The SCOTUS has outlived its usefulness. The next step is for States to actively begin disregarding its decisions and forcing the Federal government to enforce its unpopular mandates against States which chose to not comply which will be deeply unpopular.
US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
21–30 of 42 posts
Re: US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
#22The SCOTUS has outlived its usefulness. The next step is for States to actively begin disregarding its decisions and forcing the Federal government to enforce its unpopular mandates against States which chose to not comply which will be deeply unpopular.
You mean like Arkansas’ handling of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling?
Re: US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
#23What makes me livid is a number of these Trump appointees lied in to congress when they said "Roe was settled law" (It's a precedent, ... "settled" here meaning "why change it, it's the law of the land") only to waste no time in unsettling it. The Trump / MAGA / right-wing takeover of America is a thing I never would have wished even on my enemies.
This was a clear rhetorical tactic, the type a lawyer would employ. Saying Roe is settled law is a factual observation about the world, not a statement of personal opinion. When you look at it that way, it wasn't a lie, but an observation that is no longer true.
When you’re splitting hairs over whether an intentionally misleading response is technically a lie, it’s a good sign the whole system has lost whatever good faith it once had.
Re: US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
#24The SCOTUS has outlived its usefulness. The next step is for States to actively begin disregarding its decisions and forcing the Federal government to enforce its unpopular mandates against States which chose to not comply which will be deeply unpopular.
> The SCOTUS has outlived its usefulness.
What about their refusal to explain their security measures convinced you of this?
> The next step is for States to actively begin disregarding its decisions and forcing the Federal government to enforce its unpopular mandates against States which choose to not comply which will be deeply unpopular.
Is that the next step, or has it happened before, most notably during desegregation? Was forcing the states to desegregate right, even if it was unpopular?
Re: US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
#25Alito was on the phone with Trump just one day before he ruled on his case. That is never ever supposed to happen and probably never has before. It doesn't get any more corrupt than that.
Justices cannot talk to the president?
Judges in general cannot talk to parties with business before their court. Fortunately / unfortunately, our Supreme Court has no ethical standards, so there’s no prohibition here like there would be for a lower court.
BTW I think you meant “President elect”, who is still a private citizen.
Re: US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
#26I mean, yeah. They knew they were about to make a ruling that was unpopular with the masses.
The Supreme Court only exists because of America's love affair with British common law. It's a relic of a bygone era, like the drinking age being 21.
Re: US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
#27Why is this flagged?
Re: US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
#28So they don't want the public to have details regarding their security processes. Why is it in the public interest to know when the shift change is for the guards at the supreme court?
> Why is it in the public interest to know when the shift change is for the guards at the supreme court? How can the public verify that security is sufficiently without holes if the public doesn't have access to details? How can the public verify that their taxes, which paid for that security, are well-spent? While I don't personally believe all security details should be publicly available, I do think the details sh…
Does the public have that kind of access with, say, a military base? The White House? I doubt it.
Re: US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was a clear rhetorical tactic, the type a lawyer would employ. Saying Roe is settled law is a factual observation about the world, not a statement of personal opinion. When you look at it that way, it wasn't a lie, but an observation that is no longer true.
When you’re splitting hairs over whether an intentionally misleading response is technically a lie, it’s a good sign the whole system has lost whatever good faith it once had.
Doesn’t have to be “the whole system.” You can pin blame directly on the people doing it.
Re: US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
#30So the US Supreme Court is corrupt, well why not join the rest of the US Gov. in getting "gifts and tips".
I have always maintained, while he was sitting and afterwards, that Scalia's deep corruption was one of the only things protecting US civil liberties. His desire not to be examined informed his decisions on investigative overreach. The liberal justices sitting now are leaders in corruption, so it's not exclusive to people whose decisions we don't like.
Evidence please?