Community >> View Thread

Author
The Avenger


Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021


Since the last time I posted about the Supreme Court, I've been taking a deep dive into what it's been doing, and what it's been saying about what it's been doing. As a result, I no longer trust anything it says about what it's been doing.

As I write this, the Court has overturned Roe, and has decided NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen et al in favor of Bruen. (Bruen is Superintendent of NY State Police.)

So the Supreme Court has ruled that state governments can regulate women's bodies but cannot regulate the concealed carry of guns in public.

Here's an article on the hypocrisy of these two rulings, taken together:
https://www.gq.com/story/supreme-court-abortion-guns

I conclude that the Supreme Court is a blatant instrument of the will to power, full stop.

Whose power does this Court wish to preserve and expand? Apparently its own, first of all - since it clutches to its bosom its prerogative to perform judicial review on state and federal legislation, and state and federal executive administration, and rule with authority thereon, restrained neither by stare decisis nor by any consistently applied theory of law. Nor does any branch of federal or state government have any recourse against the rulings of this Court. Power corrupts, and absolute power has corrupted this Court absolutely.

What other centers of power does this Court wish to preserve and expand? Sometimes state governments, but only when state governments do as this Court would like. Also the plutocracy, conservative Christianity, the white majority (Thomas notwithstanding), and the patriarchy. Also other power centers that I think of as second tier, such as the police or Border Patrol, which are privileged by the Court because they serve the plutocracy and/or the white majority (Thomas notwithstanding).

Yes, I've gone full cynic. It took me a lot of time, a lot of reading, and a lot of listening to podcasts, but I have arrived at last at a jaundiced view of the Supreme Court as we know it today.

Thoughts?



Posted with Google Chrome 103.0.5060.53 on Windows 10
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,517




Posted with Google Chrome 102.0.0.0 on Linux
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:
    Since the last time I posted about the Supreme Court, I've been taking a deep dive into what it's been doing, and what it's been saying about what it's been doing. As a result, I no longer trust anything it says about what it's been doing.


Yup


    Quote:
    As I write this, the Court has overturned Roe, and has decided NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen et al in favor of Bruen. (Bruen is Superintendent of NY State Police.)


Yeah. There were two or three other cases so far that have also been terrible. Most of them have taken away means of redress for harmed parties. Including giving immunity to federal agencies like the border patrol, reducing Miranda rights and improper council behavior in two cases (even if it is clear that on a factual basis somebody was harmed). The later bothers me alot but does not get alot of love. Federal courts cannot help someone that is innocent or suffering from court error. Too bad.


    Quote:
    So the Supreme Court has ruled that state governments can regulate women's bodies but cannot regulate the concealed carry of guns in public.


Yes




No question.


    Quote:
    I conclude that the Supreme Court is a blatant instrument of the will to power, full stop.


In a way it always has been. This is just the version we are living through at the moment where it is clear might makes right. There was a stretch where it seemed a little different when judges respected prior decisions but no longer.

There is honestly a major threat to Constitutional law at the moment. As it is clear the more extreme views are going to become the norm, just because they can.

The logic is also horrible. I am not a lawyer but the reasoning in the articles are awful. Selective rooting in history is now the basis of decisions.


    Quote:
    Whose power does this Court wish to preserve and expand? Apparently its own, first of all - since it clutches to its bosom its prerogative to perform judicial review on state and federal legislation, and state and federal executive administration, and rule with authority thereon, restrained neither by stare decisis nor by any consistently applied theory of law. Nor does any branch of federal or state government have any recourse against the rulings of this Court. Power corrupts, and absolute power has corrupted this Court absolutely.


This is all true. It seems like it is mostly empowering those that already have the most power at the expense of the minority groups or weaker groups.


    Quote:
    What other centers of power does this Court wish to preserve and expand? Sometimes state governments, but only when state governments do as this Court would like. Also the plutocracy, conservative Christianity, the white majority (Thomas notwithstanding), and the patriarchy. Also other power centers that I think of as second tier, such as the police or Border Patrol, which are privileged by the Court because they serve the plutocracy and/or the white majority (Thomas notwithstanding).


Exactly. I would not exclude Thomas. As he mostly is a conservative ideologue and his rulings general hurt minorities and really many vulnerable groups. He is the herald of all the badness happening now.


    Quote:
    Yes, I've gone full cynic. It took me a lot of time, a lot of reading, and a lot of listening to podcasts, but I have arrived at last at a jaundiced view of the Supreme Court as we know it today.

    Thoughts?


It is bad and going to get worse. The said part is there is not much that can be done. SCOTUS gave itself power in the past, so there is that possibility but SCOTUS has destroyed its own legitimacy beyond repair.

Everybody knew the court was going to be more conservative but steam rolling precedent and past rulings that impacts the rule of law at all levels.

I am not sure how it benefits anyone to do what they are doing outside of from a purely conservatives academic level.

The counters would be to expand the court, define its abilities more clearly, put term limits on justices, clarify what is and is not disqualifying (ethics rules, recusal rules and so on) and potentially things like what warrants impeachment of a justice.

These are hard without a united movement, big majorities in Congress and the presidency and honestly having alot of states with you.

This is going to be a long game sadly unless Congress really decides to push things and I do not see that there.





Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 103.0.5060.53 on Windows 10
The Avenger


Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021



    Quote:
    It is bad and going to get worse. The said part is there is not much that can be done...



Oddly, the Constitution has granted no enforcement powers to the Supreme Court. Serious people are debating whether a person, state, or institution could simply ignore the Supreme Court and get away with it.



    Quote:
    I am not sure how it benefits anyone to do what they are doing outside of from a purely conservatives academic level.



It benefits the centers of power I listed in the OP. The "Sinister Six" justices are demonstrating their allegiance to these power centers.



    Quote:
    The counters would be to expand the court, define its abilities more clearly, put term limits on justices, clarify what is and is not disqualifying (ethics rules, recusal rules and so on) and potentially things like what warrants impeachment of a justice.



Or ignore the Court altogether. This may be tested sooner than we think. New York State could well decide to defy the Bruen ruling. Don't mess with New Yorkers!



Posted with Google Chrome 103.0.5060.53 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:

      Quote:
      It is bad and going to get worse. The said part is there is not much that can be done...



    Quote:

    Oddly, the Constitution has granted no enforcement powers to the Supreme Court. Serious people are debating whether a person, state, or institution could simply ignore the Supreme Court and get away with it.


I mean I think it was Andrew Jackson who famously did something along those lines "X made his decision now let's seem him enforce it".

It is possible for sure, as you are indicating, but it starts becoming dangerous as there is no longer a legit guardrail. When do you get to decide to ignore it? Because once the door is open states and federal powers will start finding ways to keep doing it.

And one of the rule of law aspects within the US is that folks adhere to the courts judgement, but if the courts are going wild than it will lead to these sorts of questions that should not be required.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      I am not sure how it benefits anyone to do what they are doing outside of from a purely conservatives academic level.



    Quote:

    It benefits the centers of power I listed in the OP. The "Sinister Six" justices are demonstrating their allegiance to these power centers.


That is fair. The powerful usually keep power. I was trying to get at that I think but not as well.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      The counters would be to expand the court, define its abilities more clearly, put term limits on justices, clarify what is and is not disqualifying (ethics rules, recusal rules and so on) and potentially things like what warrants impeachment of a justice.



    Quote:

    Or ignore the Court altogether. This may be tested sooner than we think. New York State could well decide to defy the Bruen ruling. Don't mess with New Yorkers!


True, I left that one out. I was thinking more about how to keep the current system in place.

The danger of pure lawlessness is one that is concerning. As states could decide to nullify federal law and so on and so forth. There has not been much anything like this except maybe before the Civil War when the court made some truly terribly rulings (they have always made bad rulings, but those helped directly lead to that war).

It is a scary situation to find things in honestly. And honestly the court has nobody to blame but themselves for any of it.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 103.0.5060.53 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


In the Kennedy case the court seems to ignore the facts of the case and upholds the right of a school employee to pray with students on the 50 yard game after the game, ignoring any coercion this may cause.

This overrules the Lemon run case, where government actions cannot support or impede religion. So, in an official capacity a public employee cannot push a religion while acting in official capacity. The court also ignored another precedent from the early 90's that codified Lemon, in Lee. I am a little less clear if that is overruled too.

The deference towards religion and contempt of the facts by the conservative majority is striking.

This and the Maine ruling in addition to deference to churches when states put neutral COVID restrictions down should be very troubling to everyone.

In some ways this ruling may be the least of these, but it still would have been deemed unconsitutional by all courts using the afore mentioned standards.

But this court is not bound by any precedent.

The Lemon rule guided cases determining if the Establishment cause was violated. In its place "references to historical practices and understandings".

This historical understanding approach is one of the biggest jokes I have ever heard. It is not even originalism or textualism anymore. It is cherry picking from history and finding reasons to toss out the parts that do not agree with ideology.

Not to mention how are lower court judges supposed to make this analysis in the first place? Judges are not historians. SCOTUS pulls most of its history with its staff but is still often wrong on things or are too selective.

It is a joke of a standard that has popped up over and over again in recent rulings that seems to make light of things they disagree with based in history and ignorance of it and the circumstances around history. Even going by an originalist perspective the Fouders were very skeptical of church and state overlapping and tried to separate it whenever possible. This court seeks to toss away everything from then to now to appease Christians, but will likely look for ways to exclude other religions and those that are athiestic, agnostic or other types of belief or lack of belief.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 103.0.5060.53 on Windows 10

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software