The US Supreme Court Thread - Post Roe v. Wade reversal edition

Is now the time for Biden to make the comment that if the American public elects a congress that will put a bill on his desk expanding the Supreme Court he will sign it? Cause we’re rapidly reaching the point that if he doesn’t…his entire voting base are going to wake up to the fact that voting is a waste of time.

 

1. IMO now isn’t the time because doing this on immigration may hurt more than help. An abortion case would be better.
2. I repped your post because while “waste of time” is going too far your basic point is right. The Supremes have abrogated to themselves the role of super legislature.

 

Perhaps you’re right. But there are a shit ton of conservative Latinos in Texas that just ********ed themselves. Good job ladies and gentlemen.

 

To quote the last president, Biden needs to call the President of Puerto Rico and work out an immigration treaty.

 

Mexico doesn’t recognize Texas as a peer. Not surprising,

And here comes the international incident thanks to Amy and Brett https://t.co/L4RgkmuEWA

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) March 19, 2024

 

Yeah but it's just Mexico. I'm sure there are some good people but the rest? Amirite?

 

The wife of one of the judges in the mifepristone case has gotten payments from an anti abortion group. This isn’t a violation of the code.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/wife-...pristone-case-was-paid-by-anti-abortion-group

I wonder if judicial codes haven’t kept up with a world where a judge’s wife is very likely to have an independent professional life, not to mention all the judges who have husbands instead of wives. Ginny’s first class seat on the wingnut welfare train is an example of how easy it is to buy a judge by buying the spouse and it never being an eissue hits problem.

 

Except the judicial code does account for this by specifically excluding the activities of a judge's spouse from its ethic rules. What I don't think judicial ethics rules have caught up to is that outside groups funnel money through a judge's spouse to influence the judge.

 

That’s what I was trying to say, my bad if I didn’t.

 

Did they, tho?

They're quite possibly comfy with being behind Whites but ahead of me. They're used to a food chain/caste system, not a single dividing line like Black folks/White folks, and their place in the chain won't change regardless.

.
I'd say no. Expanding the SCOTUS frightens some on the left who still think the right can be dealt with thru statesmanship. Bear in mind that a fair portion of the "left" is made up of Whites who will be just fine regardless of what happens to the rest of us. That portion is more concerned with "fairness" and "decorum" in politics than results, and they're likely to accuse him of being like the Right if he goes that path.

IMO, he will lose more votes than he gets.

 

One of the attorneys arguing for banning mifepristone is named Hawley. She’s married to Josh Hawley. Small world!

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...judges-act-south-carolina-redistri-rcna145267

Nancy Mace's district is racially gerrymandered, a court ruled. But because the Supreme Court has sat on the appeal for months, the map still stands for this year. Another example of how they can tip the scales to the right through inaction as well as actions.

 

I wonder what was different between her and Kaep. I just can't figure it out.

 

We are kinda like Man U, a poorly run football club that if it didn't have great success at just the right time would be in the lower leagues that Ms to bad administration. We are still a democracy but mainly because of previous generations. Our current leaders are hampering us.

 

Huh? Seriously?

Well one is a pro athlete in a league where few players have no cut contracts. The other is a government bureaucrat.

I mean holy hell there are a hundred differences here I just named the most obvious.

 

I wasn't serious. It was more the talk from conservative circles was about expressing beliefs at work and then they are fine with her. Wonder why?

 

The difference between Kaep (and us) and this clerk in Kentucky (and her allies) is that we embrace diversity of thought and the diversity of humans.

They want to limit all of that.

So that’s the difference at the most basic, fundamental level.

 

The Fifth Circuit met and decided to reject the new federal policies against forum shopping.

Andrew Jackson a nation turns its lonely eyes to you

 

What are you referring to?

Not really surprising that they'd reject it given the existence of Gilstrap, Albright, and O'Connor.

 

Andrew Jackson didn’t like a Supreme Court ruling. He ignored it, saying they’ve made their ruling, now let them enforce it.

The judiciary is increasingly lawless so it must be met with lawlessness.

 

I meant which fifth circuit action were you referring to.

 

Conservatives have perfected forum shopping. There's one particular district in Amarillo where there's only 1 judge and he's like Cannon down in Florida. Not only is he very corrupt, he's also a megalomaniac. He issues injunctions and makes them nationwide. So this one wingut gets to be a dictator with an expiration date...no matter how shitty any ruling he makes is, it's the law of the land until the USSC overrules him (the 5th circuit almost never does.)

Anyway, the federal judiciary just issued new rules to reduce this, and the Fifth Circuit's response was you're not the boss of me.

 

I'm aware of all this, because I have multiple cases in district courts in Texas.

What specific action did the Fifth Circuit take? They issued a precedential ruling regarding motions to transfer last week that's going to get cited a ton, so I'm curious what else they did.