The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[Orangeburst]

US Supreme Court to decide if Mexico may sue gunmakers for border violence | CNN Politics

lite.cnn.com

unbelievable..can we sue Mexico for the death and destruction caused by drugs, transient immigrants, etc?

If the Dems held the majority, it would be the death kneel of 2nd A, with absolutely no political repercussions. Not even a sure bet with current split. Remember this when you go vote because if not for Trump, you would see the bankruptcy of mfgs.

 

[RockyTop85]

I would like to see the filibuster returned for judicial appointments, and then enshrined.

What things has the court done that he didn’t address?

Yes. She has written that the original public meaning of the constitution is the law and that justices and legislators have a duty of fidelity to the text of the constitution.

That’s what originalism, her school of jurisprudential thought, is. It’s definitional.

This is the problem with the right/wrong dichotomy of constitutionality that you proposed. It’s a matter of opinion. There exist more than two schools of constitutional interpretation. If any can form coalitions that simply toss out the others’ rulings, whenever they please, then control of the court becomes more significant and these confirmations will become more fraught.

This is why originalist academics, including Barrett, have written extensively about how to resolve conflicts between precedent and originalism when overturning “wring” precedent would do more harm than good. It’s why SCOTUS changes tend to be incremental adjustments to existing doctrines (like Miranda) rather than wholesale abandonment.

Source: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1619&context=jcl

The premise and contents of the thread stand for the value of precedent. Of course precedent has value. Otherwise, why would anyone care about laws flip flopping every time the keys of government change hands? (No need to answer that one, it’s rhetorical.)

I’d written about the value of precedent on this forum before Dobbs was decided. SCOTUS justices have written about it before and since. Consistency of the court, regardless of composition is a big part of their credibility. That’s not something that somebody gets to the Supreme Court without having been exposed to.

So overturning Dobbs was an informed choice. They did that knowing that it would have the consequence of undermining their credibility with half of the country. Their rational was that Roe and Casey were pragmatic decisions. Judge made law. Made up.

This court is an Originalist court. Some justices have written concurrences to explain the premise of originalism and have gone as far as to say that judicial pragmatism is basically made up law. Faith to the original text was the better choice, in their view.

Whether you agree or disagree with way they weighed their options, it was undeniably a choice that they made that opened the court to those criticisms.

Then came Trump v. Anderson and Trump v. U.S.

Those were purely pragmatic decisions in their rationale. The debates around ratification said otherwise. The limited history and tradition (Nixon) said otherwise. In the same term where Gorsuch said what he said about originalism being the only way to avoid just making it up as you go, they dumped originalism to reach a pragmatic outcome.

Again, I’m not commenting on the weight given to each choice or the quality of the decisions, but it’s inconsistent. In Dobbs, Originalism > Pragmatism (Roe/Casey); in Trump cases, Pragmatism > Originalism.

 

[Vol423]

US Supreme Court to decide if white, straight workers face higher bar in bias lawsuits​

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-supreme-court-decide-white-174132103.html

 

[whodeycin85]

US Supreme Court to decide if white, straight workers face higher bar in bias lawsuits​

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-supreme-court-decide-white-174132103.html

That if they side with the lawsuit...then DEI will go away quickly because they'd become unconstitutional correct?

 

[85SugarVol]

I’d written about the value of precedent on this forum before Dobbs was decided. SCOTUS justices have written about it before and since. Consistency of the court, regardless of composition is a big part of their credibility. That’s not something that somebody gets to the Supreme Court without having been exposed to.

So overturning Dobbs was an informed choice. They did that knowing that it would have the consequence of undermining their credibility with half of the country. Their rational was that Roe and Casey were pragmatic decisions. Judge made law. Made up.

This court is an Originalist court. Some justices have written concurrences to explain the premise of originalism and have gone as far as to say that judicial pragmatism is basically made up law. Faith to the original text was the better choice, in their view.

Whether you agree or disagree with way they weighed their options, it was undeniably a choice that they made that opened the court to those criticisms.

Then came Trump v. Anderson and Trump v. U.S.

Those were purely pragmatic decisions in their rationale. The debates around ratification said otherwise. The limited history and tradition (Nixon) said otherwise. In the same term where Gorsuch said what he said about originalism being the only way to avoid just making it up as you go, they dumped originalism to reach a pragmatic outcome.

Again, I’m not commenting on the weight given to each choice or the quality of the decisions, but it’s inconsistent. In Dobbs, Originalism > Pragmatism (Roe/Casey); in Trump cases, Pragmatism > Originalism.

Understood (I think) that your issue is with the Justices flipping between interpretation models when it suits them.

Your views on originalism aside, how do you view the Dobbs decision?

 

[RockyTop85]

Understood (I think) that your issue is with the Justices flipping between interpretation models when it suits them.

Your views on originalism aside, how do you view the Dobbs decision?

The flipping is half of the issue, ignoring Stare Decisis is the other.

And it’s not my issue. I’m describing the actions that open the court to the criticisms that he says are only really applicable to the senate.

If Harris wins, replaces Thomas and Alito, or let’s even say they pack the court, and the new court immediately cabins Heller to the single shot muskets of a well-regulated state militia and says self defense isn’t in the constitution, opening up the whole wide world of gun regulations to the states, people on the right would feel exactly the same way. Adherence to the reasoning of a prior court matters. If the law is perceived to change with the political composition of the court, the perception that they’re just “politicians in robes” will also persist.

That aside, Dobbs doesn’t really move the needle for me. Abortion was never a huge issue for me: I’m not a woman and I’m doing reasonably well, financially and can afford children; I have a moral problem with terminating a pregnancy for reasons of convenience and would encourage my wife not to do it if that issue ever came up for us; I wouldn’t have an objection under some other circumstances; I don’t think it’s any of the government’s business why it’s being done.

I approve of the states that have let it go to a referendum, I think that’s probably superior to the Supreme Court or a federal law. Helps that my opinions seem to be pretty mainstream.

 

[RockyTop85]

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that people using hysterical hyperbole doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate criticisms. There are. They just are being wildly overblown to drive outrage, the same way that “murdering babies after birth” is not really grounded in reality.

 

[85SugarVol]

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that people using hysterical hyperbole doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate criticisms. There are. They just are being wildly overblown to drive outrage, the same way that “murdering babies after birth” is not really grounded in reality.

We do love our stirring appeals to emotion.

Graphic exposes that explore:

“The barbaric truth about Dilation & Evacuation procedures”
-and-
“The truth about what an AR-15 round does to a 5 year old’s internal organs”

Come from the same place, and have the same goal - to inflame.