Supreme Court Is 'Lawless'

[sun rise]

Given that SCOTUS acted as a political entity not as a court of law, I say let's put AOC, Ilhan Omar and two others who share their politics on SCOTUS.

'Lawless behavior': Legal experts say the Supreme Court acted out of 'political motivations' in upholding Texas' abortion ban

"Our court is broken. I mean, it's more of a political institution than it is a legal institution," Barry McDonald, a law professor at Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law, told Insider,...
...
Traditionally, the court uses the shadow docket for procedural purposes — to accept or deny applications for emergency action — in typically small, uncontroversial cases. But in recent years, the court's use of the shadow docket has sparked outrage over what critics describe as increasingly partisan and unsubstantial rulings, including now in the Texas abortion case.

"In the abortion case, it's not only short, it's just a jumble of nonsense," Richard Pierce, a law professor at the George Washington University Law School, told Insider of the court's opinion. "It's incoherent. The reasoning makes no sense at all."
...
"It's stunning," McDonald said of the court's ruling. "It just adds to this perception that the court is acting out of political motivations as opposed to impartial and objective application of legal principles."

 

[Meow Mix]

I could type something with more nuance but I’m on five hours of sleep, **** it. Pack the court for the good of the nation, but it has a steep cost in legitimacy.

(its legitimacy is almost dead anyway though, so this is like cutting off legs to save a patient)

 

[Revoltingest]

Given that SCOTUS acted as a political entity not as a court of law....

This is nothing new.
It seems that people complaining now just
weren't bothered by earlier lawlessness.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I unquoted you, meow. I'm not here to comment on sleep. Its none of my bizzy to tell you what do. I'm here to comment on the scotus related OP.

Given that SCOTUS acted as a political entity not as a court of law, I say let's put AOC, Ilhan Omar and two others who share their politics on SCOTUS.

Don't add to the nine to try to force a point of view. That's what I think. If you're losing in the public sphere and believe that democracy is better than fascism then don't do it. Be patient.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I could type something with more nuance but I’m on five hours of sleep, **** it. Pack the court for the good of the nation, but it has a steep cost in legitimacy.

(its legitimacy is almost dead anyway though, so this is like cutting off legs to save a patient)

Yeah, considering the Reps refused to let Obama do his job and then turned hypocrite (no surprise) by rushing through an appointment through under the same circumstances they said it's improper for an acting president to appoint someone to the SC.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Don't add to the nine to try to force a point of view. That's what I think. If you're losing in the public sphere and believe that democracy is better than fascism then don't do it. Be patient.

Good thing we haven't been patient in many areas. Like slavery and gay rights.

 

[Stevicus]

Lawyers doing dishonest things. Whoda thunk it?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Good thing we haven't been patient in many areas. Like slavery and gay rights.

I'm not sure you are correct about that. Maybe, but it seems unclear. It seems like we have slowly moved towards the position we have today.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not sure you are correct about that. Maybe, but it seems unclear. It seems like we have slowly moved towards the position we have today.

The SC was not very helpful when it came to slavery, and reinforced a lot of garbage in regards to repressing even free black people. As for LGBT, the SC wasn't there to stop prejudiced laws and bs arrests, forcing queers into a position of rioting or accepting the crap.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I could type something with more nuance but I’m on five hours of sleep, **** it. Pack the court for the good of the nation, but it has a steep cost in legitimacy.

(its legitimacy is almost dead anyway though, so this is like cutting off legs to save a patient)

Packing the court is only a stop gap measure. The next administration could do the same, until the Supreme Court was totally unwieldy. I have a different plan. I am thinking of inviting Clarence Thomas to my barbecue, pulled pork, brisket, hot sausages, devil egg potato salad. I figure lots of salt and lots of cholesterol may help.

 

[esmith]

Seems that your only objection to the ruling is you disagree with it....tough titty

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Seems that your only objection to the ruling is you disagree with it....tough titty

Have you been paying attention?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Packing the court is only a stop gap measure. The next administration could do the same, until the Supreme Court was totally unwieldy. I have a different plan. I am thinking of inviting Clarence Thomas to my barbecue, pulled pork, brisket, hot sausages, devil egg potato salad. I figure lots of salt and lots of cholesterol may help.

Now that's thinking. Bribe the leadership to stop allowing bribes when they are gone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now that's thinking. Bribe the leadership to stop allowing bribes when they are gone.

Yeah, yeah, it was just an attempt to bribe him. That's the ticket!

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Given that SCOTUS acted as a political entity not as a court of law, I say let's put AOC, Ilhan Omar and two others who share their politics on SCOTUS.

'Lawless behavior': Legal experts say the Supreme Court acted out of 'political motivations' in upholding Texas' abortion ban

"Our court is broken. I mean, it's more of a political institution than it is a legal institution," Barry McDonald, a law professor at Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law, told Insider,...
...
Traditionally, the court uses the shadow docket for procedural purposes — to accept or deny applications for emergency action — in typically small, uncontroversial cases. But in recent years, the court's use of the shadow docket has sparked outrage over what critics describe as increasingly partisan and unsubstantial rulings, including now in the Texas abortion case.

"In the abortion case, it's not only short, it's just a jumble of nonsense," Richard Pierce, a law professor at the George Washington University Law School, told Insider of the court's opinion. "It's incoherent. The reasoning makes no sense at all."
...
"It's stunning," McDonald said of the court's ruling. "It just adds to this perception that the court is acting out of political motivations as opposed to impartial and objective application of legal principles."

How could that court be anything but broken now?

It was PURPOSEFULLY and EVILLY stacked by a broken man and his gop minions.

Expect much more oppression from that dead court.



This IS COMING to a country near you (if you’re living south of Canada and north of Mexico)

 

[esmith]

Have you been paying attention?

To what?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Have you been paying attention?

There's not a lot of that on the right, these days...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To what?

To the many objections--including medical and science--that have been stated over the Texas abortion ban.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There's not a lot of that on the right, these days...

Nope. Science, medicine, common decency, bipartisanship, democracy, none of that matters when it conflicts with church and party. Amd then all bets are off because they're showing more and more that they do promote church and party above all else to the point of detriment for the life, well being and liberty of others.

 

[Kenny]

Given that SCOTUS acted as a political entity not as a court of law, I say let's put AOC, Ilhan Omar and two others who share their politics on SCOTUS.

'Lawless behavior': Legal experts say the Supreme Court acted out of 'political motivations' in upholding Texas' abortion ban

"Our court is broken. I mean, it's more of a political institution than it is a legal institution," Barry McDonald, a law professor at Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law, told Insider,...
...
Traditionally, the court uses the shadow docket for procedural purposes — to accept or deny applications for emergency action — in typically small, uncontroversial cases. But in recent years, the court's use of the shadow docket has sparked outrage over what critics describe as increasingly partisan and unsubstantial rulings, including now in the Texas abortion case.

"In the abortion case, it's not only short, it's just a jumble of nonsense," Richard Pierce, a law professor at the George Washington University Law School, told Insider of the court's opinion. "It's incoherent. The reasoning makes no sense at all."
...
"It's stunning," McDonald said of the court's ruling. "It just adds to this perception that the court is acting out of political motivations as opposed to impartial and objective application of legal principles."

I don't understand. How is it that when they supported the right to remove a baby in the womb it is considered non-political but when they limited the time it is political?

So, when they Okayed a new definition of marriage, it is not political? Or is it "political" when you don't agree?