https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-supreme-court-list/
pick your favorite
We can only pray we get another Earl Warren situation.
From the political left, absolutely. And they will be called agitators and rioters by the political right. The police response will be brutal, and Supreme Court will be a Kangaroo Court to Trump's agenda -- especially if Ginsberg has to retire as well. There is no happy ending to this story without an extraordinary change of circumstances.
I get that you don't like the decisions that have been made, but how exactly have they been dishonest?
I don't think it's yet certain that the police response will be brutal. That said, I do think that the right will attempt to embed people to make those protests turn violent or justify the police brutalizing protesters.
However, on a sufficiently large enough scale, if enough blood is piled up then suppressing the protests might fail spectacularly as people might feel that the whole of the nation is under attack and every man's right to free speech is being literally beaten down in the streets in support of a regime which seeks to quash their voices of protest. That could lead to demonstrations of the like we've not seen in the past hundred years.
Can you give a specific example of a dishonest argument?
They ruled in favor if the baker that refused to serve a gay couple because of the animus (hostility) in the words of the commissoner who investigated the baker.
They ruled for Trump's travel ban even though they recognized Trump's animus in his statements.
Edited my comment with Sotomayor's dissent regards the Trump Travel Ban, where she calls out that the court is picking and choosing what it feels is law and isn't based not on the merits of the arguments brought before them, but who the decisions services. She does this by pointing out that they have ruled in two different directions on the same subject and in the same context.
... the first one was a bipartisan 7-2 ruling. So unless you're also calling the liberal justices dishonest, I'm not sure how that's applicable.
Can you point to the actual argument made that was dishonest instead of the opinion of those who disagreed? Where did they state something that was untrue?
I'll feel extremely bad for Kagan, Sotomayor and Bryer. They might as well not even show up to the court with how powerless they'll be if Ginsburg retires or dies.
So what do we do then?
And this will grow immeasurably worse with the appointment of another Trump party loyalist. He will have a 5-4 majority. Given that Ginsberg is approaching ninety years old, he's quite likely to have a 6-3 supermajority within the next couple of years. Supreme Court decisions will cease to be a matter of upholding the rule of Constitutional Law, and it will instead operate as a legal umbrella for the Trump Party.
No, no. Argue the thing brought before you. Was Sotomayor calling it out or not? Did she point out that the Court was being dishonest by ruling two ways on the same subject?
I wish I knew. Leave? Fight? Pray?
If the SCOTUS becomes completely compromised the only thing to do is to force the retirement of all judges and 'reboot' it with specifically moderate Justices which are appointed by the Courts below them rather than the Legislative and Executive branches, since they have shown to be irresponsible and not trustworthy with that power.
I'm pointing that out because you're appealing to an extremely simplistic appeal to authority. Her one paragraph doesn't go anywhere close to actually analysing the arguments that were given in both cases, which were not equivalent. I brought up the two liberal justices because it seems even they recognized a difference between the two.
Is there any way to get any comfort in this situation?
This country is currently heading towards being like Nazi Germany, and from the sounds of it, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to revert from that path, especially when you have a pretty large chunk of people who would support that sort of thing. How do you look at that and somehow be optimistic and think "everything will eventually be okay"? What is there to take away from this?
I'm pointing out that you're refusing to accept it and are instead trying to make the debate about literally anything else.
7 justices say one thing, one justice says another, and you're saying that I'm ignoring the one justice. Great. I honestly don't know how you could flip the situation around any more.
To clarify: we are out of options within our legal system. There is no appealing Supreme Court rulings. Only the Supreme Court may overturn their own decisions, and we're staring down the barrel of 40+ years of a kangaroo court. What you suggest is not a legal option. There is no mechanism in our government by which we can flush tyranny short of rebellion. Hence, why I said there's no path forward here that doesn't end in blood except subjugation.
I suppose some small comfort could be that the blue states won't end up Nazi.
I'm saying that one justice is pointing out that the 7 others are ignoring an important thing in their ruling. You're trying to diminish that by saying 'but it's just one opinion'. It being one opinion does not diminish the strength of the argument.
It's a one paragraph response to dozens of pages of legal argument. Sorry for not taking it too seriously.
One paragraph is all that is needed to make a strong and robust argument, so long as the paragraph completely describes itself. A program which is 10 million lines of code is not 'inherently more serious and robust' than a program which is 10 lines. Which does their job better would come down to the merits of each program - and, here, the merits of each argument.
We can't be backed into that corner yet. Things weren't great before now but the situation was still stable. You're telling me with this single resignation that we just lost all our legal options?
It doesn't respond to any specific arguments given. None. At all. It just states an opinion as if it's fact and moves on.
"Just states an opinion as if its fact and moves on". You're being completely disingenuous or you didn't even read her opinion.
In both instances, the question is whether a government actor exhibited tolerance and neutrality in reaching a decision that affects individuals’ fundamental religious freedom. But unlike in Masterpiece, where a state civil rights commission was found to have acted without “the neutrality that the Free Exercise Clause requires,” id., at ___ (slip op., at 17), the government actors in this case will not be held accountable for breaching the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious neutrality and tolerance. Unlike in Masterpiece, where the majority considered the state commissioners’ statements about religion to be persuasive evidence of unconstitutional government action, id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 12–14), the majority here completely sets aside the President’s charged statements about Muslims as irrelevant. That holding erodes the foundational principles of religious tolerance that the Court elsewhere has so emphatically protected, and it tells members of minority religions in our country “‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.’” Santa Fe, 530 U. S., at 309.
Except the Executive will be controlled by the man with dictatorial ambitions, the legislative will be controlled or gridlocked by his sycophantic enablers, and the processes by whic thh we as citizen voters can change that will become obsolete. Trump utilized a hostile foreign nation to steal the US election, and to this day has done absolutely nothing to safeguard it. On the contrary, his administration has outright eliminated the organization tasked with protecting us from extranational cybersecurity threats, and hamstringed investigative efforts to get to the bottom of that assault on our democracy. Furthermore, he and his party have aggressively pushed for the disenfranchisement of voters through gerrymandering, Voter ID laws, etc.
The Midterms themselves are already under assault. If we fail to achieve a majority, and if Trump seizes control of the Supreme Court, our democracy will continue to exist in name only. We can no longer have public faith in the electoral process, as we will no longer have any legitimate reason to believe that the elections are free and fair, nor will we have any legal avenues by which to challenge that they aren't.
Take this statement, for example. She just states it. She doesn't address as single argument given. They sure as hell didn't just say "oh, this is irrelevant." They gave a long and in depth argument for why they didn't think those statements were relevant in this case. How has she addressed those in this response? Oh, that's right, she hasn't. She just states her super simplistic and reductionary opinion and moves on.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
