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

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by argentine soccer fan, Jun 27, 2022.

  1. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Tottenham Hotspur
    Aug 22, 2001
    Near the mountains.
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The full opinion.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
     
  2. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't think the 9-0 ruling on whether a state can remove a Presidential candidate from the ballot is surprising. Even the liberal justices seemed concerned about the ability of a single state to influence a Presidential election like that.

    However, what is surprising is that SCOTUS just ruled that the 14th Amendment can't be enforced by anyone but Congress and that part was a 5-4 ruling with all of the ACB joining the Liberal justices in dissenting with the majority.
     
    The Jitty Slitter repped this.
  3. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Regarding this part.

    "Allowing Colorado to do so
    would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork,
    at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is
    enough to resolve this case. Yet the majority goes further.
    Even though “[a]ll nine Members of the Court” agree that
    this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case"

    "Although only an individual State’s
    action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal
    actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so"

    We know more States may do this, do the dissenters think that the SC should rule in each case individually?

    Like Today they tell CO. no, Tomorrow they tell Illinois no, then some other state?

    Doesn't it make more sense to just rule that no state has this right, and stop future litigation.
     
  4. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No. The Dissenters agreed with the majority that it shouldn't be state by state, hence the 9-0 ruling on that part. The dissenters disagreed with the majority that only Congress can disqualify a candidate. I find Judicial rulings as an excellent way to fall asleep, so I haven't read the partial dissent, but the analysis I've seen seem to be saying it felt that the federal Judiciary could actually be a mechanism to disqualify a candidate.

    As an example, if Jack Smith were to amend his charges against Trump with an insurrection charge, the majority ruling would mean that even if Trump were convicted of insurrection, he would still be eligible to be President because it wasn't Congress making that decision.
     
    ceezmad repped this.
  5. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Hmm... I may have misunderstood this part. Marcy Wheeler is saying that the majority opinion says Congress must remove anyone who has been convicted of Insurrection.

    https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/03/...o-supersede-trump-with-inciting-insurrection/

     
    soccernutter and ceezmad repped this.
  6. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  7. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Fascist Hellscape
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    The Supreme Court has failed in it's number one job. Unfortunately institutions can't be relied upon to protect democracies. Indeed the law often becomes the shield of the anti-democratic forces as we see here.

    The Court had the chance to rule plainly that Trump is obviously not eligible to be president whatever the procedure. But they failed that because they will walk blindly to the detention camps along with everyone else.
     
    Deadtigers, bigredfutbol and charlie15 repped this.
  8. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Fascist Hellscape
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    Deadtigers repped this.
  9. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Fascist Hellscape
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    From what I have seen, the majority has gone way too far in protecting Trump here. it seems clear that we are directly into the territory where Trump cannot hold the office and the VP (Kamala) could refuse to recognise his wins. So the SC has tried to stop that - an issue not before them

     
    soccernutter repped this.
  10. Auriaprottu

    Auriaprottu Member+

    Atlanta Damn United
    Apr 1, 2002
    The back of the bus
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    "I am a White person with no dog in this fight. Tara will stand regardless of who wins. So inspire me." -2016 voters
     
    Deadtigers and Pønch repped this.
  11. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Fascist Hellscape
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    Tribe expresses my anger over this fiasco better than I can. Of course he is a top constitutional scholar and i am not. :laugh: The worry over the potential chaos of states reaching individual decisions is overblown when the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. They could of course simply have ruled that of course Trump is disqualified as a question of fact, regardless of the process issues. They've ignored the elephant in the room.

     
    superdave and dapip repped this.
  12. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Fascist Hellscape
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    Strict Scrutiny savaged the decision as incoherent

    The Supreme Court simply invents law that Congress must pass a law to give the disqualification effect when that isn't at all what the language or similar parts of the constitution suggest

    Per Murray, this is a Court that is in the tank for Trump and have made up nonsense to prevent his disqualification.
     
    Deadtigers, soccernutter, Mike03 and 4 others repped this.
  13. Pønch

    Pønch Saprissista

    Aug 23, 2006
    Donde siempre
    Very banana republicky
     
    Mike03, charlie15 and Auriaprottu repped this.
  14. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    As he so often does, Professor Dorf has a concise well reasoned critique of the opinion.

    https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2024/03/nine-justices-in-search-of-excuse-to.html
     
  15. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
  16. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Fascist Hellscape
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    #2441 The Jitty Slitter, Mar 5, 2024
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2024
    I rediscovered him just today!

    This is so clown car. I have no worked in the law for 20 years and this strikes me as total amateur hour so i can't imagine how it must seem to working law professors who write about this court

    This is my beef with all of this. How can it not be the SCs job to note that Trump is obviously disqualified? How can they lack the power to define what meets the criteria of insurrection?
     
  17. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Some inside baseball you might already know; he's a protege of Professor Tribe, although certainly not in lock-step with Tribe on everything.
     
    The Jitty Slitter repped this.
  18. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Tottenham Hotspur
    Aug 22, 2001
    Near the mountains.
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #2443 soccernutter, Mar 5, 2024
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2024
    I've been pro-court expansion, but after listening to that episode, it is now something Biden must campaign on.
     
  19. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France

    Checks and balances. The Supreme Court is supposed to check and balance both Congress and the Presidency. They have basically decided they will only check Congress.
     
  20. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Except that’s not really it. They were wildly incoherent in supporting the Muslim ban 7 years ago by saying Trump’s tweets aren’t his beliefs and thoughts.

    And they stopped the student loan forgiveness with a completely atextual reading of the law in question. They did it because they don’t like Democratic policies.

    It’s not “Congress” it’s “Democrats.”

    And this isn’t a nitpick. If they were just in the tank for the executive branch, as a political issue then the response is simple. Elect Democratic presidents.

    But we did that and it didn’t matter. The Supremes still implement Republican policy preferences.
     
  21. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    This seems to be the best thread to comment on this article from Time, given it focuses on marriage equality which will inevitably be back before the Supreme Court.

    One of the parts that struck me the most was where they note only two Justices who voted for marriage equality remain. Here's what I consider to be the "highlights":






     
    song219 repped this.
  22. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    How did Obergfell damage religious liberty? It didn’t require gay marriage it merely allowed it. When the government allows liquor sales despite many religions being against alcohol does that damage religious liberty? That’s the whole game there in what Alito and Thomas wrote. They see religious liberty as the freedom for one region to impose its beliefs through democratic means.

    That’s not really what they had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.
     
    Scissorkick Collins repped this.
  23. MattR

    MattR Member+

    Jun 14, 2003
    Reston
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Maybe for you and I. There are tours of Washington D.C, with Christian themes, that take the money from all these evangelical types and then take them a tour "proving" that the country was established as a Christian Nation. They don't say the white part out loud - well maybe they do now.

    I guess all those evangelicals who want to Follow the Constitution! haven't read it yet. Jesus isn't in it.

    https://www.inspirationtravel.com/destination/washington-dc
     
    soccernutter and Sounders78 repped this.
  24. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France

    Because it "forces" those poor god-fearing county clerks to violate their religious beliefs by giving marriage licenses to those demonic gay people, because the Bible clearly says you should not render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. And given the Bible clearly says people will be married in Heaven, marriage belongs to God! [This is sarcasm. The Bible actually says the opposite of those things.]
     
    InTheSun repped this.
  25. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well they can get new jobs then.

    I mean we are all on the same page here but I just wanted to highlight the perversion here, of religious liberty changing from freedom to practice your own religion in private to you being able to impose your religious beliefs on others outside of places of worship.
     
    MattR and Q*bert Jones III repped this.

Share This Page