Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

SCOTUS Catch-all | 2024-25 Term Ends

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 415
  • Views: 12K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
Historically awful by what standards? I don't think the end of term this year is as bad as the last couple. Of course, by historical standards they are all awful.

It's the stayed judgments that are the tipping point for me. I was thinking about it more. I think it's because the lower courts are using the major questions doctrine re: the Alien Enemies Act and other obscure provisions of the immigration code that the administration is trotting out. Supremes must have been like, "wait, that's OUR workaround!" and decided not to use any rules to decide cases, so they couldn't boomerang back.

From a judicial perspective, these stays are worse even than Dred Scott. Dred Scott was world-historically awful, but at least it was a decision. At least it laid down a rule of law. At least it was reasoned.
Click to expand...
The highlighted part. And also that we're not even close to being done yet. Tomorrow could be one of the worst days in SCOTUS history.
 
I've been trying to think about political theory this morning to distract myself from what I fear will be coming over the next couple of hours, but just wanted to say, buckle up people. There's a frighteningly good chance we're about to have a political earthquake that will change things for generations to come.

If we can get through today without an express endorsement of the unitary executive theory, I'll consider it a win.
 
lawtig02 said:
I've been trying to think about political theory this morning to distract myself from what I fear will be coming over the next couple of hours, but just wanted to say, buckle up people. There's a frighteningly good chance we're about to have a political earthquake that will change things for generations to come.

If we can get through today without an express endorsement of the unitary executive theory, I'll consider it a win.
Click to expand...
I've always wondered what happens when the Republicans get that unitary executive enacted, but a Dem then becomes President. Do they rush to reverse it, or simply bypass the Constitution and not allow that election.
 
uncmba said:
I've always wondered what happens when the Republicans get that unitary executive enacted, but a Dem then becomes President. Do they rush to reverse it, or simply bypass the Constitution and not allow that election.
Click to expand...
This has been my retort to any MAGAt when I try to engage in conversation-- but what happens when it is the other side in charge and wants to pull the same crap, but based on their beliefs?

While they usually never answer directly, the obvious unspoken belief is that they will never allow that to happen again... which is why I end up going to the fascist label and conversations basically end. 🤷
 
uncmba said:
I've always wondered what happens when the Republicans get that unitary executive enacted, but a Dem then becomes President. Do they rush to reverse it, or simply bypass the Constitution and not allow that election.
Click to expand...
As some like to say, the future isn’t written, but Republicans’ intent is written in bold marks-a-lot. They make half-assed nods to democratic norms, but they intend to never give up power. Ever, unless forced.

We have rapidly moved towards a systematic enablement of a fascist state, formulated by Heritage ghouls, by way of Trump. LA is a trial run. Marines and the NG are still deployed, in contravention to the basic tenets of the American foundation. No one is talking about it, much. That’s their goal, the creeping militarized police state. Inevitably, the midterms will come around, and a convenient “emergency” will occur in swing and blue districts.

A democratic president isn’t on the minds of Clarence, Sam, Brett, Amy, Neil, John, Stephen, Don, Russ, etc. bc Orban and Putin are the models, and the constitution is a mere inconvenience to be eroded into dust, esoterically, over the next couple of years.
 
Last edited:
Not formally announced yet but it looks like they'll be punting on birthright citizenship, which will have the effect of rendering Trump's EO unenforceable.
 
Any litigators worth your salt, buckle up. A chart of the volume of con law litigation over the next month in districts across the country should resemble a 14-year old boy at a sorority party.
 
From Sotomayor's dissent in the first case:

“Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.”

Still waiting for our constitution-loving conservatives to join this conversation.
 
The HHS decision also has implications for DOGE, I think. The conservatives on the court are basically saying the president can appoint people like Musk to do whatever they want, and it's only reviewable at the Cabinet level. No judicial oversight. Which means, one more step toward unitary executive.
 
Next opinion is a bone for the libs. Looks like they're upholding a very old fed program that provides internet and broadband to rural communities. While the policy is good, this could be another extension of executive power.

I'm honestly not sure why we still have a legislature at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top