The Supreme Court must be destroyed

superrific

Legend of ZZL
Messages
7,861
Because it is no longer a court. I mean, it's not even trying any more. This is, by my count, seven lower court orders they have stayed without comment, all in favor of Trump and all without comment. It's even worse than Trump v. United States. That at least purported to be law.

1. In our system, judicial decisions come with explanations. That's how our law has worked since the Pilgrims landed. Because courts are supposed to announce rules that other courts follow. They are supposed to inform the people who are subject to the court's jurisdiction what they can and can't do under the law. They are supposed to bind themselves to rulings that could be applied the other way, as that prevents naked partisanship. This is how our system has ALWAYS worked. Sure, they invented so much bullshit, but at least it's written down.

When the Supreme Court stays every order against Trump, they are implicitly acknowledging that the lower court decided the case correctly but they don't like the outcome. So they strip away the outcome, substitute their own desires about how the cases should come out -- all the while telling the lower courts and litigants to go fuck themselves. They know that what's happening is illegal, but they also know that if they just stay the order, they will never have to admit it. By the time they get around to hearing whether the Haitians can legally be deported, they will all be deported. Now that DOGE has all of our data, nobody will be able to sue because there will be no injury to remedy given that the data is already out there.

2. THIS is what happens in banana republics. The courts don't always bless the dictator; they just look the other way and pretend everything is normal. And when they do so, they forfeit any claim they might have to judicial discretion. They aren't judges. They are lackeys. And now we have it -- not 80% of the way there, as we were a couple of years ago. Not 90% of the way there, as we were last summer. 100% here.

3. What this does is completely disincentivize any American from standing up for their rights. The Supreme Court is telling every single lawyer in America, every single potential client: you can't win. You can spend tens of thousands of dollars litigating, and even when you do win, the Court will just pull the carpet. They don't even need a reason-- so why even sue? This mirrors the situation that can happen in proxy contests in corporate law, if the board of directors promulgates some new policy after a challenger has already spent gobs of money. And the corporate law courts don't let that happen. To think that corporate law courts do a better job protecting investors than the US Supreme Court does protecting the country.

4. Fortunately, we have the power to change it. We don't even need my change-the-constitution scheme. When we get control, we just make a new court and give it all appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction will be sliced down to its bare constitutional minimum. We'll dual appoint Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor and the conservative justices can all go fuck themselves.

This is something that we must absolutely do next time we get power. No excuses or complaining. It is required. Ideally we'd also throw the conservative justices in a hole in El Salvador as partial compensation for all the suffering they have inflicted on Americans over the past four decades, but that's a separate issue.
 
That attitude? I'd bury them all today. Show me the bodies. FTR, I would love a candidate who would speak this way. And not just about the WSCOTUSOAT.
 
Because it is no longer a court. I mean, it's not even trying any more. This is, by my count, seven lower court orders they have stayed without comment, all in favor of Trump and all without comment. It's even worse than Trump v. United States. That at least purported to be law.

1. In our system, judicial decisions come with explanations. That's how our law has worked since the Pilgrims landed. Because courts are supposed to announce rules that other courts follow. They are supposed to inform the people who are subject to the court's jurisdiction what they can and can't do under the law. They are supposed to bind themselves to rulings that could be applied the other way, as that prevents naked partisanship. This is how our system has ALWAYS worked. Sure, they invented so much bullshit, but at least it's written down.

When the Supreme Court stays every order against Trump, they are implicitly acknowledging that the lower court decided the case correctly but they don't like the outcome. So they strip away the outcome, substitute their own desires about how the cases should come out -- all the while telling the lower courts and litigants to go fuck themselves. They know that what's happening is illegal, but they also know that if they just stay the order, they will never have to admit it. By the time they get around to hearing whether the Haitians can legally be deported, they will all be deported. Now that DOGE has all of our data, nobody will be able to sue because there will be no injury to remedy given that the data is already out there.

2. THIS is what happens in banana republics. The courts don't always bless the dictator; they just look the other way and pretend everything is normal. And when they do so, they forfeit any claim they might have to judicial discretion. They aren't judges. They are lackeys. And now we have it -- not 80% of the way there, as we were a couple of years ago. Not 90% of the way there, as we were last summer. 100% here.

3. What this does is completely disincentivize any American from standing up for their rights. The Supreme Court is telling every single lawyer in America, every single potential client: you can't win. You can spend tens of thousands of dollars litigating, and even when you do win, the Court will just pull the carpet. They don't even need a reason-- so why even sue? This mirrors the situation that can happen in proxy contests in corporate law, if the board of directors promulgates some new policy after a challenger has already spent gobs of money. And the corporate law courts don't let that happen. To think that corporate law courts do a better job protecting investors than the US Supreme Court does protecting the country.

4. Fortunately, we have the power to change it. We don't even need my change-the-constitution scheme. When we get control, we just make a new court and give it all appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction will be sliced down to its bare constitutional minimum. We'll dual appoint Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor and the conservative justices can all go fuck themselves.

This is something that we must absolutely do next time we get power. No excuses or complaining. It is required. Ideally we'd also throw the conservative justices in a hole in El Salvador as partial compensation for all the suffering they have inflicted on Americans over the past four decades, but that's a separate issue.
Super,
As disheartening as these SCOTUS rulings are, even more disheartening is knowing the Democratic Party will do absolutely nothing when/if they ever regain power. They all bitch and moan but few, and I mean absolutely few will have the balls to do what is necessary. I remember there were calls for Biden to even the membership of SCOTUS to help mitigate the extreme shift to the right and he expressed support for reform. Give me a fucking break. Too many of the old guard is still living in an era where they still believe in the sanctity of the institutions to which they were elected. Those days are long gone. The MAGATS have completely shit all over the rule of law in their blatant quest for power and Orange Julius has stacked the court in his favor to ensure the outcome. I have to tell you man, it all feels hopeless. The Democratic party needs to get its hands dirty and they are hamstringing the young leaders who are best equipped to deal with this shit show. Nancy Pelosi was great 20 years ago. The fact that she threw her support behind Gerry Connolly (RIP) instead of AOC to be the top Dem on the Oversight committee speaks volumes to the fact that the Democrats still don't fucking get it. Even now, there are 2 friggin septuagenarians running to try and replace Connolly. Kweisi Mfume is 76 and Stephen Lynch is 70. None of these ass hats seem to care that the game has passed them by. They would be better served having a young voice at the forefront of this fight and utilizing their experience behind the scenes to help the party succeed. I'm sick and damn tired of the "Well, they've been around so damn long they've earned their shot" mentality. It's like the Democrats are in Iraq and using muskets because that's what helped us gain our independence. I'm just pissed and have no idea how my party is going to save us.
 
Super,
I'm just pissed and have no idea how my party is going to save us.
Well, for one thing, we need to be having these discussions in everyday life. The more we talk about it, the more people might get the urgency. After all, we've lived with a conservative court for 45 years without fixing it, but when the court ceases to be a court, that's grounds for action.
 
Get rid of the Senate while we’re at it.
The Supreme Court could be trivialized with a single statute. The Senate could be rebalanced (it would be hard to get rid of it, as so many of our rules, procedures, etc. presume bicameralism) with a constitutional amendment, which we could conceivably force through with legislation but a lot of moving parts there.
 
Well, for one thing, we need to be having these discussions in everyday life. The more we talk about it, the more people might get the urgency. After all, we've lived with a conservative court for 45 years without fixing it, but when the court ceases to be a court, that's grounds for action.
I'll admit. I have absolutely ZERO legal experience ... tho I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. I would like to say I'm not completely uneducated and I am very concerned with the full on tilt to the right that this court (if you even want to still call it that) is demonstrating. I appreciate your legal expertise and I look forward to reading your posts. I don't usually post unless something really pisses me off but I'm growing outside my shell and trying the whole discussion route. Keep up the good work.
 
The Dems have to have the balls to do it. We can’t get hung up on procedure, process, and tradition anymore.
yes, I'm both aware and worried about that. Where you and I agree 100% (I suspect) is on playing constitutional hardball. They do it. Of course, we've literally never had in my adult life any real opportunity to do it at the Supreme Court level.
 
How could he have done so?

Two senators, one from WV and one from AZ, would have said, “NFW.”
This is true and it's the problem. However, we've got the AZ problem under control now. We need to pick up Senate seats by 2028. Collins and Tillis are going down this cycle. Ron Johnson is in the cross-hairs in 2028. That's to say nothing of the random unanticipated pickup opportunities that come up on occasion. Like if Paxton gets the nomination and the economy is terrible, Allred will win (is he running?).

What we need is to be prepared to hit the ground running. Like Heritage did with Project 2025.
 
Because it is no longer a court. I mean, it's not even trying any more. This is, by my count, seven lower court orders they have stayed without comment, all in favor of Trump and all without comment. It's even worse than Trump v. United States. That at least purported to be law.

1. In our system, judicial decisions come with explanations. That's how our law has worked since the Pilgrims landed. Because courts are supposed to announce rules that other courts follow. They are supposed to inform the people who are subject to the court's jurisdiction what they can and can't do under the law. They are supposed to bind themselves to rulings that could be applied the other way, as that prevents naked partisanship. This is how our system has ALWAYS worked. Sure, they invented so much bullshit, but at least it's written down.

When the Supreme Court stays every order against Trump, they are implicitly acknowledging that the lower court decided the case correctly but they don't like the outcome. So they strip away the outcome, substitute their own desires about how the cases should come out -- all the while telling the lower courts and litigants to go fuck themselves. They know that what's happening is illegal, but they also know that if they just stay the order, they will never have to admit it. By the time they get around to hearing whether the Haitians can legally be deported, they will all be deported. Now that DOGE has all of our data, nobody will be able to sue because there will be no injury to remedy given that the data is already out there.

2. THIS is what happens in banana republics. The courts don't always bless the dictator; they just look the other way and pretend everything is normal. And when they do so, they forfeit any claim they might have to judicial discretion. They aren't judges. They are lackeys. And now we have it -- not 80% of the way there, as we were a couple of years ago. Not 90% of the way there, as we were last summer. 100% here.

3. What this does is completely disincentivize any American from standing up for their rights. The Supreme Court is telling every single lawyer in America, every single potential client: you can't win. You can spend tens of thousands of dollars litigating, and even when you do win, the Court will just pull the carpet. They don't even need a reason-- so why even sue? This mirrors the situation that can happen in proxy contests in corporate law, if the board of directors promulgates some new policy after a challenger has already spent gobs of money. And the corporate law courts don't let that happen. To think that corporate law courts do a better job protecting investors than the US Supreme Court does protecting the country.

4. Fortunately, we have the power to change it. We don't even need my change-the-constitution scheme. When we get control, we just make a new court and give it all appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction will be sliced down to its bare constitutional minimum. We'll dual appoint Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor and the conservative justices can all go fuck themselves.

This is something that we must absolutely do next time we get power. No excuses or complaining. It is required. Ideally we'd also throw the conservative justices in a hole in El Salvador as partial compensation for all the suffering they have inflicted on Americans over the past four decades, but that's a separate issue.
Years ago I thought some sort of fix would be to have, say, 21 justices rather than 9, and then more importantly selection should involve some sort of high level colleague sortition process, and maybe random selection from an elite pool--as a method for grounding choices in skills rather than identifying some idiosyncratic notion of ideological bent.

Since the Bork scare, presidential appointment is fraught with ideology which is routinely adamantly against any kind of public will or electorate influence, and replaced with the influence of corporate powers and the hyper wealthy, the mechanisms there involving the undemocratic nature of the Senate, and to some degree the House. When this resulted in the Citizens United ruling (and other nightmare rulings, later) I changed to the viewpoint that the United States Supreme Court should be abolished.

I am writing in my first paragraph about what I would have liked; I know it's now politically impossible to reach.
 
Last edited:
At a minimum, I would just love for there to be some enforceable way to require the Senate to do its job to prevent the shenanigans we got with the Merrick Garland nomination.
 
Years ago I thought some sort of fix would be to have, say, 21 justices rather than 9, and then more importantly selection should involve some sort of high level colleague sortition process, and maybe random selection from an elite pool--as a method for grounding choices in skills rather than identifying some idiosyncratic notion of ideological bent.

Since the Bork scare, presidential appointment is fraught with ideology which is routinely adamantly against any kind of public will or electorate influence, and replaced with the influence of corporate powers and the hyper wealthy, the mechanisms there involving the undemocratic nature of the Senate, and to some degree the House. When this resulted in the Citizens United ruling (and other nightmare rulings, later) I changed to the viewpoint that the United States Supreme Court should be abolished.

I am writing in my first paragraph about what I would have liked; I know it's now politically impossible to reach.
It's not impossible. Defeatism is self-fulfilling. We could have everything in your first paragraph.

I think this should be a potent theme for Dems starting in 2027. Run against the Supreme Court. Voters want change, we'll give them change.

1. No more bullshit gerrymandering
2. No more getting fucked by every retailer around because arbitration
3. Wages will go up if non-competes are eliminated
4. No more DOGE

etc. Run against the Supreme Court as the ultimate Deep State. It would be worth noting that in most of the worst cases, the non-Supreme Court lower courts got the job done correctly. They didn't make the president a king. They didn't allow DOGE to access everyone's private data. etc. etc. The Problem is the US Supreme Court.

What we need is someone -- maybe I'll do it! -- to compile a list of the worst Supreme Court decisions in terms of their effect on the welfare of ordinary Americans. And then run on that.
 
Back
Top