Courts with the soundness of their rulings.

But we're talking about an entire generation of people who realize they have to live through a stacked court foisted on them. The people who stacked it don't worship process and legitimacy, so it's okay to play outside the rulebook while restoring legitimacy.

 

[IglooDame]

I'm 100% serious about arming if the courts won't protect against gerrymandering.

If you're trying to get my attention, well done. Could you elaborate?

And SCOTUS today pushed back some 2A cases down to the appellate level to be reconsidered in light of Bruen's result.

 

[El_Machinae]

If you're trying to get my attention, well done. Could you elaborate?

And SCOTUS today pushed back some 2A cases down to the appellate level to be reconsidered in light of Bruen's result.

Gerrymandering is a problem that cannot be solved by democratic processes, I can unpack that but I think it's self-evident. In a Constitutional System, we rely on courts to prevent situations that cannot be solved by democratic lawmaking, to preserve certain fundamental rights. If the courts rule that courts are not a remedy to gerrymandering, then I think this is explicitly within the intention of the 2nd Amendment.


Now, I happen to think that just handing out t-shirts and rifles would get the point across to lawmakers. But, if I was going for a more brutal message, I would hand out machetes at voting booths that didn't process their lineups at reasonable rates. Some proactive, top-level, support for this idea might be warranted, because there are a lot of people who I'd not want in charge of riling up the mob. So, like legit academics and statisticians on the Board, etc.

(obligatory reminder that I am a foreigner, so not only is my skin-in-the-game different, but my implicit motives should be 2nd-guessed)

 

[Edmund Ironside]

The US Environmental Protection Agency has lost its power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the federal level.
The landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court represents a major setback to President Joe Biden's climate plans.

This while at the same time:
Heat waves topple monthly, all-time records from Japan to Italy
https://www.axios.com/2022/06/30/heat-waves-europe-japan-records

 

[Arwon]

Oh cool not content with trying to kill Americans the US supreme court has moved onto trying to kill the rest of us

 

[Sommerswerd]

Not us... that's unavoidable. Its the species as a whole that is being put in jeopardy, and every other species on the planet.

It's a little abstract, but given the magnitude of the universe, its a non-insignificant possibility that Earth is the only planet reachable within the single lifetime of any species living on Earth that actually has life. That we're potentially causing extinction of the planet is... Let's just say the jury is out in the Q Continuum and its not looking good for us...

 

[Arwon]

"the rest of us" in my post did mean non American people such as myself, yep

 

[Sommerswerd]

My "us" meant everybody... all of "us"... which will be checking out shortly... regardless... in the cosmic sense.

 

[E.man]

OK let me understand recent SCOTUS decisions from AU.

Allowing easier gun carry.
Denying safe medical abortions.
Deny EPA ability to control emissions.

This is what you get from blatant political appointments it seems.
I really can't understand where they are coming from.
Do they work from an overall perspective or do they do whatever right wing thing they get 'convinced ' into?

 

[E.man]

Oh cool not content with trying to kill Americans the US supreme court has moved onto trying to kill the rest of us

It's really all quite weird from here in The Australian Communist Territory.

 

[EnglishEdward]

OK let me understand recent SCOTUS decisions from AU.

Allowing easier gun carry.
Denying safe medical abortions.
Deny EPA ability to control emissions.

This is what you get from blatant political appointments it seems.
I really can't understand where they are coming from.
Do they work from an overall perspective or do they do whatever right wing thing they get 'convinced ' into.

It seem to me that is a complicated mixture of both.

My understanding (which may be out of date) is that the EPA was set up with powers to control pollutants.

It decided that CO2 was a pollutant.

That was always a stretch because while excessive CO2 is very undesirable resulting
in global warming, CO2 had not traditionally been regarded as a pollutant being part
of the natural life cycle and indeed essential for plant photo-synthesis.

It seems to me that if the EPA is to control CO2 emission, then the legal framework within
which the EPA operates should be expressly modified by the elected legislatures to enable that.