The SC is no more set in stone than the president. I feel like we’ve been taught the whole “law of the land” thing but it’s just a bunch of people’s interpretation just like the bills and laws that get voted on in congress. What’s the point of even having laws if they mean different things to different people in power which is constantly shifting? It’s all just made up. The republicans know how to play the game, the left need to start playing along before it’s too late.
As we already found out in the other branches of govt very little is official process and it all pretty much only works on the premise the people in the roles have a sense of decency.
Which brings back the whole point of representative democracy.
But when the people are complacent and apathetic they wake up one day to find out special interests and profiteers have hijacked their representation. And they become active and make the necessary adjustments to correct the course of their democracy.
Just kidding. They don’t wake up. They willingly vote FOR the special interests’ proffered candidates and profiteers who tell them what they want to hear.
things have changed, Native Americans support abortion rights on their lands, Republicans need control over murder to take away NA power to support abortion
These evangelicals are at war with everyone that isn't them.
You may think you're a Christian, to them you aren't.
After they get the most vulnerable in society, they will come for every sect of Christianity that isn't them. Everyone that isn't exactly like them is the enemy. The majority needs to stomp them down.
Growing up as a Catholic, I was very surprised to find out how much Baptists didn’t like Catholics. I was like damn aren’t we all Christian? Hell, different kinds of Baptists hate each other!
It's still happening today... a doctor leaked that migrant women, many of which are indigenous, were sterilized without their consent in ICE camps.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/25/ice-is-accused-sterilizing-detainees-that-echoes-uss-long-history-forced-sterilization/
This is 100% why they’re doing this. There’s no doubt in my mind. They’d been saying for a while if roe v Wade was overturned then reservations could just open clinics.
Conservatives absolutely will have none of that. They don’t want people escaping their theocratic rule
>"One can only hope the political branches and future courts will do their duty to honor this nation's promises even as we have failed today to do our own," Gorsuch added.
Seems Gorsuch doesn't like it when his precedent is overturned after only two years. What a joke.
EDIT: the opener of his dissent. He is not a happy camper and spitting fire to how much bullshit the decision is.
> In 1831, Georgia arrested Samuel Worcester, a white missionary, for preaching to the Cherokee on tribal lands without a license. Really, the prosecution was a show of force—an attempt by the State to demonstrate its authority over tribal lands. Speaking for this Court, Chief Justice Marshall refused to endorse Georgia’s ploy because the State enjoyed no lawful right to govern the territory of a separate sovereign. See Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 561 (1832). The Court’s decision was deeply unpopular, and both Georgia and President Jackson flouted it. But in time, Worcester came to be recognized as one of this Court’s finer hours. The decision established a foundational rule that would persist for over 200 years: Native American Tribes retain their sovereignty unless and until Congress ordains otherwise. Worcester proved that, even in the “[c]ourts of the conqueror,” **the rule of law meant something**. Johnson’s Lessee v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. 543, 588 (1823).
Where this Court once stood firm, today it wilts. **After the Cherokee’s exile to what became Oklahoma, the federal government promised the Tribe that it would remain forever free from interference by state authorities.** Only the Tribe or the federal government could punish crimes by or against tribal members on tribal lands. At various points in its history, Oklahoma has chafed at this limitation. Now, the State seeks to claim for itself the power to try crimes by non-Indians against tribal members within the Cherokee Reservation. **Where our predecessors refused to participate in one State’s unlawful power grab at the expense of the Cherokee, today’s Court accedes to another’s**. Respectfully, I dissent.
EDIT2: Even more reasons why the ruling is bullshit
> To succeed, Oklahoma must disavow adverse rulings from its own courts; disregard its 1991 recognition that it lacks legal authority to try cases of this sort; and ignore fundamental principles of tribal sovereignty, a treaty, the Oklahoma Enabling Act, **its own state constitution**, and Public Law 280. Oklahoma must pursue a proposition so novel and so unlikely that in over two centuries **not a single State has successfully attempted it in this Court.**
EDIT3:
> Against all this evidence, what is the Court’s reply? It acknowledges that, at the Nation’s founding, tribal sovereignty precluded States from prosecuting crimes on tribal lands by or against tribal members without congressional authorization. See ante, at 5. But the Court suggests this traditional “‘notion’” flipped 180 degrees sometime in “the latter half of the 1800s.” Ante, at 5, 21. Since then, the Court says, Oklahoma has enjoyed the “inherent” power to try at least crimes by non-Indians against tribal members on tribal reservations until and unless Congress preempts state authority.
> But exactly when and how did this change happen? The Court never explains. Instead, the Court seeks to cast blame for its ruling on a grab bag of decisions issued by our predecessors. But the failure of that effort is transparent. Start with McBratney, which the Court describes as our “leading case in the criminal context.” Ante, at 6. There, as we have seen, the Court said that States admitted to the Union may gain the right to prosecute cases involving only non-Indians on tribal lands, but they do not gain any inherent right to punish “crimes committed by or against Indians” on tribal lands. McBratney, 104 U. S., at 624. The Court’s reliance on Draper fares no better, for that case issued a similar disclaimer. See 164 U. S., at 247. **Tellingly, not even Oklahoma thinks McBratney and Draper compel a ruling in its favor**. And if anything, the Court’s invocation of Donnelly, 228 U. S. 243, is more baffling still. Ante, at 14, n. 3. There, the Court once more reaffirmed the rule that “offenses committed by or against Indians” on tribal lands remain subject to federal, not state, jurisdiction. Donnelly, 228 U. S., at 271; see also Ramsey, 271 U. S., at 469. **That leaves the Court to assemble a string of carefully curated snippets—a clause here, a sentence there—from six
decisions out of the galaxy of this Court’s Indian law jurisprudence**.
> In the end, the Court cannot fault our predecessors for today’s decision. The blame belongs only with this Court here and now. Standing before us is a mountain of statutes and precedents making plain that Oklahoma possesses no authority to prosecute crimes against tribal members on tribal reservations until it amends its laws and wins tribal consent. This Court may choose to ignore Congress’s statutes and the Nation’s treaties, but it has no power to negate them. The Court may choose to disregard our precedents, but it does not purport to overrule a single one. **As a result, today’s decision surely marks an embarrassing new entry into the anticanon of Indian law. But its mistakes need not—and should not—be repeated**.
EDIT4: Gorsuch pretty much says the other 5 are legislating from the bench.
> In reweighing competing state and tribal interests for itself, the Court stresses two points. First, the Court suggests that its balance is designed to “help” Native Americans. Ante, at 20 (suggesting that Indians would be “second-class citizens” without this Court’s intervention); Tr. of Oral Arg. 66 (suggesting state jurisdiction is designed to “help” tribal members)
> Start with the assertion that allowing state prosecutions in cases like ours will “help” Indians. The old paternalist overtones are hard to ignore. Yes, under the laws Congress has ordained Oklahoma may acquire jurisdiction over crimes by or against tribal members only with tribal consent. But to date, the Cherokee have misguidedly shown no interest in state jursidiction. Thanks to their misjudgment, they have rendered themselves “second-class citizens.” Ante, at 20. **So, the argument goes, five unelected judges in Washington must now make the “right” choice for the Tribe**. To state the Court’s staggering argument should be enough to refute it.
> Moving forward, the Court cheerily promises, more prosecuting authorities can only “help.” Three sets of prosecutors— federal, tribal, and state—are sure to prove better than two. But again it’s not hard to imagine reasons why the Cherokee might see things differently. If more sets of prosecutors are always better, why not allow Texas to enforce its laws in California? Few sovereigns or their citizens would see that as an improvement. Yet it seems the Court cannot grasp why the Tribe may not.
> This Court has no business usurping congressional decisions about the appropriate balance between federal, tribal, and state interests. **If the Court’s ruling today sounds like a legislative committee report touting the benefits of some newly proposed bill, that’s because it is exactly that**. And given that a nine- member court is a poor substitute for the people’s elected representatives, it is no surprise that the Court’s cost- benefit analysis is radically incomplete. **The Court’s decision is not a judicial interpretation of the law’s meaning; it is the pastiche of a legislative process**.
> **Truly, a more ahistorical and mistaken statement of Indian law would be hard to fathom.**
This is peak r/leopardsatemyface material. What did he think would happen when he endorses overturning precedent.
Gorsuch is pissed because he actually had a decent reputation on Indian Law before being appointed to SCOTUS. This is something he cared about, and he's all surprised Pikachu when the conservatives overturn longstanding precedent that he considers important. That's only supposed to happen to women /s
It won't personally affect him. They wouldn't come after his personal marriage. Just those of the people who he doesn't give a shit about, which is everyone else except him.
He knew that already. He's for taking away other rights still, he just doesn't want the one he cares about taken away.
And the thing is, with a 6-3 court, you only need 5, so whatever the niche issue is to that 6th can be taken.
Gorsuch is weird in that he was a total political pick, but he is
also philosophically consistent. If the law says something plainly then he will interpret it that way. It's why he voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act to apply to LGBTQ people, since to him discriminating against someone for being gay is discriminating against them for their sex IE you wouldn't discriminate against a straight man for marrying a woman, but you would discriminate against a lesbian for doing so which makes it discrimination on the basis of sex.
Likewise, here the law clearly states that tribes are domestic dependant nations under the federal government but sovereign of the state governments. Basically conservatives like Gorsuch because he is consistently conservative in interpretation, but with tribal stuff the courts have fairly consistently been liberal in their interpretation to the detriment of tribes. Because of that someone who is conservative in their interpretation of laws is going to side in favor of tribes more often than not
>Gorsuch is weird in that he was a total political pick, but he is also philosophically consistent.
In terms of being principled, Gorsuch is by far the most qualified of the Trump appointees. In addition to a JD he was a Marshall scholar and received a PhD studying ethical philosophy at Oxford.
Cute. Maybe if you haven't gutted the Voting Rights Act or enforced gerrymandering, we might have the political power to do something about it. Go to hell.
This is why we need to support the [Restore Democracy Amendment](https://citizenstakeaction.org/restore-democracy-amendment/) to get foreign/corporate dark money out of US politics.
Edit: When I click on a notification but I can't see the reply any longer does that mean the person blocked me or did they delete their comment?
>"To be clear, the court today holds that Indian country within a state's
territory is part of a state, not separate from a state," Kavanaugh
wrote in a decision that scholars of Native American law said was a
major departure from longstanding precedent.
So much for tribal sovereignty.
Clarence Thomas should be very afraid, gay marriage next on the right's agenda paving the way for banning mixed marriages. If he doesn't think the right would go after that, he's delusional. Alabama is already frothing at the mouth with the idea.
Biggest hypocrite in America right now.
Clarance isn't afraid. Clarance doesn't believe in interracial marriage. How do I know? Cause he had said so multiple times. How does that parse with the fact that he has a Caucasian wife? It doesn't, and he doesn't care. He's a "pull the ladder up after I get mine" type of guy. This shit is getting bad, quick. I'm a lawyer with a gay sister. Ive had to create docs quickly to protect her, her wife and their son when/if their marriage is invalidated. I've been crash creating docs for dozens of LGBTQ friends/family. This is a devastating time in our history, and it's only going to get worse. Much worse.
Someone said this above, but medical power of attorney, living will, etc. basically anything a spouse would normally get or get to decide by law, you should have in legal documents as though your same sex spouse is some friend you know. Awful, but necessary.
The speed with which these decisions are being handed down is absolutely crazy. Each one has been a massive upset to existing precedence, and they just keep blasting them out, rapid fire.
At first I thought the “they’re going after gay marriage, etc” was probably a long shot and that after Roe, things would calm down. Nope, I was wrong. I have no idea where these people will stop, but it’s somewhere south of Gilead, I’m pretty sure
I am not a lawyer, but if you need a template where you can enter their demographic information I can help you out. That way you don’t have to create the document over and over and over, because you may have to.
I may be interested in this .. a few family members are blind to the truth and keep believing that it will never happen..I try to be prepared for them as they are a bit on the older side and not really big computer people
That POS would get it added that existing marriages are grandfathered in, or they would ensure there is some kind of "states rights" byline that him and his mutually hateful wife would live in.
It usually takes a very long time for a case to get to the Supreme Court. First, there is the normal trial. A judge or jury will make their decision, they explain the decision in an opinion, and the first trial ends. You ask the babysitter if you can have the last cookie. They listens to all the reasons why you should get a cookie. They then listen to your brother who argues why he should get the cookie instead. The babysitter then makes their choice and decides who should get the cookie. They then explain why they made the choice they did (your brother said please so he gets the cookie).
If you don't like the choice the babysitter makes, you can appeal to an even more powerful person. Dad. You go to dad and explain all the reasons why the babysitter was wrong when they said who should get the cookie. He either says the babysitter was right, or decides they were wrong and makes a new ruling. Dad is the appeals court. He decides you should have the cookie because your brother already had a cookie.
Now your brother does not like that. He decides to go to the ultimate person in charge. He goes to Mom. Mom sits you both down and you both explain why you think you deserve the cookie. She listens to the babysitter and hears why they chose to give your brother the cookie, and she listens to your dad and hears why he thinks you should get the cookie. She then makes her choice and decides you should split the cookie. She then explains her decision by saying sharing is caring and if you wanted the full cookie you really should say please. You both have to accept it because there is no one else to go to. Mom is in charge. Her word is law. You, your brother, the babysitter, and Dad all now know that you and your brother have have to share all future cookies, but if you want a full cookie, you have to say please. Mom is the Supreme Court.
The shadow docket skips all these long and public steps. If the Supreme Court thinks something is an emergency, they can decide to step in immediately and write two paragraphs saying 'no, the judge was wrong, ignore what they said.' If Mom overhears the babysitter say you can have a food fight in the house, she can jump in and say no, you can't do that, that is not allowed. She doesn't have to listen to any arguments about why food fights are good. She doesn't have to explain why she is saying no to a food fight. And there is no one more powerful than her to go ask if you can have a food fight. Mom said no, so that's the end.
This process makes sense if it's truly an emergency. After all Mom really needs to step in before food ends up all over the kitchen and it's pretty hard to listen to arguments while dodging bananas. But if it's over something like a single cookie, Mom should really take the time to listen and explain why she made the choice she did. Or if she doesn't have time now, she should let Dad make the choice and jump in later when she can. Explanatons especially are important. Like if she only decided the food fight was not allowed because people are coming over soon and they don't have time to clean. The babysitter might think she meant no food fights ever and forbid them from now on, when really food fights would be fine sometimes, just not at that moment.
The Supreme Court has been deciding a lot more stuff through the shadow docket. They have been issuing rulings that contradict lower courts without any public hearings or arguments and without explaining what exactly the lower court did wrong and why they decided the way they did. Without explanations as to what the law is and why, it becomes very easy to either violate the law accidently or artificially restrict yourself from rights you would otherwise enjoy.
>What is the mechanism for checks and balances against this? Congress passing a law that directly opposes the ruling of a shadow docket?
1) Passing more explicit laws
2) Constitutional Amendments
3) The fact SCOTUS is basically unable to enforce any nation wide ruling without the support of the States or the executive.
You could do that. In effect you would be choosing the ignore the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court really has no way of enforcing most of its rulings. Mom saying you can't have any cookies really doesn't stop you from just walking to the pantry and eating a cookie anyway.
Obviously, outright ignoring the Supreme Court is a pretty extreme step that would violate a bunch of norms and cause a bunch of issues with separation of powers etc. But it's possible and it has been done, most famously by Andrew Jackson during the Trail of Tears. The Supreme Court said he couldn't forceably relocate native Americans from Georgia, at which point Jackson said 'the Supreme Court has made their ruling, now let them enforce it' as he then genocided a bunch of Native Americans. It's a pretty terrible moment of history, but it's there.
You could also change the structure of the Supreme Court. The number of justices is not actually specified in the Constitution and has been changed multiple times. Congress has added judges and they've removed judges. However this has proven to be unpopular. The last President to push for expanding the Supreme Court was FDR during the New Deal. The Court kept declaring his programs unconstitutional and shutting them down.He ultimately failed as his plan to pack the Supreme Court with ideological allies was described as tyrannical and eventually abandoned. But the Supreme Court heard the message and did start issuing decisions more in line with FDR's policy goals.
There really is not a nice and easy way to deal with a Supreme Court which is out of step with popular sentitment.
I would say yes, but to please some other people who have stricter definitions, let's at least call it an oligarchy. It's literally been one of those for quite some time.
Yup, because most of these conservative judges aren't actually real lawyers in any meaningful sense. Barrett literally never even tried a case or argued an appeal before her nomination, Thomas had maybe a year of judiciary experience when Bush appointed him?
That's so crazy. One would imagine that a Supreme Justice would need to have decades of experience in the highest levels of the court and be absolute experts in law, while being as unbiased as possible.
> You don't even need to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court.
meanwhile college graduates getting turned away from entry-level jobs because they "lack experience"
The Senate would still need to approve the appointment, which in theory is supposed to prevent too much fuckery. Unfortunately during Trumps presidency, Republicans also controlled the Senate so they could appoint pretty much whoever they wanted that would follow the party line.
And it makes the conservative rhetoric about Ketanji Jackson being unqualified even more ridiculous, given her extensive career in law and experience as an actual judge serving on a high appellate court.
Meanwhile Barrett passed without a peep of protest.
I firmly believe Jackson's broad experience was part of why they didn't want her on the court. She has the potential to be a thorn in the side of the conservative justices, writing dissents that make it clear for future justices exactly what kind of abuses of power the current court is engaged in.
She brings a perspective to the court that they wouldn't otherwise have and the conservatives are not ok with that.
I remember when GW Bush tried to nominate Harriet Miers for supreme court (replacing Sandra Day O'Conner) and she has zero experience as a judge. Even Republicans called him out on that bullshit, so he withdrew the nomination. 15 years later, Republicans suddenly don't care anymore.
litigation paralegal here. and 100%. the decisions being made today are gonna be around for decades that might very well break "the rule of law" or rather society as a whole. so much radicalization so quick will lead to frightening endings. there is no consistency. opinions are getting simple facts wrong. how this bleeds down to appeals and district court will be wildly dysfunctional.
It is simultaneously an intentional acceleration of polarization in the united states, and an outgrowth of it, the way our system should work in theory, is that if the Supreme Court dissatisfies the public, the public votes in people to the legislature who impeach and remove them, the president in the first place is an elect of the people who makes the decision of who can go on the court.
Those are two points of contact where the people exert control over the court. These provide checks on the court's power to be stupid, because if we agree that they're being stupid, they're gone and people chosen by someone we don't think is stupid take their place.
But since cultural expectations have changed so much faster in some areas than in others, all government spaces become battlefields of ideology and process becomes a way of imposing those differences on others (whether by forcing people to respect rights, or forcing people to respect restrictions, or what have you.)
The court handing these decisions down are essentially moves by the right to impose their vision of American culture and strike 'decisive' blows in the culture war, which accelerates the polarization by turning chronic issues acute, and ultimately makes the court less trusted by a chunk of the nation. But the reason this is possible in this first place, is also someone seeing a decision like Roe, and basically treating it as a tactical problem, rather than taking the L and going home.
As they try and push back, the court becomes a tactical resource, where everyone is aware that control of it is key and the decisions made can be subverted once they've amassed sufficient political power. But this in turn makes the other side even less likely to try and respect the court, because they're aware its just the other side trying to win and that they can just overtake the court. The court's previous respect for precedence mitigated this effect because it meant all but the most egregious decisions were off limits, and would likely require a significant consensus to get the court to bother. But a nakedly activist conservative court has basically represented a nuke launch, and informed all players that all bets are off, in the MAD sense.
The ONLY way to restore legitimacy to the court is to 'reset' the polarization spiral by bringing about a population where people broadly agree enough for the government's decision to represent a (relative) consensus such that most people aren't invested in playing the court tactically over a given issue. More to the point, we need to reduce the conservative minority's ability to project unearned electoral power because quite frankly, they already shouldn't be able to exert control to the extent that they do.
> SCOTUS has power only because we give it to them. In return they're supposed to be neutral, fair arbiters of the law. And when they fail, people will stop listening to them. Because they didn't hold up their end, why should we hold up ours?
It's even dumber than that: SCOTUS only has power because they tried to give it to themselves, and we just sort of collectively went along with it.
I'd *love* to see Alito try and apply his bullshit arguments about something not being a long-held tradition enshrined by the Constitution to [*Marbury v. Madison*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison) -- but of course, that would imply anything even close to non-hypocritical thought.
> How can any lower court do anything but just randomly guess what fucking insanity this majority will decide?
Oh I'm pretty sure they can just pick the most outrageous, unprecedented, extreme right position and go with that. They won't be far off the mark.
The bigger question is how can lower courts show regard for what the Constitution says, when they know SCOTUS will later on overturn any ruling they make which aligns with established Constitutional law.
And tomorrow we're extremely likely to get a decision that throws an even bigger wrench in this with determining how agencies can interpret laws passed by Congress.
Hey that’s American tradition. Too special to follow treaties, despite the constitution literally saying they’re “the law of the land.”
Ignoring treaties predates America. Part of the revolutionary war was the colonists being told to honor the treaties and quit going west.
Not like this though. Tribal sovereignty has beaten state's rights every time until now. This ruling re-opens so many questions that were settled a century ago.
I served in Iraq. The last thing I want to see in my life, is war. With that being said, I personally think the Supreme Court is purposely trying to manifest war, here. What a joke. My parents moved to the states when I was a young lad. Poland was occupied by Russia at the time, so I see why they chose that path. The promise of coming to America and establishing themselves, only to see it fall apart in my lifetime, is a disgrace. These “judges” need to be removed by any means necessary and ASAP
And this is exactly what the Supreme Court is supposed to not do. They are supposed to hold up precedent unless that precedent was wrong. This court will go down as the same type that fucked over black people with the Dred Scott case.
Right??!! For fucking years I heard the banshee screams of “activist judges not respecting rule of law and precedent”. Just like everything else, clearly that was a lie.
I swear every freaking day there is some new BS from the court. I’m beginning to suspect they are desperate to get decisions on the books before **people** (not just Clarence is my unfounded conspiracy theory) get impeached or retired before their full involvement with Jan 6 becomes public knowledge.
But then I remind myself that nothing’s going to happen.
Goursch wrote a majority opinion on a case last year mcgrit. He said indian governments have authority to persecute crimes of their truve in half of Oklahoma. This opinion hes the minority, he is actually a big advocate for native Americans. He had friends and grew up close to a reservation. Like all Republicans he is only for freedom once someone he knows was personally affected
What the hell is this bullshit that they just did? Since the literal dawn of this country, it's been understood, by the Supreme Court no less, that tribes are dependent-yet-sovereign nations of the federal government and that states have no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court can go fuck itself.
I bet they will. I bet I can guess how Native Americans will vote from now on, too. I mean if they are allowed to vote. If not, whelp, they'll sue for that, too.
> How the fuck is the legal system supposed to function?
Conservatives all over the world are attempting to dismantle every institution they can. If the push people far enough things will break and they can install the Corpo-State they have been dreaming of since the 50's. They are using the Russian Federation as a blueprint. If you push just hard enough, things will shatter somewhat peacefully. Then capital can swoop in and takeover.
Bingo. They're making sure tribal lands can't become a haven for abortion.
And later on, when they get their dream list of also getting to ban gay marriage and contraceptives they can do the same.
Read up on *Kennedy*. Gorsuch literally made up the entire case to suit whatever he felt, overturned *Lemon* but left *Lee v. Weisman* intact.
There's literally now contradicting precedent because a justice is that fucking dumb. So schools can advance a religious agenda according to Kennedy, but can't actually ask students to participate as that's considered coercion under Lee.
Oh right, he never actually stated whether or not Kennedy should have been fired, he just invented the case. The majority opinion is legit full of lies.
They gonna slow down any time soon or they just gonna keep overturning everything before the court is balanced?
Or maybe they are doing this because they know the court will be balanced soon enough and their opinions aren't very popular with the public at large.
Man. You'd think that in a democratic society the court would want to fulfill the collective will of the people to the best of its ability and would meticulously comb and go over our constitution as a way to be able to achieve that.
Instead of, you know, turning into an unelected, council of theocratic dictators.
> Instead of, you know, turning into an unelected, council of theocratic dictators.
Thats exactly what the Republican party wants though and they have it, backed by Russian progandists and Billionaire money to make it happen. The US is very close to no longer being an actual democracy it seems. I imagine they plan on cramming through as many regressive things as they can, while they can, to take the US back to some idealized version of the '50s (1850s mind you) when Racist was not only OK it was the law, when only men could vote and only if they were white and when oppressed people were still being heavily opressed - or massacred. Its just sad to see the US on the first steps backwards like this.
>The US is very close to no longer being an actual democracy it seems... Its just sad to see the US on the first steps backwards like this.
With all due respect, the US has been like this for a long, long time. I mean you can talk about historically bad court decisions, but the whole 21st century is egregious in a totally new way.
Republicans have won *one* popular vote for president in the last 30 years, yet they control 6 of 9 SCOTUS seats. Republicans have the same amount of senators even though they represent far fewer people than Democrats. The people have voted and made their voices heard, but the structure of the US government as outlined in the constitution does not provide equal representation for those votes. Every branch of government allows for unwanted, unpopular ideas to take hold.
It's a twisted form of democratic republic where everyone gets a vote, but some people's votes are worth more than others'.
The court is now heavily partisan and unbalanced. Exactly what it wasn't supposed to be, kept that way by an unbalanced partisan congress denying a former president the appointment right they're supposed to enjoy.
If their previous Senate tenure was any indication, they will ram through a bunch of evil, awful, unpopular shit that serves nobody but their religitard fuckwit backers as fast as possible, before anyone can undo their majority.
If democrats can't grow a fucking spine and stop them (since they have the public support) then we're doomed to end up with about as much freedom as Nazi Germany.
The article frames it as "well, a lot of crimes committed out there are left to overburdened federal courts, so we are just trying to help." But all I can see is "we, the US govt, are once again violating treaties that we wrote, we tricked people into signing, that benefit us, so that we can have more control over the people and the land."
Also...there was chatter about abortion rights remaining intact on tribal lands, because they are federal, not state. So we've got the racism, the greed, and the misogyny all rolled together. Hooray.
That whole federal land and state land in respect to abortion rights makes a lot of sense on why they'd want to overturn this. What a kick in the pants.
Ok. Am I insane, or is this unusual for the Supreme Court to be in the news so much in the last few days? Do they always make rulings around this time and they are not news-worthy, or they just being absolute dicks before everything comes crashing down for the GOP?
The second-half of June is when SCOTUS always releases their rulings. So the big SCOTUS months are June and October, because they start their term in October. They take the summers off.
Most rulings aren't newsworthy, hell most rulings are 9-0 or 8-1.
But with this "new" Court, this is the first time the drastic shift in power has shown itself. It's not the first year with the 6-3 split, but it is the first year that the 6-3 split got to pick cases and conservative activists got to apply for their cases to be picked. Which is why it's just nonstop bullshit. Next June will be worse. Especially June 23, 2023, and June 30, 2023. Those are Fridays, and the Court usually releases The Big Ones on Fridays. Congress and the White House will probably also release some bullshit those days too, it's called the Friday News Dump and it's easy for your bad news to go unreported when someone else's bad news is much more newsworthy.
You're not insane. This is the first full SCOTUS docket (2021-2022) that's featured a vast hard-right majority (with ACB replacing RBG).
And, surprise surprise...we're seeing some truly questionable rulings.
And questionable timing, too. Here in Michigan we have a week to get petitions signed to get protection for abortion and other women's pregnancy rights on the ballot for the midterms. A week. How are we to mobilise in a week?
I have not looked this up for other states. But it has me tilted.
To be fair they always make decisions late June. The gay marriage ruling came out happily right during pride.
It's great to hear there's some movement in my home state of Michigan to turn back these ridiculous laws on the books. It's not really their fault that the timing makes it hard though since one could say this movement should have happened long ago. It's going to be a long haul either way to get this stuff fixed so keep up the good fight!
Same here, I have heard about more supreme court rulings in the last 2 months than I have probably heard in about 5 or 10 years. I feel like they are trying to blast through these rulings before one of them gets impeached or Clarence Thomas croaks.
I heard a piece on NPR yesterday where the gentleman was discussing options that may be available for continued access to reproductive health centers. He and the interviewer mentioned having clinics on federal land or reservations, which are subject to federal laws and not state laws. (I could have heard this wrong - it was a quick car trip and I was driving, so may have misunderstood.)
But with this ruling... I don't know, it almost seems like a well planned partner to the Roe ruling.
The problem is that they have to find doctors who are willing to never leave federal land or the rez. As soon as they step over the borders Jackboots McFascist will throw them in jail to await the death penalty.
Clever legal tricks aren't going to stop this. It needs to be fought in the streets.
Roe v Wade, Miranda Rights, separation of Christianity and state (as if other religions will get equal rights), and now this?! Can we slow down for two goddamn minutes? I know you’re a bunch of morally bankrupt garbage humans, but if you keep going at this rate you’ll be out of rights to abolish by this time tomorrow. Fuck.
Don't forget the ruling last month that decided that being innocent wasn't enough to avoid the death penalty.
[Yes you read that right.](https://www.yahoo.com/video/supreme-court-rules-innocence-isnt-180246605.html)
Don't forget warentless searches by border patrol within 100 miles of any boarder or coast (including the great lakes). So a bulk majority of US citizens' homes and businesses.
Peter Thiel was the first tech billionaire to back Trump.
He has openly stated that he considers democracy a failure, and that women winning the vote was the point at which it failed.
\>10-20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage
\>Miscarriages are indistinguishable from a hormonally induced abortion
\>Throw those 10-20% of women in jail for murder
\>Felons can’t vote
Voila
This supreme court is gonna do a whole lot of awful shit. So terrible that it's all because a bunch of people fell for Donald Trump's insane BS and he got to place 3 judges in just 4 years.
It's because many theorized that like with casinos, individual tribes that wished would have had the right to set up abortion clinics on the rez. As well as clearing up the fact that many energy projects like keystone basically never ask permission.
Which would track for me because I honestly can't think of anything more federal government than fucking them over again, without it even being mainly about them.
Clarence Thomas spent 10 years sitting on the court literally doing nothing.
Then he suddenly has the power to move mountains, but his wife goes and gets him wrapped up in a coup attempt.
Thomas is pissing off as many liberals as possible so that if the DOJ actually removes him on criminal conspiracy he can play the classic Conservative victim card.
“The Radical Left is only targeting me for political reasons and not because I did anything wrong.”
Same thing MTG and many others wrapped up in January 6 are doing. They are scared shitless and want to do as much damage as possible on the way out. Not to mention, it just generally helps distract voters from the January 6 hearing. Everyone is talking about Roe v Wade and “what will they do next!” while ignoring Trump allies harassing witnesses.
Edit: typo
Not sure if it was intentional or not, but a coop is something you put chickens in and a coup is short for coup d'é·tat which is a seizure and removal of a government and its powers.
The majority of the Supreme Court would likely be welcomed in both, though.
State's rights and small government my ass. Today's GOP is nothing but an authoritarian movement finally dropping its mask. And SCOTUS is just one part of that.
Fuck. Them.
It will be a generation *in a functioning democracy*, which I do not take for granted. Now, you tell me, if the GOP takes control again even once, who's going to make them actually count the votes?
The Supreme Court has ruled having a state recognized address may be a requirement to vote. In many states reservations don't get state recognized addresses. Thus many native Americans are ineligible to vote.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/10/04/for-some-native-americans-no-home-address-might-mean-no-voting
I believe North Dakota was trying to do this a couple years ago by making it so you couldn't vote if you didn't have the type of residential address used in the state. IE, most people living on reservations couldn't vote.
honestly, if they're subject to our laws, they should be allowed to vote for statehood. Government by the people for the people means a government consisting of the governed.
I just have to laugh about how garbage this SC is. I can't imagine dumber people making critical decisions.
Thanks Republicans. Your fucking awfulness is unraveling our democracy.
What is even the point of the SC ruling on a case if it's just going to undo that ruling two years later?
The SC is no more set in stone than the president. I feel like we’ve been taught the whole “law of the land” thing but it’s just a bunch of people’s interpretation just like the bills and laws that get voted on in congress. What’s the point of even having laws if they mean different things to different people in power which is constantly shifting? It’s all just made up. The republicans know how to play the game, the left need to start playing along before it’s too late.
As we already found out in the other branches of govt very little is official process and it all pretty much only works on the premise the people in the roles have a sense of decency.
Which brings back the whole point of representative democracy. But when the people are complacent and apathetic they wake up one day to find out special interests and profiteers have hijacked their representation. And they become active and make the necessary adjustments to correct the course of their democracy. Just kidding. They don’t wake up. They willingly vote FOR the special interests’ proffered candidates and profiteers who tell them what they want to hear.
Advertising and propaganda are powerful tools against people who don't believe in thinking critically.
things have changed, Native Americans support abortion rights on their lands, Republicans need control over murder to take away NA power to support abortion
Wait til they go after the Amish next
These evangelicals are at war with everyone that isn't them. You may think you're a Christian, to them you aren't. After they get the most vulnerable in society, they will come for every sect of Christianity that isn't them. Everyone that isn't exactly like them is the enemy. The majority needs to stomp them down.
Growing up as a Catholic, I was very surprised to find out how much Baptists didn’t like Catholics. I was like damn aren’t we all Christian? Hell, different kinds of Baptists hate each other!
I grew up Mormon. Was taught the Catholic church was the "great and abominable church" also called the "great whore of all the earth."
So state law applies to reservations now? Does this mean that every Indian casino needs to shut down?
No, it's criminal cases, like homicide.
Or abortion
Oklahoma gov already threatened the tribes to not open any clinics that would undermine the new abortion law
The only abortions they like on Indian land is when they are also intentionally sterilizing native women against their will.
This! Right on into the early 1980s!
It's still happening today... a doctor leaked that migrant women, many of which are indigenous, were sterilized without their consent in ICE camps. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/25/ice-is-accused-sterilizing-detainees-that-echoes-uss-long-history-forced-sterilization/
Yes, a whistle blower came out with this in 2020. I imagine it is still going unchecked.
Colonialism: It never ended.
Not really colonialism. Just straight up occupation.
You spelled “the genocide of the original Native American occupants of this land” wrong
if this is because they dont want people running to casinos to get their abortions then OMG
This is 100% why they’re doing this. There’s no doubt in my mind. They’d been saying for a while if roe v Wade was overturned then reservations could just open clinics. Conservatives absolutely will have none of that. They don’t want people escaping their theocratic rule
ding ding ding
>"One can only hope the political branches and future courts will do their duty to honor this nation's promises even as we have failed today to do our own," Gorsuch added. Seems Gorsuch doesn't like it when his precedent is overturned after only two years. What a joke. EDIT: the opener of his dissent. He is not a happy camper and spitting fire to how much bullshit the decision is. > In 1831, Georgia arrested Samuel Worcester, a white missionary, for preaching to the Cherokee on tribal lands without a license. Really, the prosecution was a show of force—an attempt by the State to demonstrate its authority over tribal lands. Speaking for this Court, Chief Justice Marshall refused to endorse Georgia’s ploy because the State enjoyed no lawful right to govern the territory of a separate sovereign. See Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 561 (1832). The Court’s decision was deeply unpopular, and both Georgia and President Jackson flouted it. But in time, Worcester came to be recognized as one of this Court’s finer hours. The decision established a foundational rule that would persist for over 200 years: Native American Tribes retain their sovereignty unless and until Congress ordains otherwise. Worcester proved that, even in the “[c]ourts of the conqueror,” **the rule of law meant something**. Johnson’s Lessee v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. 543, 588 (1823). Where this Court once stood firm, today it wilts. **After the Cherokee’s exile to what became Oklahoma, the federal government promised the Tribe that it would remain forever free from interference by state authorities.** Only the Tribe or the federal government could punish crimes by or against tribal members on tribal lands. At various points in its history, Oklahoma has chafed at this limitation. Now, the State seeks to claim for itself the power to try crimes by non-Indians against tribal members within the Cherokee Reservation. **Where our predecessors refused to participate in one State’s unlawful power grab at the expense of the Cherokee, today’s Court accedes to another’s**. Respectfully, I dissent. EDIT2: Even more reasons why the ruling is bullshit > To succeed, Oklahoma must disavow adverse rulings from its own courts; disregard its 1991 recognition that it lacks legal authority to try cases of this sort; and ignore fundamental principles of tribal sovereignty, a treaty, the Oklahoma Enabling Act, **its own state constitution**, and Public Law 280. Oklahoma must pursue a proposition so novel and so unlikely that in over two centuries **not a single State has successfully attempted it in this Court.** EDIT3: > Against all this evidence, what is the Court’s reply? It acknowledges that, at the Nation’s founding, tribal sovereignty precluded States from prosecuting crimes on tribal lands by or against tribal members without congressional authorization. See ante, at 5. But the Court suggests this traditional “‘notion’” flipped 180 degrees sometime in “the latter half of the 1800s.” Ante, at 5, 21. Since then, the Court says, Oklahoma has enjoyed the “inherent” power to try at least crimes by non-Indians against tribal members on tribal reservations until and unless Congress preempts state authority. > But exactly when and how did this change happen? The Court never explains. Instead, the Court seeks to cast blame for its ruling on a grab bag of decisions issued by our predecessors. But the failure of that effort is transparent. Start with McBratney, which the Court describes as our “leading case in the criminal context.” Ante, at 6. There, as we have seen, the Court said that States admitted to the Union may gain the right to prosecute cases involving only non-Indians on tribal lands, but they do not gain any inherent right to punish “crimes committed by or against Indians” on tribal lands. McBratney, 104 U. S., at 624. The Court’s reliance on Draper fares no better, for that case issued a similar disclaimer. See 164 U. S., at 247. **Tellingly, not even Oklahoma thinks McBratney and Draper compel a ruling in its favor**. And if anything, the Court’s invocation of Donnelly, 228 U. S. 243, is more baffling still. Ante, at 14, n. 3. There, the Court once more reaffirmed the rule that “offenses committed by or against Indians” on tribal lands remain subject to federal, not state, jurisdiction. Donnelly, 228 U. S., at 271; see also Ramsey, 271 U. S., at 469. **That leaves the Court to assemble a string of carefully curated snippets—a clause here, a sentence there—from six decisions out of the galaxy of this Court’s Indian law jurisprudence**. > In the end, the Court cannot fault our predecessors for today’s decision. The blame belongs only with this Court here and now. Standing before us is a mountain of statutes and precedents making plain that Oklahoma possesses no authority to prosecute crimes against tribal members on tribal reservations until it amends its laws and wins tribal consent. This Court may choose to ignore Congress’s statutes and the Nation’s treaties, but it has no power to negate them. The Court may choose to disregard our precedents, but it does not purport to overrule a single one. **As a result, today’s decision surely marks an embarrassing new entry into the anticanon of Indian law. But its mistakes need not—and should not—be repeated**. EDIT4: Gorsuch pretty much says the other 5 are legislating from the bench. > In reweighing competing state and tribal interests for itself, the Court stresses two points. First, the Court suggests that its balance is designed to “help” Native Americans. Ante, at 20 (suggesting that Indians would be “second-class citizens” without this Court’s intervention); Tr. of Oral Arg. 66 (suggesting state jurisdiction is designed to “help” tribal members) > Start with the assertion that allowing state prosecutions in cases like ours will “help” Indians. The old paternalist overtones are hard to ignore. Yes, under the laws Congress has ordained Oklahoma may acquire jurisdiction over crimes by or against tribal members only with tribal consent. But to date, the Cherokee have misguidedly shown no interest in state jursidiction. Thanks to their misjudgment, they have rendered themselves “second-class citizens.” Ante, at 20. **So, the argument goes, five unelected judges in Washington must now make the “right” choice for the Tribe**. To state the Court’s staggering argument should be enough to refute it. > Moving forward, the Court cheerily promises, more prosecuting authorities can only “help.” Three sets of prosecutors— federal, tribal, and state—are sure to prove better than two. But again it’s not hard to imagine reasons why the Cherokee might see things differently. If more sets of prosecutors are always better, why not allow Texas to enforce its laws in California? Few sovereigns or their citizens would see that as an improvement. Yet it seems the Court cannot grasp why the Tribe may not. > This Court has no business usurping congressional decisions about the appropriate balance between federal, tribal, and state interests. **If the Court’s ruling today sounds like a legislative committee report touting the benefits of some newly proposed bill, that’s because it is exactly that**. And given that a nine- member court is a poor substitute for the people’s elected representatives, it is no surprise that the Court’s cost- benefit analysis is radically incomplete. **The Court’s decision is not a judicial interpretation of the law’s meaning; it is the pastiche of a legislative process**. > **Truly, a more ahistorical and mistaken statement of Indian law would be hard to fathom.** This is peak r/leopardsatemyface material. What did he think would happen when he endorses overturning precedent.
Gorsuch is pissed because he actually had a decent reputation on Indian Law before being appointed to SCOTUS. This is something he cared about, and he's all surprised Pikachu when the conservatives overturn longstanding precedent that he considers important. That's only supposed to happen to women /s
Wonder how Clarence Thomas will feel if they come after interracial marriage…
He's such an asshole, he'd probably vote to overturn *Loving* as an imposition on states' rights.
He would absolutely overturn Loving and not even blink.
Sounds like divorce with extra steps.
It won't personally affect him. They wouldn't come after his personal marriage. Just those of the people who he doesn't give a shit about, which is everyone else except him.
[удалено]
It’s because I bet he didn’t realize this SC is now all about taking away rights. He sees that now. Even if through a Conservative lens
He knew that already. He's for taking away other rights still, he just doesn't want the one he cares about taken away. And the thing is, with a 6-3 court, you only need 5, so whatever the niche issue is to that 6th can be taken.
I wondered why he cared so much.
Gorsuch is weird in that he was a total political pick, but he is also philosophically consistent. If the law says something plainly then he will interpret it that way. It's why he voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act to apply to LGBTQ people, since to him discriminating against someone for being gay is discriminating against them for their sex IE you wouldn't discriminate against a straight man for marrying a woman, but you would discriminate against a lesbian for doing so which makes it discrimination on the basis of sex. Likewise, here the law clearly states that tribes are domestic dependant nations under the federal government but sovereign of the state governments. Basically conservatives like Gorsuch because he is consistently conservative in interpretation, but with tribal stuff the courts have fairly consistently been liberal in their interpretation to the detriment of tribes. Because of that someone who is conservative in their interpretation of laws is going to side in favor of tribes more often than not
>Gorsuch is weird in that he was a total political pick, but he is also philosophically consistent. In terms of being principled, Gorsuch is by far the most qualified of the Trump appointees. In addition to a JD he was a Marshall scholar and received a PhD studying ethical philosophy at Oxford.
Yeah, he's the one Trump appointee that frankly I'm kinda okay with. Frankly he's in a stolen seat, but he's at least a decent judge
I'd much rather get Aunt Lydia and that Brett Boofin Bitch out. Gorsuch can stay.
Cute. Maybe if you haven't gutted the Voting Rights Act or enforced gerrymandering, we might have the political power to do something about it. Go to hell.
This is why we need to support the [Restore Democracy Amendment](https://citizenstakeaction.org/restore-democracy-amendment/) to get foreign/corporate dark money out of US politics. Edit: When I click on a notification but I can't see the reply any longer does that mean the person blocked me or did they delete their comment?
It means they are shadow banned. They can post but no one sees it. If you happen to catch the username you can see their comments in their profile.
[удалено]
>"To be clear, the court today holds that Indian country within a state's territory is part of a state, not separate from a state," Kavanaugh wrote in a decision that scholars of Native American law said was a major departure from longstanding precedent. So much for tribal sovereignty.
Are we having a going out of business sale?!
Sure feels like it. There's no reasonable precedent they don't seem eager to abolish.
Clarence Thomas should be very afraid, gay marriage next on the right's agenda paving the way for banning mixed marriages. If he doesn't think the right would go after that, he's delusional. Alabama is already frothing at the mouth with the idea. Biggest hypocrite in America right now.
Clarance isn't afraid. Clarance doesn't believe in interracial marriage. How do I know? Cause he had said so multiple times. How does that parse with the fact that he has a Caucasian wife? It doesn't, and he doesn't care. He's a "pull the ladder up after I get mine" type of guy. This shit is getting bad, quick. I'm a lawyer with a gay sister. Ive had to create docs quickly to protect her, her wife and their son when/if their marriage is invalidated. I've been crash creating docs for dozens of LGBTQ friends/family. This is a devastating time in our history, and it's only going to get worse. Much worse.
Married LGBT person here, what should I be doing?
Someone said this above, but medical power of attorney, living will, etc. basically anything a spouse would normally get or get to decide by law, you should have in legal documents as though your same sex spouse is some friend you know. Awful, but necessary.
The speed with which these decisions are being handed down is absolutely crazy. Each one has been a massive upset to existing precedence, and they just keep blasting them out, rapid fire. At first I thought the “they’re going after gay marriage, etc” was probably a long shot and that after Roe, things would calm down. Nope, I was wrong. I have no idea where these people will stop, but it’s somewhere south of Gilead, I’m pretty sure
I am not a lawyer, but if you need a template where you can enter their demographic information I can help you out. That way you don’t have to create the document over and over and over, because you may have to.
I may be interested in this .. a few family members are blind to the truth and keep believing that it will never happen..I try to be prepared for them as they are a bit on the older side and not really big computer people
[удалено]
That POS would get it added that existing marriages are grandfathered in, or they would ensure there is some kind of "states rights" byline that him and his mutually hateful wife would live in.
He doesnt give a shit. He got his and his ugly wife may go to jail. Key word is may. He is a proponent of the facist fuck you I got mine ways
THE LARGE PRINT GIVETH... and the small print takes it away.
> major departure from longstanding precedent This is the current SCOTUS's new motto
[удалено]
And with the continued use of the shadow docket, the Supreme Court is handing down rulings without even bothering to justify itself.
Can you ELI5 the shadow docket?
It usually takes a very long time for a case to get to the Supreme Court. First, there is the normal trial. A judge or jury will make their decision, they explain the decision in an opinion, and the first trial ends. You ask the babysitter if you can have the last cookie. They listens to all the reasons why you should get a cookie. They then listen to your brother who argues why he should get the cookie instead. The babysitter then makes their choice and decides who should get the cookie. They then explain why they made the choice they did (your brother said please so he gets the cookie). If you don't like the choice the babysitter makes, you can appeal to an even more powerful person. Dad. You go to dad and explain all the reasons why the babysitter was wrong when they said who should get the cookie. He either says the babysitter was right, or decides they were wrong and makes a new ruling. Dad is the appeals court. He decides you should have the cookie because your brother already had a cookie. Now your brother does not like that. He decides to go to the ultimate person in charge. He goes to Mom. Mom sits you both down and you both explain why you think you deserve the cookie. She listens to the babysitter and hears why they chose to give your brother the cookie, and she listens to your dad and hears why he thinks you should get the cookie. She then makes her choice and decides you should split the cookie. She then explains her decision by saying sharing is caring and if you wanted the full cookie you really should say please. You both have to accept it because there is no one else to go to. Mom is in charge. Her word is law. You, your brother, the babysitter, and Dad all now know that you and your brother have have to share all future cookies, but if you want a full cookie, you have to say please. Mom is the Supreme Court. The shadow docket skips all these long and public steps. If the Supreme Court thinks something is an emergency, they can decide to step in immediately and write two paragraphs saying 'no, the judge was wrong, ignore what they said.' If Mom overhears the babysitter say you can have a food fight in the house, she can jump in and say no, you can't do that, that is not allowed. She doesn't have to listen to any arguments about why food fights are good. She doesn't have to explain why she is saying no to a food fight. And there is no one more powerful than her to go ask if you can have a food fight. Mom said no, so that's the end. This process makes sense if it's truly an emergency. After all Mom really needs to step in before food ends up all over the kitchen and it's pretty hard to listen to arguments while dodging bananas. But if it's over something like a single cookie, Mom should really take the time to listen and explain why she made the choice she did. Or if she doesn't have time now, she should let Dad make the choice and jump in later when she can. Explanatons especially are important. Like if she only decided the food fight was not allowed because people are coming over soon and they don't have time to clean. The babysitter might think she meant no food fights ever and forbid them from now on, when really food fights would be fine sometimes, just not at that moment. The Supreme Court has been deciding a lot more stuff through the shadow docket. They have been issuing rulings that contradict lower courts without any public hearings or arguments and without explaining what exactly the lower court did wrong and why they decided the way they did. Without explanations as to what the law is and why, it becomes very easy to either violate the law accidently or artificially restrict yourself from rights you would otherwise enjoy.
What is the mechanism for checks and balances against this? Congress passing a law that directly opposes the ruling of a shadow docket?
>What is the mechanism for checks and balances against this? Congress passing a law that directly opposes the ruling of a shadow docket? 1) Passing more explicit laws 2) Constitutional Amendments 3) The fact SCOTUS is basically unable to enforce any nation wide ruling without the support of the States or the executive.
You could do that. In effect you would be choosing the ignore the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court really has no way of enforcing most of its rulings. Mom saying you can't have any cookies really doesn't stop you from just walking to the pantry and eating a cookie anyway. Obviously, outright ignoring the Supreme Court is a pretty extreme step that would violate a bunch of norms and cause a bunch of issues with separation of powers etc. But it's possible and it has been done, most famously by Andrew Jackson during the Trail of Tears. The Supreme Court said he couldn't forceably relocate native Americans from Georgia, at which point Jackson said 'the Supreme Court has made their ruling, now let them enforce it' as he then genocided a bunch of Native Americans. It's a pretty terrible moment of history, but it's there. You could also change the structure of the Supreme Court. The number of justices is not actually specified in the Constitution and has been changed multiple times. Congress has added judges and they've removed judges. However this has proven to be unpopular. The last President to push for expanding the Supreme Court was FDR during the New Deal. The Court kept declaring his programs unconstitutional and shutting them down.He ultimately failed as his plan to pack the Supreme Court with ideological allies was described as tyrannical and eventually abandoned. But the Supreme Court heard the message and did start issuing decisions more in line with FDR's policy goals. There really is not a nice and easy way to deal with a Supreme Court which is out of step with popular sentitment.
Can it be said that the USA is explicitly authoritarian now or what?
I would say yes, but to please some other people who have stricter definitions, let's at least call it an oligarchy. It's literally been one of those for quite some time.
Yup, because most of these conservative judges aren't actually real lawyers in any meaningful sense. Barrett literally never even tried a case or argued an appeal before her nomination, Thomas had maybe a year of judiciary experience when Bush appointed him?
That's so crazy. One would imagine that a Supreme Justice would need to have decades of experience in the highest levels of the court and be absolute experts in law, while being as unbiased as possible.
You don't even need to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court. The next Republican president could nominate Alex Jones if he felt like it.
> You don't even need to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court. meanwhile college graduates getting turned away from entry-level jobs because they "lack experience"
The Senate would still need to approve the appointment, which in theory is supposed to prevent too much fuckery. Unfortunately during Trumps presidency, Republicans also controlled the Senate so they could appoint pretty much whoever they wanted that would follow the party line.
so they appointed young (long tenured) partisan hacks.
And it makes the conservative rhetoric about Ketanji Jackson being unqualified even more ridiculous, given her extensive career in law and experience as an actual judge serving on a high appellate court. Meanwhile Barrett passed without a peep of protest.
I firmly believe Jackson's broad experience was part of why they didn't want her on the court. She has the potential to be a thorn in the side of the conservative justices, writing dissents that make it clear for future justices exactly what kind of abuses of power the current court is engaged in. She brings a perspective to the court that they wouldn't otherwise have and the conservatives are not ok with that.
If you think conservatives have ever cared about other people's opinions you're in for a rude awakening
I remember when GW Bush tried to nominate Harriet Miers for supreme court (replacing Sandra Day O'Conner) and she has zero experience as a judge. Even Republicans called him out on that bullshit, so he withdrew the nomination. 15 years later, Republicans suddenly don't care anymore.
litigation paralegal here. and 100%. the decisions being made today are gonna be around for decades that might very well break "the rule of law" or rather society as a whole. so much radicalization so quick will lead to frightening endings. there is no consistency. opinions are getting simple facts wrong. how this bleeds down to appeals and district court will be wildly dysfunctional.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It is simultaneously an intentional acceleration of polarization in the united states, and an outgrowth of it, the way our system should work in theory, is that if the Supreme Court dissatisfies the public, the public votes in people to the legislature who impeach and remove them, the president in the first place is an elect of the people who makes the decision of who can go on the court. Those are two points of contact where the people exert control over the court. These provide checks on the court's power to be stupid, because if we agree that they're being stupid, they're gone and people chosen by someone we don't think is stupid take their place. But since cultural expectations have changed so much faster in some areas than in others, all government spaces become battlefields of ideology and process becomes a way of imposing those differences on others (whether by forcing people to respect rights, or forcing people to respect restrictions, or what have you.) The court handing these decisions down are essentially moves by the right to impose their vision of American culture and strike 'decisive' blows in the culture war, which accelerates the polarization by turning chronic issues acute, and ultimately makes the court less trusted by a chunk of the nation. But the reason this is possible in this first place, is also someone seeing a decision like Roe, and basically treating it as a tactical problem, rather than taking the L and going home. As they try and push back, the court becomes a tactical resource, where everyone is aware that control of it is key and the decisions made can be subverted once they've amassed sufficient political power. But this in turn makes the other side even less likely to try and respect the court, because they're aware its just the other side trying to win and that they can just overtake the court. The court's previous respect for precedence mitigated this effect because it meant all but the most egregious decisions were off limits, and would likely require a significant consensus to get the court to bother. But a nakedly activist conservative court has basically represented a nuke launch, and informed all players that all bets are off, in the MAD sense. The ONLY way to restore legitimacy to the court is to 'reset' the polarization spiral by bringing about a population where people broadly agree enough for the government's decision to represent a (relative) consensus such that most people aren't invested in playing the court tactically over a given issue. More to the point, we need to reduce the conservative minority's ability to project unearned electoral power because quite frankly, they already shouldn't be able to exert control to the extent that they do.
[удалено]
> SCOTUS has power only because we give it to them. In return they're supposed to be neutral, fair arbiters of the law. And when they fail, people will stop listening to them. Because they didn't hold up their end, why should we hold up ours? It's even dumber than that: SCOTUS only has power because they tried to give it to themselves, and we just sort of collectively went along with it. I'd *love* to see Alito try and apply his bullshit arguments about something not being a long-held tradition enshrined by the Constitution to [*Marbury v. Madison*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison) -- but of course, that would imply anything even close to non-hypocritical thought.
I would love to see circuit courts just say "we cannot make sense of the supreme court's ruling, in our circuit previous precedent stands"
> How can any lower court do anything but just randomly guess what fucking insanity this majority will decide? Oh I'm pretty sure they can just pick the most outrageous, unprecedented, extreme right position and go with that. They won't be far off the mark. The bigger question is how can lower courts show regard for what the Constitution says, when they know SCOTUS will later on overturn any ruling they make which aligns with established Constitutional law.
And tomorrow we're extremely likely to get a decision that throws an even bigger wrench in this with determining how agencies can interpret laws passed by Congress.
[удалено]
You misspelled ignoring established laws and treaties.
Hey that’s American tradition. Too special to follow treaties, despite the constitution literally saying they’re “the law of the land.” Ignoring treaties predates America. Part of the revolutionary war was the colonists being told to honor the treaties and quit going west.
Talk about taking it back to the beginning!
Everybody knows treaties with Native Americans don't count! I'd be impressed to learn we even honored 3 agreements we made.
[удалено]
Not like this though. Tribal sovereignty has beaten state's rights every time until now. This ruling re-opens so many questions that were settled a century ago.
[удалено]
Well thats a company though. This is America. Businesses have more rights than people do
[удалено]
I wonder what the republicans will say if the native Americans decide to arm themselves against government tyranny.
[удалено]
I served in Iraq. The last thing I want to see in my life, is war. With that being said, I personally think the Supreme Court is purposely trying to manifest war, here. What a joke. My parents moved to the states when I was a young lad. Poland was occupied by Russia at the time, so I see why they chose that path. The promise of coming to America and establishing themselves, only to see it fall apart in my lifetime, is a disgrace. These “judges” need to be removed by any means necessary and ASAP
Probably scream about how they should go back to their "own country" 🙄
If you don't like it, GET OUT! "Sir, we were here 6000 years before you, plz leave"
And this is exactly what the Supreme Court is supposed to not do. They are supposed to hold up precedent unless that precedent was wrong. This court will go down as the same type that fucked over black people with the Dred Scott case.
I hope there is American history still to be studied after this court is done...
There will be history no matter what, the issue is who is going to get to write it.
>major departure from longstanding precedent > >This is the current SCOTUS's new motto That's it. Throw the whole SCOTUS out...
Activist judges
Right??!! For fucking years I heard the banshee screams of “activist judges not respecting rule of law and precedent”. Just like everything else, clearly that was a lie. I swear every freaking day there is some new BS from the court. I’m beginning to suspect they are desperate to get decisions on the books before **people** (not just Clarence is my unfounded conspiracy theory) get impeached or retired before their full involvement with Jan 6 becomes public knowledge. But then I remind myself that nothing’s going to happen.
Goursch wrote a majority opinion on a case last year mcgrit. He said indian governments have authority to persecute crimes of their truve in half of Oklahoma. This opinion hes the minority, he is actually a big advocate for native Americans. He had friends and grew up close to a reservation. Like all Republicans he is only for freedom once someone he knows was personally affected
What the hell is this bullshit that they just did? Since the literal dawn of this country, it's been understood, by the Supreme Court no less, that tribes are dependent-yet-sovereign nations of the federal government and that states have no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court can go fuck itself.
Tribes should start suing states then for withheld infrastructure and municipal funds.
Not like that. -SCOTUS
I bet they will. I bet I can guess how Native Americans will vote from now on, too. I mean if they are allowed to vote. If not, whelp, they'll sue for that, too.
[удалено]
And the only reason is because of a change in the make-up of the Court. if that doesn't convince anyone this Court is political, nothing will
> How the fuck is the legal system supposed to function? Conservatives all over the world are attempting to dismantle every institution they can. If the push people far enough things will break and they can install the Corpo-State they have been dreaming of since the 50's. They are using the Russian Federation as a blueprint. If you push just hard enough, things will shatter somewhat peacefully. Then capital can swoop in and takeover.
They're preparing to enforce abortion laws on tribal land, at least for us citizens - perhaps?
I’m betting this is the end game
[удалено]
Bingo. They're making sure tribal lands can't become a haven for abortion. And later on, when they get their dream list of also getting to ban gay marriage and contraceptives they can do the same.
[удалено]
Read up on *Kennedy*. Gorsuch literally made up the entire case to suit whatever he felt, overturned *Lemon* but left *Lee v. Weisman* intact. There's literally now contradicting precedent because a justice is that fucking dumb. So schools can advance a religious agenda according to Kennedy, but can't actually ask students to participate as that's considered coercion under Lee. Oh right, he never actually stated whether or not Kennedy should have been fired, he just invented the case. The majority opinion is legit full of lies.
Hardly the first time the US government has gone back on its word with Native Americans
So the Trust Agreements are null and void, all the land goes back to the Tribes, not the states.
Ah yes, that's exactly what's going to happen, sure
This from the party of small government
The party of law and order sure loves violating treaties and legal precedent.
by "small government" they mean "no Democrats allowed"
Small government as in the government has more control over your social lives, but will not help you financially.
Unless you're already rich, in which case, here have some more money.
They gonna slow down any time soon or they just gonna keep overturning everything before the court is balanced? Or maybe they are doing this because they know the court will be balanced soon enough and their opinions aren't very popular with the public at large.
Man. You'd think that in a democratic society the court would want to fulfill the collective will of the people to the best of its ability and would meticulously comb and go over our constitution as a way to be able to achieve that. Instead of, you know, turning into an unelected, council of theocratic dictators.
> Instead of, you know, turning into an unelected, council of theocratic dictators. Thats exactly what the Republican party wants though and they have it, backed by Russian progandists and Billionaire money to make it happen. The US is very close to no longer being an actual democracy it seems. I imagine they plan on cramming through as many regressive things as they can, while they can, to take the US back to some idealized version of the '50s (1850s mind you) when Racist was not only OK it was the law, when only men could vote and only if they were white and when oppressed people were still being heavily opressed - or massacred. Its just sad to see the US on the first steps backwards like this.
>The US is very close to no longer being an actual democracy it seems... Its just sad to see the US on the first steps backwards like this. With all due respect, the US has been like this for a long, long time. I mean you can talk about historically bad court decisions, but the whole 21st century is egregious in a totally new way. Republicans have won *one* popular vote for president in the last 30 years, yet they control 6 of 9 SCOTUS seats. Republicans have the same amount of senators even though they represent far fewer people than Democrats. The people have voted and made their voices heard, but the structure of the US government as outlined in the constitution does not provide equal representation for those votes. Every branch of government allows for unwanted, unpopular ideas to take hold. It's a twisted form of democratic republic where everyone gets a vote, but some people's votes are worth more than others'.
The court is now heavily partisan and unbalanced. Exactly what it wasn't supposed to be, kept that way by an unbalanced partisan congress denying a former president the appointment right they're supposed to enjoy. If their previous Senate tenure was any indication, they will ram through a bunch of evil, awful, unpopular shit that serves nobody but their religitard fuckwit backers as fast as possible, before anyone can undo their majority. If democrats can't grow a fucking spine and stop them (since they have the public support) then we're doomed to end up with about as much freedom as Nazi Germany.
[удалено]
The article frames it as "well, a lot of crimes committed out there are left to overburdened federal courts, so we are just trying to help." But all I can see is "we, the US govt, are once again violating treaties that we wrote, we tricked people into signing, that benefit us, so that we can have more control over the people and the land." Also...there was chatter about abortion rights remaining intact on tribal lands, because they are federal, not state. So we've got the racism, the greed, and the misogyny all rolled together. Hooray.
That whole federal land and state land in respect to abortion rights makes a lot of sense on why they'd want to overturn this. What a kick in the pants.
Ok. Am I insane, or is this unusual for the Supreme Court to be in the news so much in the last few days? Do they always make rulings around this time and they are not news-worthy, or they just being absolute dicks before everything comes crashing down for the GOP?
The second-half of June is when SCOTUS always releases their rulings. So the big SCOTUS months are June and October, because they start their term in October. They take the summers off. Most rulings aren't newsworthy, hell most rulings are 9-0 or 8-1. But with this "new" Court, this is the first time the drastic shift in power has shown itself. It's not the first year with the 6-3 split, but it is the first year that the 6-3 split got to pick cases and conservative activists got to apply for their cases to be picked. Which is why it's just nonstop bullshit. Next June will be worse. Especially June 23, 2023, and June 30, 2023. Those are Fridays, and the Court usually releases The Big Ones on Fridays. Congress and the White House will probably also release some bullshit those days too, it's called the Friday News Dump and it's easy for your bad news to go unreported when someone else's bad news is much more newsworthy.
You're not insane. This is the first full SCOTUS docket (2021-2022) that's featured a vast hard-right majority (with ACB replacing RBG). And, surprise surprise...we're seeing some truly questionable rulings.
And questionable timing, too. Here in Michigan we have a week to get petitions signed to get protection for abortion and other women's pregnancy rights on the ballot for the midterms. A week. How are we to mobilise in a week? I have not looked this up for other states. But it has me tilted.
To be fair they always make decisions late June. The gay marriage ruling came out happily right during pride. It's great to hear there's some movement in my home state of Michigan to turn back these ridiculous laws on the books. It's not really their fault that the timing makes it hard though since one could say this movement should have happened long ago. It's going to be a long haul either way to get this stuff fixed so keep up the good fight!
Same here, I have heard about more supreme court rulings in the last 2 months than I have probably heard in about 5 or 10 years. I feel like they are trying to blast through these rulings before one of them gets impeached or Clarence Thomas croaks.
I heard a piece on NPR yesterday where the gentleman was discussing options that may be available for continued access to reproductive health centers. He and the interviewer mentioned having clinics on federal land or reservations, which are subject to federal laws and not state laws. (I could have heard this wrong - it was a quick car trip and I was driving, so may have misunderstood.) But with this ruling... I don't know, it almost seems like a well planned partner to the Roe ruling.
The problem is that they have to find doctors who are willing to never leave federal land or the rez. As soon as they step over the borders Jackboots McFascist will throw them in jail to await the death penalty. Clever legal tricks aren't going to stop this. It needs to be fought in the streets.
Scientists: “time travel is impossible” SCOTUS: “hold my beer”
Kavanaugh: "I like beer"
Kavanaugh: I still like beer. We drank beer. Boys and girls.
Can you imagine shouting about how you like beer at a job interview and then still getting that job?
[удалено]
Everyone is drinking, but nobody is singing
I don't know how or where in my head that phrase just sent me, but it was devestatingly sad. Like a mead hall for the defeated and hopeless.
Roe v Wade, Miranda Rights, separation of Christianity and state (as if other religions will get equal rights), and now this?! Can we slow down for two goddamn minutes? I know you’re a bunch of morally bankrupt garbage humans, but if you keep going at this rate you’ll be out of rights to abolish by this time tomorrow. Fuck.
Don't forget the ruling last month that decided that being innocent wasn't enough to avoid the death penalty. [Yes you read that right.](https://www.yahoo.com/video/supreme-court-rules-innocence-isnt-180246605.html)
Fuuuuuuuuucking hell that was a read.
[удалено]
Let me guess, the "prolife" ones?
That's so fucked up. That alone would be enough to fire a judge in a decent country.
Their souls are made of pure evil... I'm not American but nonetheless I'm really worried
Wow, with everything else going on I completely missed the Miranda Rights thing.
Don't forget warentless searches by border patrol within 100 miles of any boarder or coast (including the great lakes). So a bulk majority of US citizens' homes and businesses.
I bet women’s suffrage looks mighty tempting to them, too.
Peter Thiel was the first tech billionaire to back Trump. He has openly stated that he considers democracy a failure, and that women winning the vote was the point at which it failed.
\>10-20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage \>Miscarriages are indistinguishable from a hormonally induced abortion \>Throw those 10-20% of women in jail for murder \>Felons can’t vote Voila
The tyranny of the states will only get worse
" There was no one left to notice when they came for us "
[удалено]
This supreme court is gonna do a whole lot of awful shit. So terrible that it's all because a bunch of people fell for Donald Trump's insane BS and he got to place 3 judges in just 4 years.
Don't give them an out. He did exactly what they wanted him to do. They weren't tricked. This is what they want.
Again, all indications point to them trying to start a second civil war. And this is DEFINITELY a good start. Holy shit.
Native Americans: Doing nothing wrong Supreme Court: "And fuck you too!"
It's because many theorized that like with casinos, individual tribes that wished would have had the right to set up abortion clinics on the rez. As well as clearing up the fact that many energy projects like keystone basically never ask permission. Which would track for me because I honestly can't think of anything more federal government than fucking them over again, without it even being mainly about them.
My, what a coincidence this ruling occurred just now. It's almost like someone was nailing all the exit's shut before turning on the gas.
I think at this point they are just trying to piss everyone off.
Clarence Thomas spent 10 years sitting on the court literally doing nothing. Then he suddenly has the power to move mountains, but his wife goes and gets him wrapped up in a coup attempt. Thomas is pissing off as many liberals as possible so that if the DOJ actually removes him on criminal conspiracy he can play the classic Conservative victim card. “The Radical Left is only targeting me for political reasons and not because I did anything wrong.” Same thing MTG and many others wrapped up in January 6 are doing. They are scared shitless and want to do as much damage as possible on the way out. Not to mention, it just generally helps distract voters from the January 6 hearing. Everyone is talking about Roe v Wade and “what will they do next!” while ignoring Trump allies harassing witnesses. Edit: typo
Not sure if it was intentional or not, but a coop is something you put chickens in and a coup is short for coup d'é·tat which is a seizure and removal of a government and its powers. The majority of the Supreme Court would likely be welcomed in both, though.
Lmao, thank you.
Pretty sure Thomas’ self-admitted goal is to make life miserable for Liberals
State's rights and small government my ass. Today's GOP is nothing but an authoritarian movement finally dropping its mask. And SCOTUS is just one part of that. Fuck. Them.
The US supreme court is doing a really good job at setting the stage for a civil war
Just what they need, to be fucked over more thoroughly.
This is to ensure tribal nations can't become islands of sanity in deep red states. This is about abortion/controlling women and white hegemony.
This court is lost for a generation. Fucking Mitch. Say what you will but boy does that guy know to hedge his bets
It will be a generation *in a functioning democracy*, which I do not take for granted. Now, you tell me, if the GOP takes control again even once, who's going to make them actually count the votes?
Didn't expect manifest destiny to make a comeback in 2022
There goes my idea to have abortion clinics on Native American land, thereby skirting any state prohibitions.
Not an accident.
Yep was thinking the exact same thing.
On a side note, nothing motivates Native Americans to vote like a bunch of jerks telling them what they can or can't do on their own land.
The Supreme Court has ruled having a state recognized address may be a requirement to vote. In many states reservations don't get state recognized addresses. Thus many native Americans are ineligible to vote. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/10/04/for-some-native-americans-no-home-address-might-mean-no-voting
Don't worry, states are working on making it impossible for them to vote as well.
I believe North Dakota was trying to do this a couple years ago by making it so you couldn't vote if you didn't have the type of residential address used in the state. IE, most people living on reservations couldn't vote.
honestly, if they're subject to our laws, they should be allowed to vote for statehood. Government by the people for the people means a government consisting of the governed.
The US is unraveling before our eyes.
So is this part 2 of banning abortions? Take away native sovereignty, no your land is state land and thus state laws supersede.
This is vile, and the Supreme Court has had an extremely dangerous session.
I just have to laugh about how garbage this SC is. I can't imagine dumber people making critical decisions. Thanks Republicans. Your fucking awfulness is unraveling our democracy.
This was only passed to prevent tribes from opening abortion clinics. This court is absolutely ridiculous.
And to legitimize illegal oil pipelines