Will Biden pack the court?

[K1052]

If blue states want revenge they can flood the zone with similar laws targeting a raft of republican issues. Most of them would get knocked down or put on hold but we can create total legal pandemonium because the conservatives (except Roberts) on the court are feebly pretending to be confused to get what they want.

The law itself is terrible and obviously unconstitutional but they want to act like it might not be in order to ban abortion at any cost. Also the party is now fully exposed haven gotten what they want but that survey after survey shows a large majority of the country doesn't.

 

[fskimospy]

And in a 5-4 decision SCOTUS has thrown its own standard procedure out the window and refused a stay. So as of now the Texas law is in effect.

New York or California should pass an identical law, but for guns, just so we can see SCOTUS fall over itself rushing to issue an emergency injunction.

This is also why we should pack the court. If they want to act like a political body they get treated like one.

 

[fskimospy]

If blue states want revenge they can flood the zone with similar laws targeting a raft of republican issues. Most of them would get knocked down or put on hold but we can create total legal pandemonium because the conservatives (except Roberts) on the court are feebly pretending to be confused to get what they want.

The law itself is terrible and obviously unconstitutional but they want to act like it might not be in order to ban abortion at any cost. Also the party is now fully exposed haven gotten what they want but that survey after survey shows a large majority of the country doesn't.

It’s darkly funny that in order to make the Supreme Court stop destroying the country’s legal system the best answer is to pass a huge amount of unconstitutional laws about topics they don’t like.

 

[K1052]

It’s darkly funny that in order to make the Supreme Court stop destroying the country’s legal system the best answer is to pass a huge amount of unconstitutional laws about topics they don’t like.

This is where we're at and there is simply no other choice.

Also it should be resoundingly clear to Breyer at this point that the court is simply another political body so he should ensure his replacement is to his liking. Let's have a SCOTUS appointment fight now where the Republicans have no choice but to argue that we should not make abortion legal again.

 

[HomerJS]

If blue states want revenge they can flood the zone with similar laws targeting a raft of republican issues. Most of them would get knocked down or put on hold but we can create total legal pandemonium because the conservatives (except Roberts) on the court are feebly pretending to be confused to get what they want.

The law itself is terrible and obviously unconstitutional but they want to act like it might not be in order to ban abortion at any cost. Also the party is now fully exposed haven gotten what they want but that survey after survey shows a large majority of the country doesn't.

How about passing laws where CRT must be taught. That will get their panties in a knot.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

New York or California should pass an identical law, but for guns, just so we can see SCOTUS fall over itself rushing to issue an emergency injunction.

There are a couple of cases where victims are suing gun manufacturers (Sandy Hook for one)

Make it so anybody, even witnesses to gun crimes can sue them.

 

[SMOGZINN]

There are a couple of cases where victims are suing gun manufacturers (Sandy Hook for one)

Make it so anybody, even witnesses to gun crimes can sue them.

The Texas anti-woman law does away the the concept of injured party altogether. You don't have to be a witness or in any way involved to sue. It was specifically designed to allow anti-choice activist groups to be able to sue anyone they see fit over abortion for any reason they choose. It really does away the the entire concept of standing in a lawsuit.

I really think the proper protest for this would be for some group of people to just pick up a phonebook and file a lawsuit against everyone in Texas individually. Flood the courts. Based on this law they would have the ability to do so, and the courts would have to hear them.

 

[Cogman]

This 5-4 stay is, frankly, the reason why dems need, now more than ever, to pack the court.

I expected roe to be overturned, I did not expect it to happen as part of the shadow docket.

The supreme court has lost it's legitimacy. They are not practicing justice or the law, they are practicing politics. They took a CLEARLY unconstitutional law by prior precedent and let it go into effect for no other reason than political ideology. Even after they had previously struck down previous 6 week abortion bans just 2 years ago!

I don't care if this becomes a war between them and republicans. Frankly, the current situation is completely unworkable. This court CANNOT stand as is.

 

[pmv]

If blue states want revenge they can flood the zone with similar laws targeting a raft of republican issues. Most of them would get knocked down or put on hold but we can create total legal pandemonium because the conservatives (except Roberts) on the court are feebly pretending to be confused to get what they want.

The law itself is terrible and obviously unconstitutional but they want to act like it might not be in order to ban abortion at any cost. Also the party is now fully exposed haven gotten what they want but that survey after survey shows a large majority of the country doesn't.

Be interesting to see which laws the Supremes choose to block and which they let pass. As I said before, it would be fun if some of those "vigilatnte" laws could specifically target the Supreme Court justices themselves. That might cause them to change their minds about such laws being too complicated to deal with immediately.

 

[fskimospy]

Be interesting to see which laws the Supremes choose to block and which they let pass. As I said before, it would be fun if some of those "vigilatnte" laws could specifically target the Supreme Court justices themselves. That might cause them to change their minds about such laws being too complicated to deal with immediately.

I agree that Democratic states should flood the zone with these laws, although it would be hard to target the justices personally if they reside in DC.

Flooding the zone would force the court to expose its own partisan nature and will work to delegitimize it. It’s sad that this has to be done but the court has nothing to blame but itself. They could have tried to be neutral arbiters instead.

 

[cytg111]

So? Get women out of Texas!

Are you unhappy with your local GQPstapo? Apply here for a free of charge relocation plan.

 

[Paratus]

So? Get women out of Texas!

Are you unhappy with your local GQPstapo? Apply here for a free of charge relocation plan.

Texas? Please use our official name: Howdy Arabia.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Will it go anywhere??

Senate panel to probe Supreme Court 'shadow docket' in Texas abortion case - UPI.com

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin announced Friday that the judiciary committee will hold a hearing to review the Supreme Court's decision to allow Texas' restrictive abortion ban to stand.

www.upi.com

 

[pmv]

I don't get why the US got rid of a monarch just in order to create a benchful of monarchs in their place. Either you trust "the people" or you don't.

Packing should just be a precursor to drastically reforming it, removing some of its power. This seems a reasonable way to go, to me.

The Supreme Court is too powerful and anti-democratic. Here’s how we can scale back its influence.

University of Chicago professor Ryan Doerfler explains how to restrain “judicial review,” the Court’s power to strike down laws.

www.vox.com

 

[pmv]

The trouble with the US is that it gives distrust of elites a bad name. Generally my view is the great mass of ordinary people have more sense than the credentialed professional classes. But the US seems to be an exception, in that it's somehow managed to produce a mass of ordinary decent people who are slightly deranged.
Hence US politics seems to come down to technocrats fighting with populists, with plutocrats backing both sides.

 

[K1052]

The trouble with the US is that it gives distrust of elites a bad name. Generally my view is the great mass of ordinary people have more sense than the credentialed professional classes. But the US seems to be an exception, in that it's somehow managed to produce a mass of ordinary decent people who are slightly deranged.
Hence US politics seems to come down to technocrats fighting with populists, with plutocrats backing both sides.

Conservatives are prone to going down the "US is not a direct democracy" rabbit hole even all the way down to the state level because their minority control is conspicuously at conflict with how we chose to see ourselves. They see the structural advantages that benefit them as a natural right because their ethos is superior or so they've judged. To a significant extent the press helps them perpetuate this concept by airing their claims often without interrogating them at all as if they are simply facts. Public opinions on policy are totally irrelevant as long as this perception and sufficient polarization can be maintained to keep them in power.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't get why the US got rid of a monarch just in order to create a benchful of monarchs in their place. Either you trust "the people" or you don't.

Packing should just be a precursor to drastically reforming it, removing some of its power. This seems a reasonable way to go, to me.

The Supreme Court is too powerful and anti-democratic. Here’s how we can scale back its influence.

University of Chicago professor Ryan Doerfler explains how to restrain “judicial review,” the Court’s power to strike down laws.

www.vox.com

Packing the court IS removing some of its power. It’s the check on the judiciary designed into the constitution. Basically, it’s saying if the judiciary gets too far out of line then the other branches will fill it with people who won’t.

 

[hal2kilo]

Packing the court IS removing some of its power. It’s the check on the judiciary designed into the constitution. Basically, it’s saying if the judiciary gets too far out of line then the other branches will fill it with people who won’t.

It would also help if the Congress did it's job, and not dodge difficult legislation because they might not get reelected. Let the SCOTUS do our work for us, then we can point at the SCOTUS as being the problem.
The court is being forced into decisions, that should have been made by legislation. That's why it's evolved into just another group of politicians in robes.

 

[Jaskalas]

The court is being forced into decisions, that should have been made by legislation. That's why it's evolved into just another group of politicians in robes.

Well, they are human.... How could they live in this modern age and escape politics? It is everywhere. Our communications are saturated with it. Our phones beep with political updates 24/7. It worms its way deep into our brains like an infection. The court cannot help but be political in this environment.

Black robed elites, learned men removed from the national discourse and only concerned with the integrity of the law... this is simply a fantasy. SCOTUS, as it was conceived, is a lie. It does not exist as nor function as such. It is simply 9 people wielding powers of the Constitution above both Congress and the President.

 

[hal2kilo]

Can you spell hypocrisy? She really went there, at a McConnell sponsored event.

Barrett's remarks about judges not being "partisan hacks" were "straight-up trolling": legal analyst | Salon.com

 

[Paratus]

If blue states want revenge they can flood the zone with similar laws targeting a raft of republican issues. Most of them would get knocked down or put on hold but we can create total legal pandemonium because the conservatives (except Roberts) on the court are feebly pretending to be confused to get what they want.

The law itself is terrible and obviously unconstitutional but they want to act like it might not be in order to ban abortion at any cost. Also the party is now fully exposed haven gotten what they want but that survey after survey shows a large majority of the country doesn't.

It occurred to me the other day that the best "blue state passes TX style vigilante lawsuit law" would be to target tax fraud. Let the common man sue anyone who aids or abets tax fraud for a bounty that's a portion of the missing taxes. The bigger the fraud the higher the bounty.

Should tie up the rich, the lobbyists, and the firms that help them hide their money for years.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

My plan outlined above (13 rotating ) would solve most of these issues.

 

[IronWing]

It occurred to me the other day that the best "blue state passes TX style vigilante lawsuit law" would be to target tax fraud. Let the common man sue anyone who aids or abets tax fraud for a bounty that's a portion of the missing taxes. The bigger the fraud the higher the bounty.

Should tie up the rich, the lobbyists, and the firms that help them hide their money for years.

At some point the wealthy fascists who bankroll the Republican Party need to pay for the stupidity that comes from laying down with the culture war pigs.

 

[woolfe9998]

It occurred to me the other day that the best "blue state passes TX style vigilante lawsuit law" would be to target tax fraud. Let the common man sue anyone who aids or abets tax fraud for a bounty that's a portion of the missing taxes. The bigger the fraud the higher the bounty.

Should tie up the rich, the lobbyists, and the firms that help them hide their money for years.

You know the IRS already allows this, sort of. I mean you can't sue, but if you report someone for tax fraud and it turns out you were right, you get some of the taxes and penalties they collect. I know this as I seriously considered reporting someone for tax fraud years back and looked into it.

 

[hal2kilo]

So the SCOTUS is feeling some heat. Gee I wonder why. Lowest approval rating since they started tracking in 2004.

The Supreme Court is on defense: Justices speak out to calm growing dissatisfaction | Salon.com