SCOTUS

[wuapinmon]

Constitutional Law and stare decisis don't mean shit with this current SCOTUS. While I think most of them are garbage, bought humans, I don't want them to meet violent ends. I think Secret Service protection should be extended to all of them, permanently. It's getting bad enough where I feel like someone unhinged could make an attempt on one of them. Again, I abhor violence and don't wish this on anyone, but Congress should've done something better to protect all of them in the BBB.

[BlueK]

The Court in the coming however months will be ruling on Trump's tariffs. This will present an interesting opportunity to observe how the justices who typically give Trump what he wants as much as they deem possible will approach this. On the one hand, anyone who has ever read the Constitution knows it gives the Congress, not the president, the authority to create new taxes. Yes there are a couple of obscure statutes the administration is trying to base this on also, but even pro Trump people not actually currently working in the administration have admitted it's a major stretch to conclude Congress meant to give the president the power to create a major new global tariffs system.

So the conservatives who claim to be strict constructionists but who also like to defer to the executive branch when it's a Republican executive will find themselves to be in a bit of a pickle. I also think by the time this gets to the Court that the economy will have already started going south as a result of the tariffs. Perhaps this helps Thomas and Alito in a way. Every member of SCOTUS I think took enough econ classes to know it's bad policy. Maybe for the two SCOTUS yahoos who have been most likely in the past to ignore their originalist views to help Trump will have an out here in knowing by going with the originalist argument they can knock down the tariffs and help save Trump from himself by helping the economy at the same time.

[frank ryan]

The Court in the coming however months will be ruling on Trump's tariffs. This will present an interesting opportunity to observe how the justices who typically give Trump what he wants as much as they deem possible will approach this. On the one hand, anyone who has ever read the Constitution knows it gives the Congress, not the president, the authority to create new taxes. Yes there are a couple of obscure statutes the administration is trying to base this on also, but even pro Trump people not actually currently working in the administration have admitted it's a major stretch to conclude Congress meant to give the president the power to create a major new global tariffs system.

So the conservatives who claim to be strict constructionists but who also like to defer to the executive branch when it's a Republican executive will find themselves to be in a bit of a pickle. I also think by the time this gets to the Court that the economy will have already started going south as a result of the tariffs. Perhaps this helps Thomas and Alito in a way. Every member of SCOTUS I think took enough econ classes to know it's bad policy. Maybe for the two SCOTUS yahoos who have been most likely in the past to ignore their originalist views to help Trump will have an out here in knowing by going with the originalist argument they can knock down the tariffs and help save Trump from himself by helping the economy at the same time.

Those two don't inspire confidence in the court. I can't believe no one of the right gave a shit about Thomas being bribed by billionaires.

[BlueK]

Those two don't inspire confidence in the court. I can't believe no one of the right gave a shit about Thomas being bribed by billionaires.

I actually don't believe Trump wins this case in the end. There isn't a way for SCOTUS to rule that he has unlimited powers to create a massive system of new taxes unilaterally without trampling all over separation of powers. This seems as basic as it gets, although I fully understand the cynicism toward the Court. Alito and Thomas mostly don't give a crap but I don't think the other conservatives would rule that way on this one. But we'll see.

The ironic thing here is that by ruling correctly from a Constitutional perspective, the Court could very well be handing Trump a short term political win. Trump would do his usual "Boohoohoo poor me, the radical leftist Supreme Court didn't give me my unlimited powers everyone except illegals and communists voted for!" schtick. Even more important than that, the tariffs are removed and the economy doesn't crash as a result.

[Maximus]

So what's the good explanation for the scotus saying its legal to racially profile in immigration stops

[Copelius]

So what's the good explanation for the scotus saying its legal to racially profile in immigration stops

Only that they didn't say that.

apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion

[LVAllen]

Only that they didn't say that.

Except that Kavanaugh has no problem suggesting there WAS reasonable suspicion based primarily on their darker skin and the horribles of illegal immigration.

[UVACoug]

Those two don't inspire confidence in the court. I can't believe no one of the right gave a shit about Thomas being bribed by billionaires.

What did he get "bribed" to do?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Hearings today on the voting rights act. Justices appear poised to rule that states are not allowed to consider race in determining district boundaries.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/10...095be609c290aa

If true, this would eliminate a large number of black districts in the south.

[frank ryan]

Hearings today on the voting rights act. Justices appear poised to rule that states are not allowed to consider race in determining district boundaries.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/10...095be609c290aa

If true, this would eliminate a large number of black districts in the south.

Game changer is not a good way. The voting rights act was historically important

[falafel]

Hearings today on the voting rights act. Justices appear poised to rule that states are not allowed to consider race in determining district boundaries.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/10...095be609c290aa

If true, this would eliminate a large number of black districts in the south.

Yep. Congress about to get even more divided and siloed, if that's possible.

[LVAllen]

Hearings today on the voting rights act. Justices appear poised to rule that states are not allowed to consider race in determining district boundaries.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/10...095be609c290aa

If true, this would eliminate a large number of black districts in the south.

Reminder that the VRA depends on the 14th Amendment because SCOTUS was all hunky-dory with Jim Crow gutting the 15th Amendment promises enforced by the Civil Rights Acts. And a majority of the Court haaaaaates the 14th Amendment.

[frank ryan]

Yep. Congress about to get even more divided and siloed, if that's possible.

It's another venue for the political minority (MAGA) to make voting them out of power difficult

[dabrockster]

Hearings today on the voting rights act. Justices appear poised to rule that states are not allowed to consider race in determining district boundaries.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/10...095be609c290aa

If true, this would eliminate a large number of black districts in the south.

The example Jackson tried to use on the issue was a terrible example. Affirmative Action would make more sense than the ADA. Terrible comparison.

I think the current system of districts bad. Depending who area/state, we see both parties use it to their advantage.

Are districts truly needed? Why not popular votes across the state and if the state has four seats in the senate, then the top 4-winners get those seats. Same goes for the house. Would this remove the gerrymandering we all loathe now? Is it more complicated than that?

[Pelado]

The example Jackson tried to use on the issue was a terrible example. Affirmative Action would make more sense than the ADA. Terrible comparison.

I think the current system of districts bad. Depending who area/state, we see both parties use it to their advantage.

Are districts truly needed? Why not popular votes across the state and if the state has four seats in the senate, then the top 4-winners get those seats. Same goes for the house. Would this remove the gerrymandering we all loathe now? Is it more complicated than that?

That would eliminate gerrymandering and probably help to moderate a lot but I think the less-populous areas like having a congressperson representing their district alone since otherwise all the power would shift back to the population centers.