Do you trust SCOTUS?

[adrina]

Do you trust SCOTUS to not be idealogues? Especially on hot button issues.

Given the conservative majority has ignored precedent for their pet cause of anti-abortion, do you believe they are still capable of impartiality?

 

[Ramone45]

It is the only branch of government I do trust.

 

[CornusKousa]

Do you trust SCOTUS to not be idealogues? Especially on hot button issues.

Given the conservative majority has ignored precedent for their pet cause of anti-abortion, do you believe they are still capable of impartiality?

Oh NOW we want impartiality!!!!

Decades of seating activist lefty judges degrading and chipping away at rights lefties don't like is PROGRESS!!!!

Now that you aren't holding the bully stick, smiling smugly over your ability to regulate everyone else rights away, and NOW you want impartiality?

Imagine that....

LOL fuck you.......I hope they go full on Uber-Con activist, you and the rest of the left deserve no less.

Letting Texas regulate abortion the same way you want regulate guns and speech is a great start.

 

[Champakian]

"Put your faith in the Gods and Buddhas [i.e., SCOTUS],
do not rely upon them."

Musashi

 

[CornusKousa]

It is the only branch of government I do trust.

LOL....you're an idiot.

 

[Champakian]

Oh NOW we want impartiality!!!!

Decades of seating activist lefty judges degrading and chipping away at rights lefties don't like is PROGRESS!!!!

Now you don't have the court as a bully stick anymore and you want impartiality?

LOL fuck you.......I hope they go full on Uber-Con activist, you and the rest of the left deserve no less.

If precedent was the only thing that mattered, slavery would still be the law of the land.

On, the other hand, women wouldn't be able to vote.

One of those is a bad thing.

 

[CornusKousa]

If precedent was the only thing that mattered, slavery would still be the law of the land.

On, the other hand, women wouldn't be able to vote.

One of those is a bad thing.

LOL

I wonder just how concerned she was with Justice "Boomer AOC"

https://www.biography.com/.image/ar_1:1%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cg_face%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_300/MTM5NTg5Mzg2NDIwMzY0ODA2/sonia-sotomayor-official-portraitjpg.jpg

With being totally impartial and not to be an ideologue.

https://cdn.streamelements.com/uploads/ecab8b93-1882-4f46-a961-b8d0b03dca76.gif

 

[FGB]

They will never always do what makes one party or viewpoint happy all the time.

and that is as it should be.

 

[JackLuis]

Texas's anti-abortion snitch hotline is already being shut down by 'Shrek' memes

The anti-abortion movement's routine barrages of nightmarish state-level abortion bills have rangee from sneaky, devil's-in-the-details regulations to shut down clinics, to attempts to sentence abortion providers to the death penalty. But Texas' latest law, which took effect Wednesday, is admittedly – and alarmingly – creative. It christens all citizens, not just in Texas, as a citizen police force who can sue anyone who has or helps someone have an abortion for upwards of $10,000, all on top of banning abortion at about six weeks.

As a result of this scheming, and tasteful "Shrek" memes and furry porn, the Texas site has gone from dystopic, crowd-sourced, right-wing doxing machine, to a useless social media spectacle. Its demise feels like a callback to the epic trolling spearheaded by TikTok teens and K-Pop fans that contributed to an empty Trump rally stadium in Tulsa last summer, after users reserved thousands of tickets to the event, only to not show and humiliate the former president's bamboozled campaign team with rows upon rows of empty seats.

'Stunning': Justice Sotomayor writes a furious dissent

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a clearly furious dissent late Wednesday night to the majority's order allowing a Texas law banning abortions after six weeks of pregnancy to stay in force.

"The Court's order is stunning," Sotomayor wrote. "Because the Court's failure to act rewards tactics designed to avoid judicial review and inflicts significant harm on the applicants and on women seeking abortions in Texas, I dissent."

She left out the traditional word "respectfully" before "dissent" — a telltale sign that a justice is livid.

When human rights have to be enforced by Tic Tok, you know that things are getting grim!

 

[CornusKousa]

When human rights have to be enforced by Tic Tok, you know that things are getting grim!

Abortion is not a human right Jack.... no matter how bad you and the comrades wish it was.

 

[Champakian]

Yes, they treat their own species as less-than-human...

 

[JackLuis]

'Cruelty toward the powerless': DC insider nails the new Republican Supreme Court

Today's Supreme Court majority is a group of knee-jerk conservatives whose intellectual leader (to the extent they have one) is Samuel Alito, perhaps the most conceptually rigid and cognitively dishonest justice since Chief Justice Roger Taney.

Five of today's Supreme Court majority were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote; three of them by a president who instigated a coup against the United States.

Today's cruel and partisan Supreme Court is squandering what remains of its authority. It is also imposing unnecessary suffering on those least able to bear it.

 

[icanhelp1]

LOL

I wonder just how concerned she was with Justice "Boomer AOC"

https://www.biography.com/.image/ar_1:1%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cg_face%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_300/MTM5NTg5Mzg2NDIwMzY0ODA2/sonia-sotomayor-official-portraitjpg.jpg

With being totally impartial and not to be an ideologue.

https://cdn.streamelements.com/uploads/ecab8b93-1882-4f46-a961-b8d0b03dca76.gif

Top it off with she got 9 republican votes, pubs don’t fight the fight, bunch of pussys.

 

[ll74]

I trust that our interpretation of laws and the Constitution will evolve over time.

I don't trust people who claim to be originalists in order to make this about progressiveness, when in reality, all the Justices have demonstrated a lack of originalism in their historical judgements.

Also, gullible people who spout "originalism" without truly looking critical at past judgements make things worse.

 

[Dribble]

No. The Trump appointed justices are Fascist traitors...just like their leader. There is only one solution. The time for any other solution has past. The sooner Americans accept this reality...the more we can save. The longer we keep our head up our asses...the less we can save. Choice is yours. Time to break this country up into smaller countries

 

[HisArpy]

I trust them to act human and vote their personal creed regardless of the consequences to everyone else. Beyond that, it's a cluster fuck just like the rest of the world.

Any judicial decision is guaranteed to piss off someone. The key to judicial activism is to only piss off your opponents when you outnumber them both now and in the future. The progressives either skipped that class or didn't learn it while pledging allegiance to the pride flag.

 

[ll74]

I find the whole "XXX appointed them so....." argument to be lazy. The argument should always be about the judges and their historical positions. No single judge ever gets the job from being nominated and then decides to make decisions based on the party or the person who appointed them. I've never seen any single proof which would convince me otherwise.

That, I think, is the problem with the public sphere. It is very difficult to actually research and fully understand a judge's historical record. Not only from a position of finding those judgements easily, but being able to not rely on others' analysis, which i typically political and biased.

If you're finding yourself arguing from a point of party affiliation, you're typically not arguing properly, unless you can provide previous judgements which can flesh it out. (doubtful)

 

[adrina]

I find the whole "XXX appointed them so....." argument to be lazy. The argument should always be about the judges and their historical positions. No single judge ever gets the job from being nominated and then decides to make decisions based on the party or the person who appointed them. I've never seen any single proof which would convince me otherwise.

That, I think, is the problem with the public sphere. It is very difficult to actually research and fully understand a judge's historical record. Not only from a position of finding those judgements easily, but being able to not rely on others' analysis, which i typically political and biased.

If you're finding yourself arguing from a point of party affiliation, you're typically not arguing properly, unless you can provide previous judgements which can flesh it out. (doubtful)

I would agree except for The Federalist Society and their outsized influence as of late.

 

[Wrong Element]

They're politicians who vote their policy preferences — which is why Republicans, who for the most part advocate for things that cannot command majorities, are so fanatical these days about rule by unelected and unaccountable federal courts.

You can always tell who on the left watched too much Schoolhouse Rock as a kid by whether or not they accept this basic fact, which has never not been true but has been absolutely undeniable since December 2000.

 

[ll74]

I would agree except for The Federalist Society and their outsized influence as of late.

There is something to be said about nominating an unqualified judge to a lifetime bench, though I think SCOTUS falls outside of that perspective.

That being said, I think the difficulty in analyzing so many cases leads to reliance on political arms such as TFS too often and that does need to be addressed.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

https://i.redd.it/g1rxr9ovi2l71.png

 

[adrina]

There is something to be said about nominating an unqualified judge to a lifetime bench, though I think SCOTUS falls outside of that perspective.

That being said, I think the difficulty in analyzing so many cases leads to reliance on political arms such as TFS too often and that does need to be addressed.

That has little to nothing to do with The Federalist Society's politicization of the court and their specific goals for it.

Do you not find it interesting that all three judges appointed by Trump were all approved by them?

 

[Champakian]

Elections have consequences.



Urge your politburo to PICK BETTER CANDIDATES!

 

[ll74]

That has little to nothing to do with The Federalist Society's politicization of the court and their specific goals for it.

Do you not find it interesting that all three judges appointed by Trump were all approved by them?

Republicans have typically used TFS for their list of nominations. The problem has been more in the lower courts where that list has been watered down to non-qualified judges.

But yes, TFS being more politicized in their choices is certainly an issue and their picks reflect that.

 

[adrina]

Republicans have typically used TFS for their list of nominations. The problem has been more in the lower courts where that list has been watered down to non-qualified judges.

But yes, TFS being more politicized in their choices is certainly an issue and their picks reflect that.

And since republicans rely on it so heavily I think it is fair to look at the appointer(s) with more than a raised eyebrow.