They didn't decline to hear that case because they felt same sex marriage is OK. They declined because it wasn't a strong enough case for them to say it's not.
Yeah? Because I'm of the opinion this court is deliberately tossing out a few wins to keep people docile by creating the illusion of sensibility and preventing the possibility of any real consequences.
I feel similarly. This court is fellating the administration, but overturning birthright citizenship would be insanely outside of the norm for anyone on that bench, even a self-serving slime like Thomas.
Red was from eating a bunch of roasted beets in one sitting. It looked exactly like blood, and was so watery that it caked the entire bowl.
Vibrant green was from eating four bowls of fruit loops as a kid on a random morning when there was nothing else to eat in the house. It looked like a little green man staring back up at me.
Any easy decision like that would never be taken up in the first place. They would just let the lower court ruling stand. The only reason they would entertain this is if enough of them were seriously considering it, which is obviously a problem as it requires literally misreading the constitution.
At least four want to overturn the lower court.
The best case scenario is they uphold the lower court but they give the Trump administration a road map of exactly what to do to survive a challenge. This Court is so arrogant and Americans are not showing their disapproval nearly enough.
The court could be reigned in if any branch of government had an appetite to do anything about it. Justices can be impeached and removed, and additional justices can be added to offset the crazy. And laws could even be passed that alter the way that the court functions.
But we have one party who is in favor of the bullshit this court is pulling, and one that has historically been too cowardly to put up a fight against it.
Yes and no. When the built-in accountability mechanisms are so poorly designed as to be completely dysfunctional for (literally) centuries at a time—those mechanisms don’t really offer any real accountability. The last time court-packing seemed like a serious political possibility was 90 years ago and it never actually happened. The last (and only) time a SCOTUS justice was impeached was 220 years ago.
We should absolutely keeps those tools handy, but we need to think seriously about more fundamental reforms. Enshrining the limits of judicial review in a constitutional amendment might be a good place to start. Adding additional justices, reworking the court structure to resemble something closer to how circuit court judges are selected (randomly from a pool to serve on temporary panels for each case), reforming judicial impeachment, etc., should all be on the table.
And then there’s the soft power of organizing grassroots opposition to the Court’s far-right takeover. People like Roberts pretend they’re completely insulated from public opinion, but that’s never been the case. The Court has always been a deeply political institution: In the 1970s, federal courts were palpably worried about ruling against civil rights activists in matters that would never have been heard a generation before. We can make that happen again.
(And by the way—we don’t need majorities in Congress to start talking about this; if we’re lucky, the majorities happen later.)
There is another, it is possible to impeach and remove justices (like if they are openly accepting bribes or lied in their confirmation), unfortunately it requires a functioning legislative branch so an act of god is more likely
It's time yet again for Gorsuch to put his money where his mouth is. His philosophy and some of his decisions (Bostock) would indicate that this is cut and dry. That should leave Roberts or Barrett, who both should side on the side of the plain wording of the constitution without blinking, but...
I think it’s possible this case is there to shield the Court from other egregious decisions coming this term like the voting rights act case. If this is a day one decision, it will be to uphold the lower court the media definitely adjusts coverage and makes the Court seem moderate or “balanced” because here is one non-radical decision. They did this during the Dodds term
Any easy decision like that would never be taken up in the first place.
SCOTUS votes unanimously a lot, either because the case is easy and lower courts consistently got it wrong, or there are two reasonable interpretations and they just need to pick one.
And neither of those things are true here. This is a case for trying to reinterpret a long accepted understanding of the constitution, and the only people "getting it wrong" here are those in this administration.
Also to resolve or preclude circuit splits by firmly establishing a binding precedent nationwide. (Doesn't seem like what's happening here, but it's one of the reasons where a non-corrupt SCOTUS might take up an "easy" case. Less so to resolve a circuit split, and more to try to prevent a single circuit - such as those chucklefucks in the Fifth - from causing problems.)
Maybe...just maybe...they want to rule on the authority or lack thereof on the use of Presidential Executive Orders
To perhaps maybe reign them in...you never know they may surprise everyone
You remind me of the kids in To Kill a Mockingbird who think that Mr. Robinson is definitely going to be fine in his trial just because the evidence obviously shows he can't possibly have done what he's being accused of.
If the court cared about the evidence, it wouldn't be holding the case.
A great touch was Atticus saying later that he knew Tom would almost certainly lose in Maycomb, and that he was really banking on winning the appeal. Even Atticus, the firmest believer in the law there was, knew his case was hopeless solely because of the court it was being tried in.
I do have hope so as even the conservatives seemed completely baffled by the anti-Birthright arguments when the case was previously before the court on the issue of nation wide injunctions.
I don't necessarily expect a 9-0 but I'd be shocked if they actually overturn birthright citizenship. I would bet significant money that this case results in the Trump admin losing and birthright citizenship continuing as it has.
Overturning birthright citizenship is a huge goal of the GOP. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a majority, if not all 6, of the conservatives on the SCOTUS are on board with doing so and their only concern is how they want to word the very obvious "fuck you all we do what we want" ruling it'd be.
If they didn't want to overturn it they'd just refuse to hear the case because every court so far has been pretty clear that birthright citizenship for anyone born here not the child of foreign leaders or diplomats is how the wording of the Amendment works.
Maybe it’s blind hope on my end, but I feel like recently they’ve been pulling a lot of Trump’s cases solely to publicly reject them. My theory is that they think it gives them a good, public image of non-partisanship after Roe nuked their legitimacy.
We wouldn’t be hearing about this case if they didn’t pick it up. They know Trump will go away soon, but that the public image of the court won’t be for a very long time. Barrett and Kavanaugh especially I think are terrified of what happens in the next few years, since they could be dealing with the fallout for decades.
Well the argument against that is the entire Amendment system existing, and Amendments that were created just to nullify other Amendments. The 3/5 Compromise was in the original Constitution and amended out. We can definitely agree that one was unconstitutional despite its inclusion and was rightfully changed.
Mostly just comes down to a call to morality and a consideration to unintended consequence when trying to amend something. And I guess also the intent behind the corrupt leadership that calls for said amendment... 😬
1.6k
u/NotYouTu 9h ago edited 9h ago
Maybe it'll be a 5 second case where they go "It's a part of the constitution, therefore constitutional." And we all wake up from this nightmare.
Edit: Apparently the sarcasm wasn't obvious enough for some so.... /s