The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#11,176
#11,176

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

lite.cnn.com 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.
 
#11,177
#11,177
85SugarVol said:
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?
Click to expand...

RockyTop85 said:
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
Click to expand...

RockyTop85 said:
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.)
Click to expand...

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.
 
#11,178
#11,178

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


finance.yahoo.com

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

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether it should be more difficult for workers from "majority backgrounds," such as white or heterosexual people, to prove workplace discrimination claims. The justices took up an appeal by Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, seeking to revive...
finance.yahoo.com finance.yahoo.com
 
#11,179
#11,179
Vol423 said:

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


finance.yahoo.com

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

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether it should be more difficult for workers from "majority backgrounds," such as white or heterosexual people, to prove workplace discrimination claims. The justices took up an appeal by Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, seeking to revive...
finance.yahoo.com finance.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
That if they side with the lawsuit...then DEI will go away quickly because they'd become unconstitutional correct?
 
#11,180
#11,180
RockyTop85 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
#11,181
#11,181
85SugarVol said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13, LouderVol, 85SugarVol and 1 other person
#11,182
#11,182
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.
 
#11,183
#11,183
RockyTop85 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and RockyTop85
#11,188
#11,188
I believe she will resign. She doesn't want a repeat of the RBG scenario, not that her health issues are necessarily critical at the moment. She is probably negotiating her post-SCOTUS gig, and she has mucho leverage.
 
#11,190
#11,190
SuzyVol said:
I believe she will resign. She doesn't want a repeat of the RBG scenario, not that her health issues are necessarily critical at the moment. She is probably negotiating her post-SCOTUS gig, and she has mucho leverage.
Click to expand...

I think she will too. She’s more of a loyal party soldier than RGB was.
 
#11,191
#11,191
hog88 said:
I think she will too. She’s more of a loyal party soldier than RGB was.
Click to expand...
Lol. Asking her to step aside would be Ableist AND Racist, and dare I say…. Mysoginst!

Last year, Democrats — bruised by Justice RUTH BADER GINSBURG’s refusal to retire and give then-President BARACK OBAMA a chance to nominate her successor — began a quiet campaign to nudge Sotomayor out. The reasoning? Her age (70) and health (she has diabetes). That round of the conversation was met with accusations of ableism and even racism: How dare they suggest pushing the first Latina justice — a solid progressive vote — off the bench?

 
  • Like
Reactions: ButchPlz, hog88, NorthDallas40 and 2 others
#11,195
#11,195
whodeycin85 said:
If she does retire can the replacement be blocked like last time?
Click to expand...
Not the same way. Republicans held the majority, and refused to give Garland a vote.

If they could get a replacement through the process, all the way to the vote - it’s possible.

They couldn’t have any Senators on the fence though (Manchin), they all have to be all-in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#11,196
#11,196
85SugarVol said:
Not the same way. Republicans held the majority, and refused to give Garland a vote.

If they could get a replacement through the process, all the way to the vote - it’s possible.

They couldn’t have any Senators on the fence though (Manchin), they all have to be all-in.
Click to expand...
Thanks..that's what I was wondering about...I'm fine with them chosing, just hope they don't go for a complete activist judge like KBJ
 
#11,197
#11,197
With the new senate taking office January 3, what candidate could possibly go through all the crack ground checks, hearing and vote
 
#11,199
#11,199
Wireless1 said:
With the new senate taking office January 3, what candidate could possibly go through all the crack ground checks, hearing and vote
Click to expand...
Democrat majority can control the timeline. Sinema and Manchin would be the wild cards, so the nominee would have to be nominally legitimate.
 
#11,200
#11,200
hog88 said:
I think she will too. She’s more of a loyal party soldier than RGB was.
Click to expand...
Nope. Won't happen

WASHINGTON—Despite calls from some liberal activists for Justice Sonia Sotomayor to step down while Democrats can fill her seat before political power changes hands in January, she has no plans to retire from the Supreme Court, people close to the justice said.

“This is no time to lose her important voice on the court. She just turned 70 and takes better care of herself than anyone I know,” said one person close to the justice, suggesting that progressives turn their attention to other ways of safeguarding the Constitution after President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
Click to expand...

 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top