2d ago

TIL Supremes Opinions

tw: politics

Today I learned that, since April, the Supreme Court of the United States has sided with Trump in all 15 rulings it has issued on the President’s emergency requests. Of those 15 rulings, the court has only written 3 majority opinions. 7 have come with no explanation at all.

I don't have to convince anyone here of what's going on in America, obvs. I just wanted to share because this fact surprised me. I didn't realize that they weren't even justifying their decisions, which normally they do.

23 comments

I was frankly shocked how many justices Trump was allowed to appoint. And bewildered how little pushback came from the Dems. The decisions being made now were already set in motion in Trump's first term appointments imo, but so little was made of it then.
I recall Obama having to compromise on his appointments, and then literally giving up his last one to Trump.
And that's how you get a completely compromised Judicial branch I guess.
- I think much was based on one side believing in a democracy and respecting being on the loser side of an election cycle and being naive about the other side being so willing to lie cheat and steal the seats of power.
  it's probably broken fo the rest of our lives
  all for fuckin Trump
  i fucking hate this
  
  It's also contingent on them realizing that if they call out all the abuses and corruption, when it comes time for them to be held to account, they won't see any more mercy than they show their "compatriots" across the aisle.
  Less so, often, as the "team" they play for tends to forgive and forget much less.
- It seems really weird you let the president pick the supreme court justices in the first place really. It's also odd that you vote for judges in some places, because that makes the process overtly political, but even that would be better than just letting the president pick them.
  In England and Wales, judges are essentially appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission.
  
  Here in Switzerland, the parties in power choose the judges. That works because we have like 10 strong parties and many small ones.
  After researching, I found, that the choice of judges isn’t that good in Switzerland either and even too complex to understand for me 😂 guess I had that wrong in mind.. It seems to ultimately work on trust, empathy and ethics of individual people 🧐🤔
  https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/switzerland-votes-on-appointing-judges-by-lot/47030624
  
  If I’m understanding this right, your judges are selected by the Judicial Appointments Commission, and the commissioners of the JAC are chosen by senior judges?
  That seems like an extremely effective way of keeping the court independent. It may turn one direction or another over a long period of time, but it isn’t beholden to the whims of whatever fat orange fascist is holding elected office at the time.
- Republicans had control of the Senate when Obama's last appointment came up and they refused to even allow for an appointment hearing to happen.
  
  Republicans used the excuse that it was too close to the election, then when the next spot opened up they rushed through their own pick even closer to that election.
  Cheating hypocrites.
  
  Do you think that would have stopped a republican president?
- Push back would have unfortunately been performative. For decades national Democrats and their supporters have been hyperfocused on the presidency. Ceding many lower offices to Republican fascists without a fight. Democrats haven't held a solid legislative/judicial majority in nearly 50 years. Republicans have. Which has allowed them to neuter and negate everything Democrats have tried. Which wasn't much.
  While I would have liked to have seen Obama speak out more. The fact that he would have only been speaking out with nothing being done wouldn't have been that positive for them and cost them a lot of political Capital they could use for other things. And indeed, in 2028 if Democrats somehow managed to win the presidency again. Without having a solid control of the legislature etc. It will be the same as them not winning. They really need to start focusing on the state level heavily. And winning back areas they've long since given up on. Only then will they be able to do more than just removed and whine.
- Obama didn't give up anything.
  He was just doing what he was paid to do.

I was listening to the 5-4 podcast recently and they repeatedly stressed the point that Trump has lost ≈90% of lower court decisions and won ≈90% of Supreme Court decisions, which is an absurd swing. I’ll try to dig up a source on it though. Still it’s blatantly obvious that the SC has completely abandoned the rule of law and the constitution.

- As good as she was, she fucked us all by being a stubborn removed
  
  Turtle man was going to stack the court one way or another, but she didn't help.
  
  Even if she had retired on the first day of his second term, turtleboi would have found a way to burn the clock down somehow. I will never underestimate the amount of sketchy back room bullshit he will pull to fuck things up.
- How so? The decisions that are coming down are all 6-3. 5-4 decisions are just as binding as 6-3 ones.
- Mitch McConnell failed to let Obama select a justice in 2016. That same Congress was there since 2014, so she would have had to retire over 6 years early. She also would have had to predict that our government system would have fallen apart and all the normal checks and balances were removed. So sure it might have been better if she retired in 2010 but she left one hell of a legacy and the people that should be getting blamed are people like Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, Elon musk, Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, that info wars fuck head whose name I can’t remember, and everyone else whose actions were only negative instead of a person whose only flaw was she didn’t quit her job early.
  Also I realize this was a joke but I still got to stand against any RBG slander as she was a G

I thought many of these were in the "Shadow docket" (or emergency docket), which is not new and is usually not given justifications/opinions. I understand these are traditionally cases where the legal question just isn't interesting (or expedient to flesh out). The court doesn't hide this practice, you can read about it here: Related news service
This isn't to say the court is acting normally. But I want to complicate this observation; one should compare with other presidents and issues.
- Previous presidents didn't load up the emergency docket with unconstitutional overreaches.

Potential voters were warned about this shit - among many other things - in 2016 and the sabotage of Merrick Garland's nomination, the blatant republican disdain for the democratic process, the enabling of fascist frenzy already whistling at full boil.
But vote for a woman?!! When pigs fly!!!
Potential voters were warned about this shit - among many other things - in 2024, the blatant republican disdain for the democratic process, how the fascist frenzy had stormed the Capitol four years prior and people getting killed in the process, the supreme court revoking women's right to choose, many MANY other things.
But vote for a woman?!! When pigs fly!!!
Non-voters didn't just shit on their own drinking water, they shat on ALL our water supply. Stubbornly ignorant, erratic, impatient and petty, oh-so-precious-and-pure deadweights that they are.

23 comments