@NPR
I think you mean, "It's the second time the #SCOTUS avoids addressing First Amendment rights under attack by vague #Republican anti-LGBTQ+ laws "
So, attacks on charity drag shows, sorry can't be bothered. But, overturning decades of established reproductive or regulatory rights, yes, let's jump on that!
#SCOTUSIsCorrupt
@TCatInReality Well right, because that's how the US judicial system is set up.
It's not the legislative branch. The place to handle that sort of concern is in the other branch of government.
This is the judicial branch where the system is set up to take time, let lower courts debate and explore issues before overtime raising them to the upper court.
It is absolutely reasonable, given the design of the US system, that the Supreme Court would be much more interested in taking on established rights, as that sits roll in the government.
@TCatInReality that's just not accurate, and here's a link to the plaintiff's plea so you can read for yourself.
Not only did the lower courts agree to hear the case, but they were *still in the process of hearing* the case.
So the Supreme Court merely said they'd let the normal process work through, as is normal and constitutional.
That there wasn't a single dissent registered against the SCOTUS decision is a good indication that many of the sensational stories about this are false.
@volkris
I stand corrected on the lower courts taking the case, but refusing a stay. And I accept your point on the #SCOTUS letting this work its way through lower courts.
But my point still stands about the #SCOTUS refusing to defend 1st Amendment rights, in this case by allowing prior restraint. The ask was a writ of injunction, to allow the drag show while the courts decide.
They chose to allow suppression to stand.
@TCatInReality the other critical thing to keep in mind is that it is adamantly NOT the job of the Supreme Court to defend the 1st amendment or any other amendment.
That's more a function of the other branches.
The Supreme Court was granted limited judicial power, not executive power, in deciding cases coming before it, a grant of jurisdiction for it to use as it will, so long as it doesn't cross the Constitution.
For practical reasons at times courts will skip unnecessary steps in the judicial process, but in this case the petitioners didn't make the case that the steps they were looking to skip were so unnecessary.
What the Court did, in declining to shirt circuit lower courts is exactly how it's supposed to work, as per the Constitution.
Had they done anything different, they would have been breaking their constitutional responsibilities.
@TCatInReality it's simply not true that the SCOTUS has complete discretion to grand injunctions.
If you read through rulings you'll see the courts laying that out very strictly, showing that they have serious limitations on granting injunctions, as they interfere with very important legal processes.
The Supreme Court is only granted limited authority in the US system. It cannot legally apply whatever discretion it would like, as it was not granted such unlimited authority.
When you read court rulings, that point is emphasized throughout. It is fundamental to the way the US judicial branch functions.
@volkris
Why are you still trying to explain this?
The SCOTUS has complete discretion (within precedent, and even then) to grant an injunction. The fact they did not means it was not justified. If they had, it would mean it was justified and acceptable procedurally.
They made a choice. One they are empowered to make. We'll never know the inner dialog.
It's my opinion, they made a bad choice - and factually, they have now allowed prior restraint.
Thanks for your input. Have a nice day