SCOTUS Watch

[geezer]

Sure, but not every irresolvable issue rises to the significance of Dred Scot. Americans will probably never agree on whether New York or Chicago has the right to claim the title of "Best Pizza in America," but we probably don't need to slaughter 3% of the population in order to hash it out.

I certainly hope you're not comparing pizza quality to a woman's right to control her own body

[malchior]

Past results are a lot more reliable than wild apocalyptic predictions of the end of the Republic. We’ve had bad court decisions before. We’ve had terrible court decisions that have led to injustice and even civil war.

People say this but how is it logical? I'm trying to challenge this in the best way and try to point out the incongruity. We're at the point where legions of experts are raising red alerts. Why are all of those experts wrong and this vague trust in the past somehow more accurate/predictive? I'm just looking for something more than the thing they are predicting is too bad for me to believe could happen. Which is what it often sounds like.

That's what I'm seeing at least when I see that argument. Ignore me all you want but we're seeing near daily stories about this right now. Expert after expert publishing in every serious periodical I could possibly name. And IMO this is why I think it's way more likely we're going to drive off the cliff than not. People are too proud, blind, scared, whatever is driving this behavior to believe it can happen here even though it is actively happening and we're being told it is happening.

Perhaps the Supreme Court eventually overturning Roe is what shocks voters into voting for Democrats in gerrymandered Republican districts.

It's certainly possible but it doesn't help if a Republican official ends up declaring fraud and steals the election. Which they are again openly positioning themselves for. Again experts in democratic backsliding are pointing out the actual mechanisms that have been put in place. People who openly called for elections to be overturned are running in several jurisdictions to be the person making the call next time. People who warned about Trump's reaction to the last election were often ignored. In the end, I feel like I have the same frustration as people had in the 1930s when they saw the darkness coming. I don't have any real belief it'll be that bad. It almost certainly won't be. But I mean in the sense that all the plans, all the pieces are moving in the open, and people are just ignoring it. It's crazy to me.

The problem is that we’ve repeatedly relied on the Supreme Court to mitigate bad, poorly thought out Republican policy popular with their base. Now the majority of the Supreme Court holds those views.

Right and that's just one problem. We have so many more.

Sure, but not every irresolvable issue rises to the significance of Dred Scot. Americans will probably never agree on whether New York or Chicago has the right to claim the title of "Best Pizza in America," but we probably don't need to slaughter 3% of the population in order to hash it out.

I certainly hope you're not comparing pizza quality to a woman's right to control her own body

[Little Raven]

Yeah - that's why this is BAD and should not just be viewed as more of the same.

People should be prevented from getting the government they vote for over and over and over again?

I mean, I get it, not EVERYTHING is up for a vote. We have a clearly defined process for deciding what is and isn't up to voters to decide. Right now, abortion is (kinda) on that list. If Roe goes down, it won't be.

All the more reason to speak up now while there are still choices to be made.

Who on Earth is staying silent these days? Fox News screams constantly about the coming end of the Republic. The New York Times has a cover story asking if we're past the point of no return. Even if it were possible for everyone to scream louder on this issue....how is that supposed to help?

[Little Raven]

I certainly hope you're not comparing pizza quality to a woman's right to control her own body

I am. For the express purpose of drawing a distinction. Not all disagreements are equally fundamental. Do you honestly believe that mandating abortion be legal in states where the population is deeply hostile to the idea is worth another Civil War?

I'm not asking in bad faith. There are people who would gladly initiate mass violence over that question. I just always assumed they were on the anti-abortion side.

[geezer]

I certainly hope you're not comparing pizza quality to a woman's right to control her own body

I am. For the express purpose of drawing a distinction. Not all disagreements are equally fundamental. Do you honestly believe that mandating abortion be legal in states where the population is deeply hostile to the idea is worth another Civil War?

I'm not asking in bad faith. There are people who would gladly initiate mass violence over that question. I just always assumed they were on the anti-abortion side.

No, but as I (and others) have been trying to explain, poorly I guess, is that it's not that one question. It's the systemic change that is altering the outcome of that question, and will, I believe, alter outcome of many more in ways that will severely impact our way of life.

That was my whole initial point that's gotten lost in this (which, ironically sort of agrees with you) - if the USSC does, in fact, take an overreaching stand on the radical application of states rights, that *might* be a better outcome than if their radical stand is actually on conservative morality. I'm not sure which one they're hedging toward, but I can see evidence for both.

(But strict textualism is still a totally braindead judicial philosophy.)

[Little Raven]

It's the systemic change that is altering the outcome of that question, and will, I believe, alter outcome of many more in ways that will severely impact our way of life.

Well, we're definitely going to get change. But I honestly don't think the loss of Roe vs Wade (IF that happens - we're still talking about a hypothetical) is going to severely impact very many people...because Roe vs Wade has been so weakened over the last 2 decades that abortion is already all but functionally illegal in all of the states that are likely to ban it. (and of course, blue states aren't going to change anything)

That was my whole initial point that's gotten lost in this (which, ironically sort of agrees with you) - if the USSC does, in fact, take an overreaching stand on the radical application of states rights, that *might* be a better outcome than if their radical stand is actually on conservative morality.

That is what Ginsburg came to struggle with.

Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable. The most prominent example in recent decades is Roe v. Wade .

I do occasionally find myself wondering if we might not have been better off going the Ireland route, and allowing legislatures to hash it out. But hindsight is 20/20, as they say.

[malchior]

So just today we had NY and FL join CA in announcing their own plans to design bounty systems patterned off of the TX abortion law pertaining to guns and banning "CRT". Thanks SCOTUS for the stability.

[Smoove_B]

To be fair, it does seem rather appropriate that the second American civil war is going to be kicked off by lawyers.

[Drazzil]

Past results are a lot more reliable than wild apocalyptic predictions of the end of the Republic. We’ve had bad court decisions before. We’ve had terrible court decisions that have led to injustice and even civil war.

People say this but how is it logical? I'm trying to challenge this in the best way and try to point out the incongruity. We're at the point where legions of experts are raising red alerts. Why are all of those experts wrong and this vague trust in the past somehow more accurate/predictive? I'm just looking for something more than the thing they are predicting is too bad for me to believe could happen. Which is what it often sounds like.

That's what I'm seeing at least when I see that argument. Ignore me all you want but we're seeing near daily stories about this right now. Expert after expert publishing in every serious periodical I could possibly name. And IMO this is why I think it's way more likely we're going to drive off the cliff than not. People are too proud, blind, scared, whatever is driving this behavior to believe it can happen here even though it is actively happening and we're being told it is happening.

Perhaps the Supreme Court eventually overturning Roe is what shocks voters into voting for Democrats in gerrymandered Republican districts.

It's certainly possible but it doesn't help if a Republican official ends up declaring fraud and steals the election. Which they are again openly positioning themselves for. Again experts in democratic backsliding are pointing out the actual mechanisms that have been put in place. People who openly called for elections to be overturned are running in several jurisdictions to be the person making the call next time. People who warned about Trump's reaction to the last election were often ignored. In the end, I feel like I have the same frustration as people had in the 1930s when they saw the darkness coming. I don't have any real belief it'll be that bad. It almost certainly won't be. But I mean in the sense that all the plans, all the pieces are moving in the open, and people are just ignoring it. It's crazy to me.

The problem is that we’ve repeatedly relied on the Supreme Court to mitigate bad, poorly thought out Republican policy popular with their base. Now the majority of the Supreme Court holds those views.

Right and that's just one problem. We have so many more.

Sure, but not every irresolvable issue rises to the significance of Dred Scot. Americans will probably never agree on whether New York or Chicago has the right to claim the title of "Best Pizza in America," but we probably don't need to slaughter 3% of the population in order to hash it out.

I certainly hope you're not comparing pizza quality to a woman's right to control her own body

Its almost as if being part of the system that's rotten as fuck somehow blinkers people who actively participate in it....

[Zarathud]

Try talking to people who have lived through the nightmare situations you’re calling for. I’ve represented Holocaust survivors, Russian expatriates who escaped after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Kosovo survivors, and other self-made business owners who grew up with nothing. What you call corrupt is hard work. The social breakdowns you call for were the horrors which drove their success.

You know nothing, Drazzil. Your 80s post apocalyptic fantasy was bullshit even before the pandemic.

[Zarathud]

And legions of experts are frequently wrong. Especially when projecting the failure and collapse of social and political systems. It’s the stuff that no one realizes is happening that is the real threat.

[Drazzil]

Try talking to people who have lived through the nightmare situations you’re calling for. I’ve represented Holocaust survivors, Russian expatriates who escaped after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Kosovo survivors, and other self-made business owners who grew up with nothing. What you call corrupt is hard work. The social breakdowns you call for were the horrors which drove their success.

You know nothing, Drazzil. Your 80s post apocalyptic fantasy was bullshit even before the pandemic.

I hate to say this, but if you believe that I have an apocalyptic fantasy you don't really read what I've been writing lately. What I'd call corrupt isn't hard work. It's called being born on third, walking to home then changing the rules of the game after you're safe.

You're blinkered.

[Drazzil]

And legions of experts are frequently wrong. Especially when projecting the failure and collapse of social and political systems. It’s the stuff that no one realizes is happening that is the real threat.

Also. It tends to be the large problems that everyone can see that "everyone" assumes "smart people are gonna figure out when it matters".

[malchior]

And legions of experts are frequently wrong. Especially when projecting the failure and collapse of social and political systems. It’s the stuff that no one realizes is happening that is the real threat.

So you seemingly are in the outlook is too dark to believe this is happening camp. The experts are often wrong. It's worked out in the past. And now seemingly if I'm interpreting that sentence right the threat is too obvious to be real? For one thing that is a historically incomplete view. A defining characteristic of fascism was openly committing crime to demonstrate they had the power to commit crime. I hate to agree with Drazzil but when I see this I can't help but think this is 'head in sand' behavior.

I mean Trump's election wasn't enough warning? Even if it was a one off aberration, the system nearly collapsed several times. And the GOP is right now out in the open re-wiring it for more failure. Trump is currently consolidating power after refusing to concede an election and accidentally or intentionally unleashing a mob on the Capitol to keep him in power. If he is re-elected, will that be enough failure to see the threat we all see? Or will that be handwaved away. Like I said I think we're going to drive over the cliff because people are simply unwilling to face reality.

And as aside it isn't probably going to be some apocalyptic collapse initially. It'll almost certainly stabilize on something that will be fine for almost all of us and look enough like our current system to be handwaved away. It'll be horrible for people on the edges though. The risk of apocalyptic collapse or war will come over time as the corruption leads to imbalances that risk war or more.

[Kraken]

Elizabeth Warren: Expand the SCOTUS.

I don’t come to this conclusion lightly or because I disagree with a particular decision; I come to this conclusion because I believe the current court threatens the democratic foundations of our nation.

Of course nothing will come of this, but it's the thought that counts, amiright?

[Carpet_pissr]

And the GOP is right now out in the open re-wiring it for more failure.

If I may, I would say they are re-wiring it to their advantage. Enabling (R) FaceID or fingerprint locking if you will.

It could be both actually (re-wiring for failure AND locking it up for R's).

[Carpet_pissr]

Elizabeth Warren: Expand the SCOTUS.

I don’t come to this conclusion lightly or because I disagree with a particular decision; I come to this conclusion because I believe the current court threatens the democratic foundations of our nation.

Of course nothing will come of this, but it's the thought that counts, amiright?

Hey got to give her some credit...at least she didn't hide behind reasons like "it's the right thing to do...we should have done this decades ago...fixing a problem that started before the current court, etc"

Surprisingly strong words coming from an establishment Democrat! "the current court threatens the democratic foundations of our nation"

[Zarathud]

Expanding the Supreme Court to address the workload and current number of Appeals Courts makes sense. Not just politically but for efficiency.

[Carpet_pissr]

Expanding the Supreme Court to address the workload and current number of Appeals Courts makes sense. Not just politically but for efficiency.

Then we should have done it before even the smallest things like paying our bills and fixing roads turned into knock-down drag out political fights.

[El Guapo]

Expanding the Supreme Court to address the workload and current number of Appeals Courts makes sense. Not just politically but for efficiency.

Then we should have done it before even the smallest things like paying our bills and fixing roads turned into knock-down drag out political fights.

Yeah, but what are the odds that Manchin + Sinema would go along with it? I think there are probably a couple other D senators that would be tough sells on this too. Expanding appeals courts slots might be a viable sell, since you could sell that on workload grounds, it's less politically sensitive than SCOTUS "courtpacking", and maybe you could sprinkle the slots around the country and then give key senators a lot of input into the new judge picks. But SCOTUS, as much as something should've been done, hard for me to imagine it passing the Senate.

[Carpet_pissr]

Expanding the Supreme Court to address the workload and current number of Appeals Courts makes sense. Not just politically but for efficiency.

Then we should have done it before even the smallest things like paying our bills and fixing roads turned into knock-down drag out political fights.

Yeah, but what are the odds that Manchin + Sinema would go along with it? I think there are probably a couple other D senators that would be tough sells on this too. Expanding appeals courts slots might be a viable sell, since you could sell that on workload grounds, it's less politically sensitive than SCOTUS "courtpacking", and maybe you could sprinkle the slots around the country and then give key senators a lot of input into the new judge picks. But SCOTUS, as much as something should've been done, hard for me to imagine it passing the Senate.

BEFORE even the smallest things....etc etc.

Like...10, 20 years ago before. Not sure it would have been possible even then, but relative to now, it was bipartisan nirvana.

[Smoove_B]

"The [OSH] Act empowers the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures...Although COVID–19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most," Supreme Court rules blocking vax-or-test rule

Good news for American workers that earn a living in a workplace without air. Congrats - the Supreme Court has your back!

[malchior]

Remember that the court that delivered this decision has barely met in person for 2 years to protect the health of members of the court.

[Smoove_B]

Seriously. Tell me again how the Trump-tainted Supreme Court isn't political. I am actually speechless over this.

[Octavious]

if it makes you feel any better there's a super solid chance they will have a 7-2 majority in a couple of years. I'm sure they will stay impartial.

[malchior]

The hot takes on this are astonishing. This country is a pure insane asylum. When the very serious people are like move on - nothing we can do. Just live your life. It is just the way things are. We are clearly beyond the capacity of our political system to function in a way that it was supposedly created to support. We teeter on the verge of violence for this reason.

[stessier]

I'm obviously biased, but the majority's opinion is not particularly convincing.

[malchior]

From Clarence Thomas's dissent on the CMS case - good lord. They have a recourse if they don't want the 'medical procedure'. They can quit.

"These cases are not about the efficacy or importance of COVID–19 vaccines. They are only about whether CMS has the statutory authority to force healthcare workers, by coercing their employers, to undergo a medical procedure they do not want and cannot undo," Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent. "Because the Government has not made a strong showing that Congress gave CMS that broad authority, I would deny the stays pending appeal."

[El Guapo]

Seriously. Tell me again how the Trump-tainted Supreme Court isn't political. I am actually speechless over this.

I wish I was.

[Alefroth]

What about the medical procedure of peeing in a cup?

[Drazzil]

And legions of experts are frequently wrong. Especially when projecting the failure and collapse of social and political systems. It’s the stuff that no one realizes is happening that is the real threat.

So you seemingly are in the outlook is too dark to believe this is happening camp. The experts are often wrong. It's worked out in the past. And now seemingly if I'm interpreting that sentence right the threat is too obvious to be real? For one thing that is a historically incomplete view. A defining characteristic of fascism was openly committing crime to demonstrate they had the power to commit crime. I hate to agree with Drazzil but when I see this I can't help but think this is 'head in sand' behavior.

I mean Trump's election wasn't enough warning? Even if it was a one off aberration, the system nearly collapsed several times. And the GOP is right now out in the open re-wiring it for more failure. Trump is currently consolidating power after refusing to concede an election and accidentally or intentionally unleashing a mob on the Capitol to keep him in power. If he is re-elected, will that be enough failure to see the threat we all see? Or will that be handwaved away. Like I said I think we're going to drive over the cliff because people are simply unwilling to face reality.

And as aside it isn't probably going to be some apocalyptic collapse initially. It'll almost certainly stabilize on something that will be fine for almost all of us and look enough like our current system to be handwaved away. It'll be horrible for people on the edges though. The risk of apocalyptic collapse or war will come over time as the corruption leads to imbalances that risk war or more.

Its going to be cascading collapse. One system domino'ing into another. Economic collapse, governmental chaos, infrastructural collapse. Like every badly maintained, duct taped and jury rigged together with bailing wire piece of superstructure our government has will collapse at once.

[Unagi]

when?

[Blackhawk]

I can't imagine being surprised by this, or any of today's other events. They were all fully expected and anticipated. It's like jumping off a building and being surprised that you hit the bottom.

[Kraken]

It's like jumping off a building and being surprised that you hit the bottom.

Dude, spoiler tags.

[Alefroth]

Businesses can still enact a vaccine mandate if they choose to, right? I wonder how many businesses will just stick with it since it's already in place.

[Little Raven]

Businesses can still enact a vaccine mandate if they choose too, right?

Yes. The Court ruled that OSHA does not grant the Secretary of Labor the authority to issue such a sweeping mandate, especially since there has been no equivalent measures passed by Congress. But a private business can still enact a mandate if they so choose.

[Smoove_B]

What?

Justice Gorsuch acidly referred to "the so-called separation" of church and state today.

[Kasey Chang]

Gorsuch, the mask denier who refused Chief Justice Roberts' request to mask up so Sotomayor can attend in person. Sotomayor chose to WFH and remote in instead, all due to Gorsuch, who was seated next to her on the regular bench.

[LordMortis]

Wasn't he supposed the moderate that Obama was going to work with to break bread with Congress? Was there mention before these last couple of weeks that he was headed off the rails?

[malchior]

Wasn't he supposed the moderate that Obama was going to work with to break bread with Congress? Was there mention before these last couple of weeks that he was headed off the rails?

Gorsuch was never a moderate. Eh, he had some "moderate" views on a few issues but he was always well to the right of Roberts.

Edit: Also not sure what that Obama comment is referring to since he was nominated by Trump to replace Scalia after they refused to have hearings for Garland.