The US Supreme Court

[rainbow]

Save your Confederate money, y'all, the South shall rise again!

Srsly. It's Balkanization time.

remember the Belgians 'L'Union fait la Force' . united you stand, separate and you fall.

We in Africa are trying to forget the Belgians.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Religious freedom. It's what the USA is all about. Freedom to impose a particular interpretation of Christian religious doctrine on the whole country, freedom to use taxpayer funds to pay for religious instruction, and other religious freedoms as yet unnamed. Exceptional!

'ACLU Comment on Supreme Court Decision in Carson v. Makin'

The Supreme Court issued a ruling today in Carson v. Makin that requires the state of Maine to fund religious education at private religious schools as part of its tuition assistance program. The program pays for students to attend private school if their town does not have a public high school.

The decision marks the first time that the court has explicitly required taxpayers to support a specifically religious activity — religious instruction — and expands the court’s 2020 ruling in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. There, the court held that that the Free Exercise Clause prohibited a state from excluding religious schools from private aid programs “solely because of their religious character.”

Along with several other allies, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Maine filed an amicus brief in Carson, arguing that the court should follow its longstanding precedent and recognize that states need not fund religious instruction and activities. Today’s decision, however, disregards that precedent. As Justice Sotomayor observed in dissent, this ruling “leads us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation.”

* * *

Not that long ago, the Court required the government to remain neutral on questions of religion — a requirement that flowed from the First Amendment’s command that the government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” In practice, that meant that the government could neither impose burdens on religious institutions that it didn’t impose on others, nor could it actively subsidize religion.

Carson turns this neutrality rule on its head, holding that government benefit programs that exclude religious institutions engage in “discrimination against religion” that violates the Constitution.

[source]

[Svartalf]

That decision will go down in the annals as one of the horrbile ones

[L'Emmerdeur]

OK, weightier then...

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.

What do you see as the court taking on an executive role? I am unclear on what sort of actions taken by the contemporary court you believe fit the bill (in comparison to its earlier rulings) but I will briefly explain my understanding--

Politics have always played a significant part in the composition of the US Supreme Court, and have influenced its decisions as well. The ideal of an impartial body whose decisions are based on a just and neutral interpretation of the US Constitution has never been realized.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the court put itself in the position of 'ultimate institution of arbitration.' This was a political act by which the court asserted its interest in and relevance to questions of a political nature, among others. Though the court has the power to overturn a law (arguably an 'executive action') this has been the case since Marbury.

Cases like Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education were influenced to a significant extent by the politics of the day and in turn had definite political influence. However, the court cannot create laws nor enforce them, the latter being the function of the executive branch in the US system. Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I don't see that the position of the court in the government of the US has changed all that much.

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.

Look at Roosevelt's court-packing plan for a historical example of the political entanglements of the court. The political leanings of the justices have always been relevant, and have taken precedence over other considerations at various points in US history. The court has from very early days been involved in determininng the bounds of national endeavor, often having the most powerful influence. Fundamentally undemocratic though it is, not a recent development. Democracy has a voice in the matter (though see below) through the process of confirming new justices, inevitably involving political considerations. More a bug than a feature perhaps.

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.

The anti-democratic nature of the US Senate (which confirms new justices) prevents a fair reflection of the state of play when it comes to the US Supreme Court. The performative pose of 'government is the problem' adopted by the Republican Party in the last 40 years or so has exacerbated this fundamental issue. Ideologically they abandonded the effort to maintain the federal government in good working order, choosing instead to pursue a fantasy version of 'freedom.' Their ideal of 'freedom' is selective, favoring certain elements of the population. As long as that's the case, the political persuasion of the elected officials and non-elected functionaries is crucial.

[laklak]

Court affirms an individual's right to carry concealed for personal self-defense.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supre ... ar-AAYMTns

Good luck with that assault weapon ban.

[Svartalf]

carrying concealed assault rifles, I foresee a rush on sports bags

[Tero]

What is this BS about tradition that our gun practices have to conform to? The abortion and gun rulings seem to go deep into tradition. What legal basis can that have? If you have to conform to tradition, how can anything change? If coins were made of silver then, do they have to be made of silver now?

And we did not marry gay couples prior to the current century, why should we marry them now?
__________________

[Tero]

CNN
"Justice Alito is ignoring the fact that in addition to striking down New York's law the Court is announcing a new standard for Second Amendment cases unlike anything the court has ever applied before," said Jonathan Lowy, chief counsel at Brady. He said the new standard is going to apply to "every sort of gun law going forward."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics ... index.html

[L'Emmerdeur]

carrying concealed assault rifles, I foresee a rush on sports bags

There is a supply of concealable military style weapons. A recent addition to that market niche, for those who are compelled to peacefully oppose censorship and infringements inflicted on law-abiding gun owners by 'Big Tech' and repressive gun-grabbers:

'Instead of Facing Ban, AR-15 Maker Unveils New, Easier to Hide Pistol Version'

A leading gun control advocate on Thursday led criticism of a newly released highly compact AR-15-style semi-automatic weapon being marketed as a tool to oppose government and Big Tech "censorship."

Boonville, Missouri-based CMMG calls its new DISSENT model its "most stowable" offering. The company says the 4.6-pound, 14-inch gun, which is sold without a brace (or stock), "boasts superior firepower in a small familiar package and will initially be offered in three different calibers," including NATO-standard 5.56 x 45 mm. By adding an aftermarket brace, owners can transform what CMMG calls a pistol into a short-barreled rifle.

"The DISSENT is more than a product," the gun's "mission statement" claims. "It is a platform to voice our peaceful opposition to the censorship and infringements that affect law-abiding gunowners across America."

CMMG also claims the gun is opposition to "Big Tech unjustly silencing" Second Amendment advocates, "erasing their First Amendment rights and the idea of democracy in the process."

Ryan Busse—an avid outdoorsman and hunter and former firearms executive-turned industry whistleblower, author, and activist—noted that the perpetrator of the March 2021 massacre of 10 people in a Boulder, Colorado supermarket "used one of these type guns made by Ruger."

[laklak]

CNN
"Justice Alito is ignoring the fact that in addition to striking down New York's law the Court is announcing a new standard for Second Amendment cases unlike anything the court has ever applied before," said Jonathan Lowy, chief counsel at Brady. He said the new standard is going to apply to "every sort of gun law going forward."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics ... index.html

He's incorrect, which isn't surprising from anybody from Brady. This isn't a new standard at all. Here's Alito's wonderfully snarky response to the blithering idiocy of the dissenting opinion. Those three, and particularly the "wise Latina" (oh FFS spare me) really do not understand the purpose of the court. Pretty much their entire dissent consisted of "Look! Squirrel!!!!".

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavl ... MP_SCZP3QA

[Tero]

"We did not have condoms when the constitution was written, so you can't condoms."

What a welcome change over Justice Alito. He justified today’s ruling removing the bodily autonomy of millions of women by using the writings of a guy who was born in 1609, who had women executed for “witchcraft,” and thought men should be able to rape their wives at will.

Am I suggesting that Sam Alito would be a fundamentally different person if he had better sex education? Maybe. Maybe not. I am saying that if more of us had this kind of schooling, we’d be a lot less likely to support or even tolerate would-be leaders who think America was better when women couldn’t have a credit card in their name or make decisions about their own bodies.

https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2022/0 ... n-friedman

[Animavore]

Looks like women have become second class citizens in the US.

[macdoc]

To some degree they already were, demoted now.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Why stop there? Justice Thomas sees a way to help Make America Great Again.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said Friday's decision doesn't affect other rights beyond access to abortion. But he suggested the court reconsider Obergefell's precedent [recognizing a right to same sex marriage] in the future, along with cases that overturned sodomy laws and established the right for married people to obtain contraception.

"Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,' we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents," Thomas wrote. "After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated."

[source]

In other words, 'What stinkin' rights? I don't see 'em in the Constitution, motherfuckers.'

[pErvinalia]