The US Supreme Court

Post Reply
User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Brian Peacock » Sat Jun 11, 2022 5:19 pm

Like religious fundamentalists, constitutional fundamentalists cut their cloth according to their coat.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by JimC » Sat Jun 11, 2022 9:03 pm

I can see states wanting power over stuff that goes on in their state (including how state elections are run) - similar here in Oz. But it seems absurd that they should have (potentially or in reality) power over how a Federal election is run. Particularly as there seems to be moves to allow state governments to discard the clearly expressed will of people via voting, and appoint electors to their own political advantage. That seems both undemocratic and corrupt...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Brian Peacock » Sat Jun 11, 2022 9:11 pm

It'll end in tear gas.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Tue Jun 14, 2022 5:26 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
Sat Jun 11, 2022 9:11 pm
It'll end in tear gas.
:rimshot:




Extremism in defense of national security is no crime. :sulk:

'"Endangers Us All": Supreme Court Ruling Shields Border Agent From Excessive Force Lawsuit'
A ruling by the right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday "will have far-reaching consequences" for people who accuse federal agents of violating their constitutional rights, the ACLU warned after the court ruled against a man who wanted to sue a U.S. Border Patrol agent who entered his property without a warrant and used excessive force.

The court ruled 6-3 in Egbert v. Boule that Congress must decide whether the plaintiff can sue the government over the alleged violation of his rights—a decision which Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion threatens to block nearly all civil suits against federal agents.

"The court's decision today ignores our repeated recognition of the importance of Bivens actions, particularly in the Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure context, and closes the door to Bivens suits by many who will suffer serious constitutional violations at the hands of federal agents," Sotomayor wrote, referring to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the 1971 ruling in which the court found federal agents can be sued in some cases even if Congress has not explicitly authorized the challenge.

...

The court did not overrule Bivens, but further restricted people's ability to seek redress when they accuse federal agents of violating their rights. In 2020, the court ruled that the family of a Mexican teenager fatally shot by the Border Patrol agent could not sue over their child's killing, and in 2017 it ruled that government officials are not liable for the alleged mistreatment of noncitizens who are detained by the United States.

Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested in his opinion that while Bivens has not been overruled, future claims against federal agents may not be viable.

Thousands of Border Patrol agents have now been "absolutely immunized from liability," said Sotomayor, "no matter how egregious the misconduct or resultant injury."

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Jun 14, 2022 8:18 am

"A ruling by the right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court..."

That's an interesting way to frame things, eh? Why not just, "A majority ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court..."?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Jun 14, 2022 8:35 am

Because the supreme court is largely political. Sad state of affairs.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:18 am

Yeah. But framing it like that seems like a subtle way to delegitimise the decisions of the institution.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13528
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by rainbow » Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:54 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:18 am
Yeah. But framing it like that seems like a subtle way to delegitimise the decisions of the institution.
It was deligitimised when Trump packed it with Conservatives.
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Hermit » Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:09 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:18 am
Yeah. But framing it like that seems like a subtle way to delegitimise the decisions of the institution.
Nothing delegitimises the institution like the actions of the Senate's Republican majority under the leadership of Mitch McConnell and the presidency of Donald Trump. By making the prime criterion for selecting judges the candidates' political views and sympathies rather than judicial competence they made the selection process a farce, placing the SCOTUS and a number of lower courts in utter disrepute.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Tue Jun 14, 2022 6:04 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 8:18 am
"A ruling by the right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court..."

That's an interesting way to frame things, eh? Why not just, "A majority ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court..."?
Unlike many sources that are supposedly aligned with the left or at least accused of that by the right/conservatives, Common Dreams actually is unabashedly leftist. However, the acknowledgement of the political affiliation of the majority of the US Supreme Court is accurate, and there is a reasonable argument that the decision is based more on politics than an unbiased reading of the law.

In Sotomayer's dissent (page 42 in the PDF of the decision) it is pointed out that in a previous judgement the court specifically cautioned against using national security as 'a talisman to use to ward off inconvenient claims.' That's exactly what the majority opinion does, and on specious grounds. The right wing obsession with border control appears to be the motivation for the opinion--to some extent it puts border control agents above the law.

I agree with pErvinalia, rainbow, and Hermit regarding delegitimisation of the court--that has already been largely accomplished via the Republican power-grab under Mitch McConnell.

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4978
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Joe » Tue Jun 14, 2022 7:41 pm

Yeah, old Mitch definitely dealt a huge blow to the Court's legitimacy, although Bush v Gore got the ball rolling for me.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47197
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Tero » Tue Jun 14, 2022 8:19 pm

Some university did a recount. Gore won by 50-100 votes. Depending on the hanging chaffs.
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by JimC » Tue Jun 14, 2022 9:25 pm

Hermit wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:09 am
Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:18 am
Yeah. But framing it like that seems like a subtle way to delegitimise the decisions of the institution.
Nothing delegitimises the institution like the actions of the Senate's Republican majority under the leadership of Mitch McConnell and the presidency of Donald Trump. By making the prime criterion for selecting judges the candidates' political views and sympathies rather than judicial competence they made the selection process a farce, placing the SCOTUS and a number of lower courts in utter disrepute.
More generally, the court is compromised by the political nature of its appointments, no matter who is in power. It lends itself to corruption...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Hermit » Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:49 pm

JimC wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 9:25 pm
Hermit wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:09 am
Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:18 am
Yeah. But framing it like that seems like a subtle way to delegitimise the decisions of the institution.
Nothing delegitimises the institution like the actions of the Senate's Republican majority under the leadership of Mitch McConnell and the presidency of Donald Trump. By making the prime criterion for selecting judges the candidates' political views and sympathies rather than judicial competence they made the selection process a farce, placing the SCOTUS and a number of lower courts in utter disrepute.
More generally, the court is compromised by the political nature of its appointments, no matter who is in power. It lends itself to corruption...
(On further consideration, "delegitimising" is too strong a word.) Yes, its integrity can be compromised, but this does not necessarily happen. Trump and his henchmen have done it in spades, though they fell short of what happened after the fall of the Weimar Republic.

Incidentally, one of the reasons I am sure my mother's father was a Nazi was that he became the president of the state of Thuringia's high court. He retained his job until he was called up into the Wehrmacht in 1942, commanding the infantry regiment 538 of the 385th infantry division. Had he not been regarded as "reliable" he would have either lost his position soon after the Enabling Law made Hitler a dictator or not appointed to it in the first place.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Brian Peacock » Wed Jun 15, 2022 8:58 am

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 8:18 am
"A ruling by the right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court..."

That's an interesting way to frame things, eh? Why not just, "A majority ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court..."?
Unlike many sources that are supposedly aligned with the left or at least accused of that by the right/conservatives, Common Dreams actually is unabashedly leftist. However, the acknowledgement of the political affiliation of the majority of the US Supreme Court is accurate, and there is a reasonable argument that the decision is based more on politics than an unbiased reading of the law.

In Sotomayer's dissent (page 42 in the PDF of the decision) it is pointed out that in a previous judgement the court specifically cautioned against using national security as 'a talisman to use to ward off inconvenient claims.' That's exactly what the majority opinion does, and on specious grounds. The right wing obsession with border control appears to be the motivation for the opinion--to some extent it puts border control agents above the law.

I agree with pErvinalia, rainbow, and Hermit regarding delegitimisation of the court--that has already been largely accomplished via the Republican power-grab under Mitch McConnell.
I get all that. I guess my disquiet at the framing is that it leans into a view that the republic's ultimate institution of arbitration is necessarily political - that there needs to, or should be a left/right political balance to the court in order for it to function 'properly'. As mentioned before, to an outsider like myself it appears that, over time, certain institutional failings in the legislative and administrative branches of the US government have pushed the Supreme Court into having more of an executive role - which of course tends the SC as an institution towards the overtly political.

As a bit of a lefty myself I fear that that trend cannot be countered by leaning into the kind of political framing I highlighted. Not only does it tacitly imply that the political persuasion of SC judges is more important to the proper functioning of the court than their judicial experience &/or competence--buying into the narrative of the Right--but it could lead to a situation where that unelected body determines the bounds of national endeavour - which is fundamentally undemocratic.

Of course, a fair reflection of the state of play is always needed to both maintain and challenge the working order of our democratic institutions, but the problem here--and it's not just an issue for the US--is that the good working order of our democratic processes and institutions should not depend upon the political persuasion of a democracy's elected officers and functionaries.

I know, I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one(!). The Left will not and cannot maintain, let alone rehabilitate, democracy, as a fair, equitable, and inclusive means of securing the rights and interests of a diverse citizenry, by framing our discourse according to the narratives and terms of those who view democracy as their personal political plaything.

We need less Bane and more Paine.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests