Current Events > SCOTUS roundup / Final day of USA supreme court rulings

(+) Yeah! (+)

Birthright citizenship: partially stricken
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/81005163

Texas Age Verification for porn websites: upheld
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/81005184

Parental opt out of public school material with LGBTQ+ content: upheld
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/81005180

Louisiana Gerrymandering: ruling delayed
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/81005188

ACA preventative care including contraception & protection: upheld
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/81005176

Rural public Internet funding by FCC: upheld
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/81005200

For those who just want to be told what opinion to have:

The order is:

1. Bad
2. Bad
3. Bad
4. Bad
5. Good
6. Good

Those first three fucking suck.

Tyranthraxus posted...

For those who just want to be told what opinion to have:

The order is:

1. Bad
2. Bad
3. Bad
4. Bad
5. Good
6. Good

Thank you.

WTF is wrong with this country?

Oh right, Republicans.

HylianFox posted...

Thank you.

WTF is wrong with this country?

Oh right, Republicans.

It's honestly kind of impressive how they haven't collapsed under their own B's and logic

Sigh bastards

I dont get the birthright citizenship one at all....so in some states the constituion is followed, and in others it maybe is....but with a lot more time and hassle involved that the average person doesn't have.

argonautweakend posted...

I dont get the birthright citizenship one at all....so in some states the constituion is followed, and in others it maybe is....but with a lot more time and hassle involved that the average person doesn't have.

I'd say if you read the thread about it and still don't understand it wait for the inevitable legal eagle video who will undoubtedly explain it better than any of us can

argonautweakend posted...

I dont get the birthright citizenship one at all....so in some states the constituion is followed, and in others it maybe is....but with a lot more time and hassle involved that the average person doesn't have.

It makes sense when you realize it's a heavily compromised court

HighSeraph posted...

It makes sense when you realize it's a heavily compromised court

And also one that doesn't think things thru.

You know, for someone who says they care about the integrity of the court, Roberts has done a really bad job of upholding at least a token amount of it.

The first four are all bad, but the first is amazingly bad. Like, potentially destructive to the Constitution itself bad.

So many of us shouted at the top of our lungs in 2016 that Trumps corruption was a threat to the rule of law itself and the society that depends on it. But I guess people just didnt like Clintons personality enough, and she used a private email server to discuss recipes and shit. So now the whole nation has to burn.

Too many voters in this country are simply dumb, and revel in ignorance. As a voting public, we are absolutely getting the government we earned.

Marco Rubio is a US Citizen directly because of birthright citizenship. Granted there is nothing going after people in the past, but so many people have been given their purpose in life by getting birthright citizenship here and making a name for themselves in formerly one of the greatest countries on Earth. Born in Cuba in the 70s? Are you anything but a field worker otherwise?

They also made a ruling that gutted the power of Federal courts. A federal court ruling only affects the state that brought the action. If you want to challenge an EO federally, you'd have to file it separately for each state. This would waste a lot of time and the results can differ from state to state.

Takuya_Lee posted...

And also one that doesn't think things thru.

You know, for someone who says they care about the integrity of the court, Roberts has done a really bad job of upholding at least a token amount of it.

Isn't he the same guy who said that he was worried the SC was looking partial in the eyes of the people? Then like... does nothing about it

BB_mofo posted...

They also made a ruling that gutted the power of Federal courts. A federal court ruling only affects the state that brought the action. If you want to challenge an EO federally, you'd have to file it separately for each state. This would waste a lot of time and the results can differ from state to state.

That is the first one listed, and the one I discuss above. It is technically about birthright citizenship, but the completely destructive part of that ruling is what you are talking about here.

LSGW_Zephyra posted...

Isn't he the same guy who said that he was worried the SC was looking partial in the eyes of the people? Then like... does nothing about it

Yes. Yes he is. History will not look kindly on young Roberts.

Takuya_Lee posted...

Yes. Yes he is. History will not look kindly on young Roberts.

Roberts seems to be ruling entirely based on what he thinks Trump will flagrantly ignore. If he thinks Trump will ignore it, he will permit it so that the conflict doesn't happen.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Roberts seems to be ruling entirely based on what he thinks Trump will flagrantly ignore. If he thinks Trump will ignore it, he will permit it so that the conflict doesn't happen.

Roberts is a coward. Yeah I said it.

The first one will get the most press. But don't sleep on the ruling they gave the third one which was basically "parents should be able to opt out of lessons if it goes against their religious beliefs"

Goldice posted...

The first one will get the most press. But don't sleep on the ruling they gave the third one which was basically "parents should be able to opt out of lessons if it goes against their religious beliefs"

That's definitely the second worst one.

HylianFox posted...

Thank you.

WTF is wrong with this country?

Oh right, Republicans.

And voters in general. Those who voted directly for him are the worst, but those who stayed home/voted third party and let it happen, they're also to blame for all the evil Trump is committing. Especially now in his second term when there were 4 years of proof of how bad he could be and every reason to think this time he'd be worse.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Roberts seems to be ruling entirely based on what he thinks Trump will flagrantly ignore. If he thinks Trump will ignore it, he will permit it so that the conflict doesn't happen.

This pattern is also what Roberts would do if he wants a GOP dictatorship to outlive Trump.

IMO Roberts is the worst of the Seditious Six because he's not bound by any particular ideology. Instead, in every political case he does what he can to put Party over country.

Also:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/b/be7737f3.jpg

Takuya_Lee posted...

And also one that doesn't think things thru.

You know, for someone who says they care about the integrity of the court, Roberts has done a really bad job of upholding at least a token amount of it.

It's weird. I remember when Roberts was first appointed. Expectations were low. The common wisdom was that Rehnquist left big shoes to fill, Bush wanted a young partisan hack, and Roberts would be that hack. But for the next ten years he consistently exceeded those expectations! It really seemed like he'd end up being assessed as above-average which was unthinkable when he was first appointed.

But then it seems Gorsuch and later Kavanaugh talked him into being a fascist collaborator for the sake of liberty or something and he burned his carefully built reputation to the ground.

Lillymon posted...

It's weird. I remember when Roberts was first appointed. Expectations were low. The common wisdom was that Rehnquist left big shoes to fill, Bush wanted a young partisan hack, and Roberts would be that hack. But for the next ten years he consistently exceeded those expectations! It really seemed like he'd end up being assessed as above-average which was unthinkable when he was first appointed.

But then it seems Gorsuch and later Kavanaugh talked him into being a fascist collaborator for the sake of liberty or something and he burned his carefully built reputation to the ground.

Burned it and salted the earth.

Lillymon posted...

It's weird. I remember when Roberts was first appointed. Expectations were low. The common wisdom was that Rehnquist left big shoes to fill, Bush wanted a young partisan hack, and Roberts would be that hack. But for the next ten years he consistently exceeded those expectations! It really seemed like he'd end up being assessed as above-average which was unthinkable when he was first appointed.

But then it seems Gorsuch and later Kavanaugh talked him into being a fascist collaborator for the sake of liberty or something and he burned his carefully built reputation to the ground.

IMO Roberts was always a lying sack of shit, and that "good reputation" was mostly a construct of the mainstream media's GOP sanewashing machine.

Westernwolf4 posted...

That is the first one listed, and the one I discuss above. It is technically about birthright citizenship, but the completely destructive part of that ruling is what you are talking about here.

Someone on Reddit put it this way:

Lets say DJT issues an executive order saying lynch all democrats. It would be legal now to lynch in districts where it has not been challenged[?]

So in Red states, it could be considered fine and can't be stopped, until it winds through the system up to the Supreme Court, where they would say, "Yeah, this isn't legal." But of course by then, all the Dems in those red states will have already been hung. Oopsies.

Is this accurate?

Takuya_Lee posted...

And also one that doesn't think things thru.

Sure they do. They think it through, and make the worst decision possible.

Tyranthraxus posted...

For those who just want to be told what opinion to have:

The order is:

1. Bad
2. Bad
3. Bad
4. Bad
5. Good
6. Good

Minor comment about #4: Thomas dissented and said he would have ruled the relevant part of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, but no one else (not even Alito) joined it, so that's some slightly encouraging news.

bover_87 posted...

Minor comment about #4: Thomas dissented and said he would have ruled the relevant part of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, but no one else (not even Alito) joined it, so that's some slightly encouraging news.

#4 is probably the least worrying thing on the list. A VRA repeal seems unlikely even for this nonsense court. I believe the earlier stated hypothesis "whoops it's wrong but too late to change it now" is the most likely outcome.

Bump

i can't tell if these trump appointees are genuinely corrupt fascist enablers or if they're just naively deluded hyperfixaters on originalism/textualism and the whole "give MAGA everything they want" is just a coincidence. either way they're fucking us

KhlavicLanguage posted...

i can't tell if these trump appointees are genuinely corrupt fascist enablers or if they're just naively deluded hyperfixaters on originalism/textualism and the whole "give MAGA everything they want" is just a coincidence. either way they're fucking us

It's the first option.

Originalism and textualism have always been nothing but excuses for conservative judges to use to "justify" their shitty rulings. For example, the first SCOTUS option to lean into that backward looking way of doing analysis was the Dred Scott decision.

Just caught up with this. Shit's bleak

Lillymon posted...

It's weird. I remember when Roberts was first appointed. Expectations were low. The common wisdom was that Rehnquist left big shoes to fill, Bush wanted a young partisan hack, and Roberts would be that hack. But for the next ten years he consistently exceeded those expectations! It really seemed like he'd end up being assessed as above-average which was unthinkable when he was first appointed.

But then it seems Gorsuch and later Kavanaugh talked him into being a fascist collaborator for the sake of liberty or something and he burned his carefully built reputation to the ground.

huh? Citizens United and Shelby County are two of the worst and most consequential supreme court decisions of the last 100 years. There wouldnt even BE a Trump presidency without them.