volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@SonofaGeorge

The SCOTUS was intentionally designed not to be a bastion of democracy. That's why it was given no enforcement power--it could only issue opinions.

From its small, nonrepresentative membership through lifetime appointments, SCOTUS is not and never has been the bastion of democracy.

That role really goes to the people we elect to Congress.
@lauren

@steter what exactly makes you think Trump understands anything these days?

In every appearance he makes it sounds like his mind is just gone.

@LevZadov

Correct. A century of segregation doesn't count because in modern times that has been relegated to the dust heap of history.

That's how constitutional interpretation works.

If there is general consensus today, then there is a lack of controversy today, and that counts for a whole lot in the way these questions are addressed.

This is nothing new, this has been the norm for a long time.

@msm well that's not going to work.

Particularly when it comes to people engaging in violence, they aren't necessarily going to fit into any normal, mainstream notions of liberal vs conservative.

They will naturally have some... transcendent ideas.

@mason

No, this is how law is supposed to work. This is longstanding practice, with legal procedures built around it.

The idea is that employees don't own their jobs, so they're not entitled to their jobs back. That's not something judges can give back to them since they were never theirs.

They can get back pay that they were entitled to, and there can be negative repercussions for a President, but this is otherwise how law is supposed to work.

@ferrix

In this context? Same as ever: decide whether to appropriate and give permission to spend. But the spending itself is an executive branch function.

The function of Congress it to authorize. The function of the President is to decide whether to act on the authorization.

This is critical to separation of powers in the design of the US government. It's important, as it avoids conflicts of interests should Congress be able to demand executive function.

And if funding runs out this week, that function of Congress will be front and center.

@stevevladeck.bsky.social @kenwhite.bsky.social

@iuculano

SCOTUS is ALWAYS considering tearing up legal precedents. That's absolutely nothing new. Precedents rise and fall all the time.

And it's right for that to happen as errors of the past are fixed.

In this case, Humphrey’s Executor has been chipped away at for years. These stories about it being so old miss that it's been flailing and revised over that time. It's not the solid foundation that some are portraying it as.

@PaulWermer

No, in the US system the SCOTUS only issues opinions. By design it can't actually stop anyone. Such powers were granted to the other branches, to limit the power of the Court.

It's really the folks that we elect to Congress that have primary power to stop a president who's misbehaving.

So we need to stop reelecting crappy congresspeople, particularly the ones that point fingers at others instead of doing their own jobs.

@Nonilex

@LevZadov one doesn't have to wonder very far.

Loving v. Virginia would pass tests that Thomas has espoused, from its lack of controversy through basis in text and tradition.

That's in stark contrast to Humphrey’s Executor, as the excerpt above shows.

That Humphrey's has been chipped away at shows that the "stability in the law" isn't always protected by blind adherence to precedent.

@Martin

You're right, you don't understand it :)

But I can help.
Thomas is just referring to a longstanding part of constitutional interpretation that says to look at different sources including text, intention, and tradition, with tradition being one, but only one, of the factors.

Thomas was saying that the precedent was never valid since it wasn't founded on preexisting tradition. The precedent was therefore always arbitrary, a previous court doing whatever the fuck they want.

To be clear: this isn't some post-hoc rationalization. It's a longstanding and common approach to the task.

@kevinbowen

But this court starts with factual error, at least by the excerpt. Contrary to what it said, no state is being forced to send funds to religious institutions. The premise is wrong.

What the Supreme Court said is that governments must be blind to religion. Separation of church and state prevents states from penalizing churches, from disfavoring people on the grounds of their religious beliefs.

The SCOTUS position is really one that's pretty common sensical.

@maeve_bkk

The Guardian article gets the record wrong right off the bat, and it just goes downhill from there into really outlandish sensationalism.

NO, the Supreme Court didn't rule that presidents are above the law. The ruling said the exact opposite, refusing to grant Trump his claim of unlimited exemption and instead buttressing the system through which he may be prosecuted.

So no, ACB didn't join the majority in creating a constitutional crisis. It takes similar misinformation about the Court to promote that sort of claim about what's going on here.

@maeve_bkk

The Guardian article gets the record wrong right off the bat, and it just goes downhill from there into really outlandish sensationalism.

NO, the Supreme Court didn't rule that presidents are above the law. The ruling said the exact opposite, refusing to grant Trump his claim of unlimited exemption and instead buttressing the system through which he may be prosecuted.

So no, ACB didn't join the majority in creating a constitutional crisis. It takes similar misinformation about the Court to promote that sort of claim about what's going on here.

@jonchevreau.bsky.social

Sometimes it's not a story about fearing dangerous comedians but about them simply kind of sucking.

It's important to realize the difference between the two.

@carolpeters honestly, at this point we need to replace the whole lot of them.

They've really all let us down.

@normative.bsky.social what? He got in hot water talking about the killer.

@CharlieMcHenry Just because Jackson so often doesn't seem to know how the Court or law works doesn't mean it's Calvinball.

She's often pretty out to lunch as jurists around her sigh and stop during hearings to explain to her how judicial branch procedures work.

There are fixed rules. Jackson just over and over says things showing that she doesn't seem to know basic rules of the judicial branch.

@drrjv

Obviously the complaints being brought under ideologically different administrations will have different legal, not political, leanings.

It only makes sense that one batch will appeal to a justice more than the other on grounds that are purely legal.

The sets of cases being brought before Kavanaugh are very different, not directly comparable.