Supreme Court : Rulings and ?? Credibility

Supreme Court opens new term with murky wetlands dispute — and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on the bench

The Supreme Court opened its nine-month term on Monday by hearing a conservative challenge to the federal government’s authority to regulate wetlands under a landmark environmental protection law, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asking multiple questions on her first day on the bench. Jackson, the first Black woman to serve on the court, was quick off the mark, asking a series of questions early on in the nearly two hours of arguments indicating sympathy for maintaining expansive federal authority over wetlands under the Clean Water Act, while conservative justices seemed more skeptical in their line of inquiry.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...SpY4ZDrrORhNjDmFmqRTlnSQ03xa+TnDIH7v0/FYxAQAA


The issue is that it might be a lot more"political" now than it should be.....The law has to be objective / neutral.

(not political or religious based)

 

You mean like last term?

 

A bit of looking up the necessary info led to the conclusion that the Republican Party, if they controlled the White House and the US Senate, could reward Mr. Donald Trump for his loyal service to the party with a seat on the Supreme Court. I'm sure that Mr. Trump would agree that his deep knowledge of jurisprudence would serve him well in such a capacity.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Supreme Court takes up a divisive issue: Should tech companies have immunity over problematic user content?

The Supreme Court on Monday stepped into the politically divisive issue of whether tech companies should have immunity over problematic content posted by users, agreeing to hear a case alleging that YouTube helped aid and abet the killing of an American woman in the 2015 Islamic State terrorist attacks in Paris. The family of the woman, Nohemi Gonzalez, argued that YouTube’s active role in recommending videos overcomes the liability shield for internet companies that Congress imposed as part of the Communications Decency Act in 1996.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...1MWYXsLNFOEuc25UT2hgmh0lZud7kQmHXP3pkZ4soAQAA

 

Supreme Court rejects MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s appeal in 2020 election lawsuit

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s bid to fend off a defamation lawsuit from the voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems over his debunked claims about the 2020 presidential election. The justices’ decision not to hear the appeal from Lindell, an outspoken supporter of former President Donald Trump, means a federal judge’s ruling last year that allowed the lawsuit to move forward remains in place.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...ZMbuEnS/SWebcrpzUxvC5Jyk7r7d5mWDXP/5DZG4xAQAA

 

Another institution the right wing has gleefully destroyed in their lust to rule over others.

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
Barry Goldwater
​

 

You seriously think we should take you using Goldwater as a source given your obvious disdain for everything he believed in?

 

I seriously couldn’t care less what you think

I agree with the statement, not the person

But thanks for stopping by

 

That is why the current religious influence on the court and its rulings.. makes the court biased ..when it needs to be factual, logical, objective

It has become right wing slanted with an overdose of religion. and the direction can only be backwards now....

Saw a program about it the other day.......and it seems the court is in some disarray....... and the members don't even like each other.

So how can they work together without bias??

 

That’s the difference between judges being placed on merit vs ones chosen by right wing think tanks to install their views by force.

 

Great Quote!

 

Who says they are supposed to?

 

I just heard a disturbing story, that one of the cases which the Court has gone "out of its way to hear," this session, according to Rachel Maddow, could potentially allow state legislators to do exactly what Trump had wanted them to do; namely, to hand their electors to him, despite the results of their states' elections.

This has got to be a point of concern, for citizens; the groundwork seems it may be being laid, for a coup-- and the Supreme Court may be a collaborator!

 

no one......and as long as their personal feelings don't get in the way of getting their job done in a professional , objective way.........

 

Why are you (and others) implying that the onus is on the conservatives to "make nice"?

 

What do you mean by "it might be a lot more "political" now than it should be"? It seems to me a challenge to federal regulatory authority can't be anything but 'political'... and I don't how that makes it less objective/neutral.

 

Good luck to Miss Jackson.

It's a great Court at the moment, I'm sure she'd be proud to be a part of it.

 

Supreme Court rejects Trump request to intervene in documents case

Thursday, October 13, 2022 3:24 PM ET

There were no noted dissents, and the court gave no reasons, saying only: “The application to vacate the stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on Sept. 21, 2022, presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the court is denied.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/13/...9886&user_id=4c68c4e9bd3f963fbfe158170142f11f

 

I think basically one SC justice calls the SC's legitimacy into question, and that is Clarence Thomas. Apart from that, all of the cheating on McCuck's part to stack the court like he did is also a major issue.

 

Yes, decisions like that against Lindell do demonstrate the lack of credibility of SCOTUS today. It lost much credibility with me when Roberts offered pure sophistry to legalize Obamacare.

 

What an uninformed take. Imagine thinking actually following what the constitution says Destroys anything.

 

If you think the founders had any idea of what modern society would look like or be then there is no point in continuing any discussion with you.

 

That is irrelevant. Either we follow the constitution, legally change it (which most do not want to do, myself included), or we are not a country of laws. That you want to ignore the constitution shows just how little value you bring to the table when discussing supposed "institutions being destroyed".

 

The constitution is being twisted to suit party agenda.

 

I agree. That is indeed what Democrats always want to do. Now, that abortion is not in the constitution and should be kicked back to the states where it belongs is a centrist and not a controversial position. Hell, that was Joe Biden's official position until 2008 and he even introduced a (failed) constitutional amendment to do just that.

Your side rarely understands basic facts like that though.