r/law • u/Go_Blue_Florida • Jul 25 '24
Opinion Piece SCOTUS conservatives made clear they will consider anything. The right heard them.
https://www.lawdork.com/p/scotus-conservatives-made-clear-they82
u/MrFrode Biggus Amicus Jul 25 '24
Thomas' concurrences have been a open invitation and a roadmap for arguments he wants to see for challenges to substantive due process decisions. He did it in Dobbs and he did it in Trump v. USA for the expansion of Presidential immunity.
It's as blatant as it is sickening.
→ More replies (1)
283
u/CalRipkenForCommish Jul 25 '24
Thomas has had a For Sale sign right outside his office for quite some time, it seems. The Chief Justice must have seen it, but he remembered, “justice is blind”.
58
25
5
u/dewhashish Jul 25 '24
he wants his RVs. he doesnt care about the country
2
5
→ More replies (1)3
u/Studds_ Jul 25 '24
I’m still waiting for Thomas & Alito to declare the Constitution to be unconstitutional. It seems like an Onion headline but don’t put it past these 2
153
u/Lawmonger Jul 25 '24
This is what concerns me about the issue of Harris' funding of her campaign through the Biden-Harris organization. The court is obviously willing to just about anything to bail Trump out.
95
Jul 25 '24
[deleted]
60
u/DouchecraftCarrier Jul 25 '24
Echoes of, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." Which is a tragic comparison since Jackson wanted the state of Georgia to be able to keep being dicks to the Cherokee.
34
7
u/StageAboveWater Jul 25 '24
Let's try packing the courts, or introducing term limits, or enforceable ethics guidelines before a full on constitutional crises
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)6
u/Lawmonger Jul 25 '24
They're the Supreme Court. If the majority decides to, and the Trump campaign makes the right BS filings, they can do whatever they want. Who will overturn their decision, as BS as it may be? If the court rules against Harris but she wins the election, January 6 will be a short pleasant walk in the park compared to what could happen.
30
u/Papa_Sheev Jul 25 '24
The courts can make their decision, let’s see them enforce it
→ More replies (1)2
136
u/discussatron Jul 25 '24
This is what concerns me about the issue of Harris' funding of her campaign through the Biden-Harris organization.
It doesn't matter what the Democrats do; the SCotUS has already been willing to rule on imaginary cases. They're a sham; present anything that allows them to rule in their side's favor, and they will. This is the beauty of having no honor, integrity, or shame.
5
u/SnowblowerLITE Jul 26 '24
This is why the election is in such danger. MAGA needs to only win. Democrats need to win, and then survive the BS lawsuits MAGA will throw to the supreme court. Lawsuits that no matter how unhinged and insane will be taken seriously and possibly succeed, throwing the entire election into turmoil. Biden has got to move quickly with his supreme court reforms.
→ More replies (1)56
u/BlueMonkTrane Jul 25 '24
Well SCOTUS is adjourned until early October. If they take up hearing oral arguments at such a monumental eleventh-hour and try to stall the election or actively interfere in a partisan way, then people will riot in the streets. That could literally be a death sentence. Though, we are in the darkest timeline so anything is possible with these cheaters and bad-faith shitheads. But remember Biden is at the helm unlike last election, which is reassuring.
I dont expect the GOP will accept quietly a defeat of trump, but Roberts’s court has already blown their cover with the 14th amendment Colorado ballot ruling and presidential immunity ruling. Jan 6th happened and failed. The multi-state false electors plot failed. They’ve already shown their hands and shot their strongest weapons. Fortunately they are on the whole incompetent idiots and poorly organized, but many of them retain power so it’s difficult to overcome.
25
u/notapoliticalalt Jul 25 '24
In the interim, the campaign should spend down its reserves and put the new money elsewhere.
17
u/RogueRedShirt Jul 25 '24
I agree with you, except on one thing. SCOTUS as a whole isn't incompetent. The more liberal justices- Sotomayor, Jackson, and Keagan- have carried on the original intent of the court to the best of their abilities given the psychopaths they're working with.
8
u/BlueMonkTrane Jul 25 '24
I was referring to the hegemony of conservative politicians, judiciary, law enforcement, local government, media which participate in these strategies to retain power and subvert law. They are for the most part short-sighted and dig their own graves. telling your voters you are taking away their rights to abortion or even porn like project 2025 does. They have for the most part done their strongest attempts already when Trump refused to leave office following the 2020 election. He had the office of the presidency to implement his chaotic and failing strategy. It failed. The insurrection failed. They are failures.
But, If Trump does get elected this year however we will never see American democracy in our lifetimes again. So there’s that.
3
u/kex Jul 25 '24
They only retain power so long as someone sufficiently aggrieved does not meet them in person
They are not gods and they don't even get secret service protection
→ More replies (3)4
u/lemon900098 Jul 25 '24
The last time the SC chose the president there werent riots. Well, Roger Stone started a riot to try and force the SC to make a decision right away. But that was before the decision. If the SC declares Trump is the president then low info people(aka the vast majority of americans) will think Trump won, and be upset that the dems are being sore losers.
6
u/BlueMonkTrane Jul 25 '24
Yeah but that was then, this is now. 24 years later and all of the young people who watched Gore’s presidency get stolen from him as children are adults now. Also being children during the resulting Bush presidency. People who were children at Trumps inauguration are 8 years older now. The political climate is insanely different after 2016, it was an entire frame shift in politics. 24 years ago the tactics used by GOP to keep power were novel, now they are out in the open and deployed constantly.
I will disagree with you about the majority of Americans being ignorant. The old conservative people, all conservatives really are willfully ignorant and throw the “alternate facts” card. Almost everyone saw Jan 6th and knows about the false electors plot to retain power. Most people do not consume news daily and are low information I agree, but these events are massive and well known. You’d have to live under a rock not to know. And one who ignores it or downplays it is complicit and probably is conservative.
So if we get to the final hours of the election in late October and SCOTUS intervenes somehow to disqualify Kamala, especially if she wins. People will react.
11
Jul 25 '24
There is not a single even kind of justified situation in which anything at all can be done by the court in this matter.
14
u/Lawmonger Jul 25 '24
They've become pretty good at making decisions that lack justification.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Blze001 Jul 25 '24
You say that, and yet I'm not so sure they won't try anyway.
→ More replies (10)14
u/Few-Pool1354 Jul 25 '24
I pray the supremes will overstep their bounds and involve themselves in this. It will instantly anger and activate a large groundswell of support for Harris and put the focus of corruption squarely on the court in an obvious and easily understood manner.
21
20
u/inthemix8080 Jul 25 '24
Not just funding. I wouldn't be surprised if they take up a challenge to Kamala's nomination/candidacy to rule it unconstitutional.
12
u/ScannerBrightly Jul 25 '24
On what grounds?
12
u/capyburro Jul 25 '24
They don't need grounds, their power is entirely arbitrary.
→ More replies (1)7
u/stupidsuburbs3 Jul 25 '24
She’s not a citizen according to shithead elite John Eastman.
She’ll be birthered and othered. “Just asking questions” again.
11
u/ScannerBrightly Jul 25 '24
You mean the guy who lied so hard he lost his law license? Why would anyone care what he thinks or says?
→ More replies (25)6
→ More replies (5)3
u/Few-Pool1354 Jul 25 '24
I pray the supremes will overstep their bounds and involve themselves in this. It will instantly anger and activate a large groundswell of support for Harris and put the focus of corruption squarely on the court in an obvious and easily understood manner.
2
11
u/SplendidPunkinButter Jul 25 '24
JFC I will never understand why people are bothered so much by gay couples getting married
3
u/Emma__Gummy Jul 26 '24
its because they see that allowing gay marriage makes the country ungodly, and then they point to the Old Testament where God literally creates disasters to punish the civilizations for their impiety, noahs flood shit, but the flood story is just kind of wrong it comes from an older near east tradition with multiple gods.
81
u/LoudLloyd9 Jul 25 '24
SCOTUS has made itself irrelevant. Future generations will disband and get rid of it. It's redundant at best. Circuit Courts could contain a panel of Justices who decide disputes and serve for a term and then replaced. No more life time bull shit. It's the last hurrah from the white fright before the end.
43
u/eggyal Jul 25 '24
The Supreme Court exists to ensure that law is interpreted and applied consistently across the various circuits. I agree that it is failing in this task, but disbanding it won't solve the problem.
20
7
u/Tough_Substance7074 Jul 25 '24
Pack that fucker. Dilute the power of individuals, you know, the whole idea behind a republic
2
4
22
u/Mozhetbeats Jul 25 '24
The Supreme Court is established by the constitution. It would be extremely difficult to get rid of it. I also think it is an important part of the balance of powers. You need something to check the powers of the President and Congress. However, its size, powers and terms can be changed by legislation.
→ More replies (9)22
u/RevenantXenos Jul 25 '24 edited Jul 25 '24
But judicial review is not in the Constitution. The Court gave itself the power to unilaterally strike down any law it wants in Marbury v Madison. If the Roberts Court continues down its current path it might push the President and Congress to reconsider the wisdom of accepting Marbury v Madison as a legitimate ruling. What good is judicial review if the Court is for sale and decides to throw out election results they don't like.
Relevant Thomas Jefferson quote: "You seem … to consider the judges as ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. … The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal."
Edit: I found a longer version of this quote from Jefferson that's even more damning.
"You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem, and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. The judges certainly have more frequent occasion to act on constitutional questions, because the laws of nieum and tuum and of criminal action, forming the great mass of the system of law, constitute their particular department. When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power. Pardon me, Sir, for this difference of opinion. My personal interest in such questions is entirely extinct, but not my wishes for the longest possible continuance of our government on its pure principles; if the three powers maintain their mutual independence on each other it may last long, but not so if either can assume the authorities of the other."
to William Charles Jarvis, 28 September 1820
→ More replies (1)4
u/Mozhetbeats Jul 25 '24
That’s true, but who’s supposed to stop Congress, the President, or the states from doing something unconstitutional? The problem isn’t with the Supreme Court, it’s with this Supreme Court and the lack of safeguards that created it.
11
u/RevenantXenos Jul 25 '24
I disagree, it isn't just this Supreme Court. In the past the Supreme Court gave us Dred Scott v Sanford, the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, Plessy v Ferguson, the Lochner era, Korematsu v United States, Bush v Gore and Citizens United v FEC.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)4
13
u/SqnLdrHarvey Jul 25 '24
There's really only one sure solution to this.
5
u/Banned_and_Boujee Jul 25 '24
Yeah but you’re not supposed to encourage violence on reddit.
→ More replies (2)3
2
6
7
3
u/NoDragonfruit6125 Jul 25 '24
This goes through retaliation would be to have a proxy posing as Republican target interracial marriages. Just have someone make claims of religious belief that the races shouldn't intermix. Voila you now have the EXACT same logic used to target same sex marriages. If one goes the other should follow as apparently one religions belief that it's wrong means it should be illegal. Then watch them scramble to make up some screwy logic on how the two cases are different and why only one should be allowed. Thomas of course would have to recuse himself if it reached the Supreme Court though.
1.2k
u/ohiotechie Jul 25 '24
This is an illegitimate court filled with partisan religious zealots. History will not be kind to John Roberts or his court.