The Decline of SCOTUS into a Partisan Political Body
- Thread starter NationalTitles18
- Start date
Those Secret Recordings of Alito and Roberts Revealed the True Stakes of the 2024 Election
If Trump wins in November, these Alito acolytes are the future of the Supreme Court.
From the opinion piece:
The conservative legal movement has increasingly embraced a Christianity-centered vision of constitutional law over recent years, sometimes even at the expense of the pro-business, anti-government roots of the movement itself. It’s especially prominent on Trump-stacked courts like the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, now dominated by trolls auditioning for the next Supreme Court opening. Judge James Ho, for instance, has quoted the Bible four times in opinions with zero religious valence. As Texas lawyer David Coale has noted, some of these citations are coupled with the pronouns “us†and “we,†as if Ho simply assumes all of “us†already know and believe that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.â€Â
Ho’s rhetoric is indicative of his substantive views, too: In April, he endorsed the Texas Legislature’s book-banning crusade, a fixation grounded in Christian nationalism. (A fellow Trump appointee, Judge Don Willett, bucked his party to strike down a state book-banning law.) Ho also openly derides abortion as a “moral tragedy†and attacks reproductive freedom with inherently religious oratory. He shares this trait with a fellow Trump appointee, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who drew heavily from the language of conservative Christian activists when attempting to ban the abortion pill last year. In another case, Kacsmaryk upheld a college’s prohibition of a drag performance on the grounds that the need to maintain public morality limits the scope of the First Amendment. The courts, Kacsmaryk asserted, may limit a person’s right to express ideas about sexuality and gender based on their own subjective sense of “licentiousness†that might offend the (presumptively Christian) public.
If Trump wins in November, Ho and Kacsmaryk are the future of the Supreme Court. John Roberts’ description of a court that respects pluralistic society through compromise and restraint was never in fashion with MAGA judges. Alito’s vision of a court that plays an activist role in securing Christian supremacy by joining one side of the culture war? That’s the future of the judiciary under Republican rule. The two visions cannot be reconciled, because the latter is unyielding and absolute. As Alito agreed, one side has to win. He hopes it will be his. The next election will determine if he’s right.
but muslim immigrants don't want separation of church and state.Those Secret Recordings of Alito and Roberts Revealed the True Stakes of the 2024 ElectionThose Secret Recordings of Alito and Roberts Revealed the True Stakes of the 2024 Election
If Trump wins in November, these Alito acolytes are the future of the Supreme Court.slate.com
From the opinion piece:
The conservative legal movement has increasingly embraced a Christianity-centered vision of constitutional law over recent years, sometimes even at the expense of the pro-business, anti-government roots of the movement itself. It’s especially prominent on Trump-stacked courts like the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, now dominated by trolls auditioning for the next Supreme Court opening. Judge James Ho, for instance, has quoted the Bible four times in opinions with zero religious valence. As Texas lawyer David Coale has noted, some of these citations are coupled with the pronouns “us†and “we,†as if Ho simply assumes all of “us†already know and believe that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.â€Â
Ho’s rhetoric is indicative of his substantive views, too: In April, he endorsed the Texas Legislature’s book-banning crusade, a fixation grounded in Christian nationalism. (A fellow Trump appointee, Judge Don Willett, bucked his party to strike down a state book-banning law.) Ho also openly derides abortion as a “moral tragedy†and attacks reproductive freedom with inherently religious oratory. He shares this trait with a fellow Trump appointee, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who drew heavily from the language of conservative Christian activists when attempting to ban the abortion pill last year. In another case, Kacsmaryk upheld a college’s prohibition of a drag performance on the grounds that the need to maintain public morality limits the scope of the First Amendment. The courts, Kacsmaryk asserted, may limit a person’s right to express ideas about sexuality and gender based on their own subjective sense of “licentiousness†that might offend the (presumptively Christian) public.
If Trump wins in November, Ho and Kacsmaryk are the future of the Supreme Court. John Roberts’ description of a court that respects pluralistic society through compromise and restraint was never in fashion with MAGA judges. Alito’s vision of a court that plays an activist role in securing Christian supremacy by joining one side of the culture war? That’s the future of the judiciary under Republican rule. The two visions cannot be reconciled, because the latter is unyielding and absolute. As Alito agreed, one side has to win. He hopes it will be his. The next election will determine if he’s right.
These days the Pendulum has swung the other way. Presidents try to nominate like minded individuals. Some nominees have had a mind of their own.
These days there's a pretty good argument for nominees to serve 4-8 years. Life time Justices is not working that well lately.
True. It would probably require a constitutional amendment, since it would attempt to add another qualification in addition to what's in the constitution...
There are frequently times when extremists see their openings and grab them. People have always been frightened of immigrants even when they enter legally. They usually do get their drawers bunched over it. It doesn't matter where the immigrants are from, either, they just don't like it. Unless your family came over on the Mayflower (and Native Americans came not to like that with good reason), people of European descent already here were not happy and treated them roughly, sometimes barbarically. It's so easy if those they are targeting are in the minority. It's the same everywhere. Because of my heritage, I know a great deal about this. People get nervous and that translates to irritation and anger and conspiracy theory. Then some groups and demagogues take their cue and run with it. That's happening in Europe and here, too. Keep in mind that we were shaken economically in every aspect and every corner by the pandemic. That always happens with pandemics and major wars. This, too, along with disease, itself, tends to set the stage for finger pointing The thing is there is no perfect form of government. Any type of hierarchical system created by humans will be imperfect because...humans. And sometimes, humans choose horrors, especially when upset or whipped into furor. You only have to look at history to see that.
No one really wants to fight that fight. I agree it will not change.
It's like trying to put term limits on members of Congress. It will never happen because those guys and gals will never vote themselves out of a job.
If you agree with rulings from SCOTUS, it's a good, objective check on the overreaches of other branches of government and protection of the Constitution.
If you disagree with rulings from SCOTUS, it's a partisan political body, destroying the foundation of the country, and needs to be overhauled.
While I was too young to really understand the issues, I'm old enough to remember the controversies around the Warren court. They were a lot like the criticisms the current court faces, only coming from the opposite end of the political spectrum.
If you disagree with rulings from SCOTUS, it's a partisan political body, destroying the foundation of the country, and needs to be overhauled.
While I was too young to really understand the issues, I'm old enough to remember the controversies around the Warren court. They were a lot like the criticisms the current court faces, only coming from the opposite end of the political spectrum.
Last edited:
Unlike the SCOTUS, we do have term limits for Congress. They are called elections. Everyone whines about people who have been in office forever but somehow they keep getting reelected.
I agree with 4Q that your feelings about the court depend on whose side you are on. Suppose Thurgood Marshall had stayed on the court another year. Or RBG decided to retire in 2013. Or if McConnell had done the honorable thing after Scalia died. The court is just as partisan but is leaning the other way.
I'm not sure that the last 3 liberals lied throuth their teeth during their confirmations like the rest did!
Oh, yeah, they also restricted an anti-corruption law.
Can't imagine why Alito and Thomas would vote that way.
Can't imagine why Alito and Thomas would vote that way.
Todays rulings went against the EPA and SEC.
On the plus side, they ruled that bankruptcy law doesn't allow the sort of civil immunity negotiated in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy--the one that gave the Sackler family immunity from personal liability.
In a truly stunning turn of events, all of the Trump-related rulings (Jan 6 case, presidential immunity) will come tomorrow. This not only delays things as long as possible, it doesn't give Biden any additional ammunition right before the debate. Shocking, right?
Tomorrow is also when the court is expected to gut the Chevron doctrine, which will catastrophically limit federal agencies authority.
On the plus side, they ruled that bankruptcy law doesn't allow the sort of civil immunity negotiated in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy--the one that gave the Sackler family immunity from personal liability.
In a truly stunning turn of events, all of the Trump-related rulings (Jan 6 case, presidential immunity) will come tomorrow. This not only delays things as long as possible, it doesn't give Biden any additional ammunition right before the debate. Shocking, right?
Tomorrow is also when the court is expected to gut the Chevron doctrine, which will catastrophically limit federal agencies authority.
Opinion: An abortion saved my life. The Supreme Court missed a vital opportunity to help future women like me
well, they just killed the Chevron doctrine
From Roberts' opinion: Chevron's presumption that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations of authority by Congress to federal agencies "is misguided," Roberts explains, "because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do."
I.e., agencies have no special competencies in the things they were created to administer. Sure thing, Roberts.
from Kagan's dissent: Chevron, she says, rests on the idea that "Congress knows that it does not--in fact cannot--write perfectly complete regulatory statutes. It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve, and gaps that some other actor will have to fill. And it would usually prefer that actor to be the responsible agency, not a court."
How DARE you use common sense in the Supreme Court, madam?!?
From Roberts' opinion: Chevron's presumption that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations of authority by Congress to federal agencies "is misguided," Roberts explains, "because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do."
I.e., agencies have no special competencies in the things they were created to administer. Sure thing, Roberts.
from Kagan's dissent: Chevron, she says, rests on the idea that "Congress knows that it does not--in fact cannot--write perfectly complete regulatory statutes. It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve, and gaps that some other actor will have to fill. And it would usually prefer that actor to be the responsible agency, not a court."
How DARE you use common sense in the Supreme Court, madam?!?
And just as a little lagniappe, the SC also ruled in favor of Jan 6 attackers regarding the obstruction statute.
Alito and Thomas are disgusting in thumbing their nose at ethics standards. In no way should they be voting on anything to do with Jan 6.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
-
ESPN: 'I basically blacked out': Inside the 15-play drive that will forever live in Miami lore- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: From 'duck feet' to 'production over potential:' Curt Cignetti's secret to building Indiana
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Inside Oregon's rise as a college football blue blood
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Miami's Lewis encourages Lacy, resilient Rebels
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0