SCOTUS - Supreme Court of the United States

[mitsho]

So I read that two justices declared openly that they want to roll back marriage equality.

I'm now all for packing the court if precedent can't even stand for five years.

Or is that just election talk - from members of the Supreme Court? The US really needs to reform its political system!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

When has marriage equality ever been a thing in the courts?

 

[mitsho]

I can recall a certain historic decision a few years back that in every other country was made either by the parliament, in a referendum or in another similar process. But of course you Americans love your courts.

My post above was based on this article by the way. I refer to that for all the details of the how and when.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/supreme-court-ready-to-overturn-obergefell.amp

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I remember right after the Obergefell decision that the pastor at my parent's church said in a sermon that unless the next president promises to only appoint Justices who promise to overturn that decision that we should support a military coup to depose the US government and institute something more in line with biblical principles.

That was pretty much the last straw in my decision that I wanted nothing to do with that church.

 

[Drakle]

Honestly, what the hell is wrong with Thomas? He was born in poverty in the deep south, in the 1940s. Seriously. Yet he is the most solid GOP justice for literally all their insanity, including preventing Black people from voting, discriminating against every vulnerable group, and just economically destroying the average American, let alone the dirt poor. He can directly see how government inaction allowed decades of discrimination and racial terror and left the church because he thought it didn't condemn racism well enough ... and instead listens to crackpots like Thomas Sowell and Ayn Rand and joined the GOP, the modern Dixiecrat party.

 

[Estebonrober]

Honestly, what the hell is wrong with Thomas? He was born in poverty in the deep south, in the 1940s. Seriously. Yet he is the most solid GOP justice for literally all their insanity, including preventing Black people from voting, discriminating against every vulnerable group, and just economically destroying the average American, let alone the dirt poor. He can directly see how government inaction allowed decades of discrimination and racial terror and left the church because he thought it didn't condemn racism well enough ... and instead listens to crackpots like Thomas Sowell and Ayn Rand and joined the GOP, the modern Dixiecrat party.

It is difficult to manage the ledger in his mind I’d imagine.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Trump just lost at the Appellate Court on the issue of his tax returns being subpoenaed by the New York D.A.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/07/tru...k-subpoena-for-tax-returns-by-prosecutor.html

He is expected to now appeal to the SCOTUS... One more reason he needs to hurry up and seat Amy Coney Barrett to ensure that the order to release his tax returns gets overturned.

 

[Estebonrober]

Trump just lost at the Appellate Court on the issue of his tax returns being subpoenaed by the New York D.A.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/07/tru...k-subpoena-for-tax-returns-by-prosecutor.html

He is expected to now appeal to the SCOTUS... One more reason he needs to hurry up and seat Amy Coney Barrett to ensure that the order to release his tax returns gets overturned.

Grander scale take: I still have no idea how we solve all the artificial scarcity issues world wide when financial ledgers of huge companies (shell and otherwise) and the wealthy are in the nebulous dark.

Any rational take is Trump is beholden to enemies of the US financially. Otherwise why lie and obfuscate?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Trump just lost at the Appellate Court on the issue of his tax returns being subpoenaed by the New York D.A.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/07/tru...k-subpoena-for-tax-returns-by-prosecutor.html

He is expected to now appeal to the SCOTUS... One more reason he needs to hurry up and seat Amy Coney Barrett to ensure that the order to release his tax returns gets overturned.

If he is out of office before they issue a ruling, do you think they'd apply the same ruling to an ex-President? Or would it become a moot point and the NY DA can do whatever he wants?

 

[Sommerswerd]

If he is out of office before they issue a ruling, do you think they'd apply the same ruling to an ex-President? Or would it become a moot point and the NY DA can do whatever he wants?

I'm guessing that Barrett has been made explicitly aware what is expected of her following this appointment. I doubt that they would let the issue slide until after he was out of office.

 

[Drakle]

GOP Court-packing and stacking

https://twitter.com/JeffreyASachs/status/1314274900954304512

The number of attempts by the GOP in recent years to pack or shrink the size of state supreme courts is incredible.

2016: Along a party line vote and over the objections of the Chief Justice, the Arizona GOP adds two seats to the state supreme court.

2016: Again over the objections of its own justices, the Georgia GOP expands the court from 7 to 9. This represents something of a compromise for state Republicans, as they had previously sought to expand the court to 13.

In 2011, the Florida GOP tried (but mercifully failed) to split its supreme court into two benches, while simultaneously adding three new seats. They had tried something similar four years earlier.

2010: Republicans introduced a court packing bill when the court ruled in favor of gay marriage, though this proved unnecessary after a well-funded recall campaign resulted in the removal of three justices.

Republicans have also attempted to shrink state supreme courts in Montana (in 2011), Oklahoma (2017), and Washington (2013), in each case because of adverse rulings. Fortunately, none were successful.

So bracketing for a moment GOP-led attempts to impeach, recall, or otherwise remove state supreme court justices, there seems to be a degree of Republican comfort with altering the size of final courts of appeals via packing/un-packing.

But maybe this is a mistake? I suggest a public opinion survey in Arizona and Georgia (maybe Iowa and West Virginia as well) to examine whether the judiciary's reputation has been irreparably damaged by perfidious conservative court packing.

and

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1314336073296814080

It’s widely forgotten today but the reason Harry Reid nuked the lower-court filibuster was that McConnell and Grassley wanted to shrink the DC Circuit Court of Appeals by three seats (they had legislation for it) and blocked Democrats from filling those three vacancies.

see this

That is why I think it is encouraging that Biden is saying

You will know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over

If he was a no, he would just say no and defuse the situation. But he isn't saying no, because it means a negative news cycle and if he only gets a bare majority, he likely won't get it over Manchin. But 52+ senate seats, and it becomes a real possibility.

 

[Berzerker]

Biden wont answer the question on court packing because 'no' will anger his base, but he risks losing people in the center by leaving it unresolved

the senate aint gonna pack the court anyway

 

[Lexicus]

Any rational take is Trump is beholden to enemies of the US financially. Otherwise why lie and obfuscate?

Simpler and more likely explanation is simply that he engaged in criminal acts to to deceive the government and reduce his tax burden.

 

[RobAnybody]

Can't it be both?

On the court packing question, I think Biden/Harris are handling it well from a strategic perspective. It kind of keeps the idea "out there" in the public consciousness, but also kind of leaves the ball in the Republicans' court. If they answered Yes or No, the GOP will just fill the seat. By not answering, it appears more of a "let's see what happens" approach, almost like an implied threat.

"If the GOP fills the seat, packing will occur. If it doesn't, it won't." is the lingering threat that hangs over the election (but cannot be actually voiced). While answering definitively one way or the other takes that threat off the table.

 

[Berzerker]

the nominee is in trouble for using the term 'sexual preference' because its not a choice

 

[JPetroski]

This thread has been silent since Saturday. No one had anything to post about the confirmation hearings until now, and it's Berserker that bumped it? Interesting.

 

[Bugfatty300]

the nominee is in trouble for using the term 'sexual preference' because its not a choice

Yeah sure she is. Hot water for using that term. Boiln' even. Yep. Uh huh.

 

[Berzerker]

Just reporting today's news, thought about putting it in the election thread but this one is more appropriate

 

[Berzerker]

Yeah sure she is. Hot water for using that term. Boiln' even. Yep. Uh huh.

"Even though you didn't give a direct answer I think your response did speak volumes," Hirono said. "Not once, but twice, you used the term sexual preference to describe those in the LGBTQ community. And let me make clear, sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/14/us/sexual-preference-amy-coney-barrett-offensive-trnd/index.html

 

[Ajidica]

I mean, that's one of the least concerning things Barrett said during the hearing.