Law SCOTUS: Apex Court of Last Resort

[sickc0d3r]

@sickc0d3r is up in the Colorado Rockies smoking the devil's lettuce and plotting high-tech lynchings.

It would be quite a modern spectacle. Samuel Chase is the only SCOTUS justice to have ever been impeached, and that was in 1804. However, he was acquitted by the Senate and remained on the court until his death in 1811. Abe Fortas voluntarily resigned in 1969 under the threat of it, and that's the entire historical extent of Supreme Court removals. If DJT wins and the GOP takes back the Senate, they're going to want Thomas and/or Alito to step down on account of high-risk advanced age, and I don't think either of them will be up for that.

So I guess we'll go with door number 2. Our scotus approved, weaponized DOJ, and our well designed American system of packing the court.

 

[Deorum]

So I guess we'll go with door number 2. Our scotus approved, weaponized DOJ, and our well designed American system of packing the court.

I'm not a fan of the court packing idea, and it's one that could come back to bite you in the buns like Harry Reid going tactical nuclear and then Dems promptly losing control of the Senate. The Clarence Thomas 'scandal' could get really hot and interesting depending on the avenues that can be explored, and it's obviously fair game.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It would be quite a modern spectacle. Samuel Chase is the only SCOTUS justice to have ever been impeached, and that was in 1804. However, he was acquitted by the Senate and remained on the court until his death in 1811. Abe Fortas voluntarily resigned in 1969 under the threat of it, and that's the entire historical extent of Supreme Court removals. If DJT wins and the GOP takes back the Senate, they're going to want Thomas and/or Alito to step down on account of high-risk advanced age, and I don't think either of them will be up for that.

This kind of illustrates how the courts are not actually working as intended. The judicial branch was supposed to be equal to the other branches, not superior. And part of that equality was that if other branches didn't like what they were doing, there were several remedies available, all of which have been effectively voided recently. In our first 70 years, we changed the court's size nine times, but now it's seen as somehow illegitimate. I've seen people argue "durr, if the size is changed now, the next time the other party has full control over gov't, they'll just change it again." Yes! That's the idea. Any time there is enough support in the two other branches to change the SCOTUS composition to be more favorable, they should be able to. Further, when justices lie in their confirmation hearings, of course they should be impeached. And when they are openly corrupt, as Alito and Thomas are, again, that obviously calls for impeachment.

 

[Deorum]

This kind of illustrates how the courts are not actually working as intended. The judicial branch was supposed to be equal to the other branches, not superior. And part of that equality was that if other branches didn't like what they were doing, there were several remedies available, all of which have been effectively voided recently. In our first 70 years, we changed the court's size nine times, but now it's seen as somehow illegitimate. I've seen people argue "durr, if the size is changed now, the next time the other party has full control over gov't, they'll just change it again." Yes! That's the idea. Any time there is enough support in the two other branches to change the SCOTUS composition to be more favorable, they should be able to. Further, when justices lie in their confirmation hearings, of course they should be impeached. And when they are openly corrupt, as Alito and Thomas are, again, that obviously calls for impeachment.

It just strikes me as chaotic and very unstable, but I suppose we've been living in absolute crazy town for a decade now already. Thomas with millions in gifts, Alito flying the god damn flag upside down at his residences, Gorsuch issuing passive-aggressive threats to the President, Kavanaugh flipping out at the confirmation hearing, Barrett lying her ass off? I didn't watch that one. And then there's John Roberts strutting around in his robe, telling everyone to fuck off and mind their business. All of that is to say nothing of some of the actual rulings made (I personally love NYSRPA v. Bruen), and whatever comes next.

 

[sickc0d3r]

I'm not a fan of the court packing idea, and it's one that could come back to bite you in the buns like Harry Reid going tactical nuclear and then Dems promptly losing control of the Senate. The Clarence Thomas 'scandal' could get really hot and interesting depending on the avenues that can be explored, and it's obviously fair game.

I'm ok with that, honestly. I don't really care if the court keeps growing and changing at the whims of the senate when we're stuck with lifetime appointments. If the result is a more balanced bench in partisan terms, and it gives justices an incentive to be impartial and ethical lest they get another wave of new co-workers, that's much better than what we've got.

 

[Deorum]

Lol no this is a good debate and I appreciate your posts

The quality of discussion in this thread relative to the majority of shit that fills the rest of the subforum has been phenomenal. It is exactly what I was looking to cultivate by starting it. Pan brought pure heat and evened the scales; I didn't anticipate too many conservatives showing up even though the OP is devoid of agenda and as neutral as it could possibly be.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm ok with that, honestly. I don't really care if the court keeps growing and changing at the whims of the senate when we're stuck with lifetime appointments. If the result is a more balanced bench in partisan terms, and it gives justices an incentive to be impartial and ethical lest they get another wave of new co-workers, that's much better than what we've got.

Same with filibuster reform. I think things work better if majorities can actually deliver on their promises, but then new majorities can reverse legislation if it doesn't work out, which doesn't necessarily mean wild swings. Look at the failed ACA repeal. Pelosi got a lot of heat for this, but she called it perfectly when she said you have to pass it so people can appreciate it. Once it became the law, people liked it enough that repeal was too politically toxic for Republicans to pull it off (though 95% or so of them, including Trump, wanted to).

 

[Rob Battisti]

The quality of discussion in this thread relative to the majority of shit that fills the rest of the subforum has been phenomenal. It is exactly what I was looking to cultivate by starting it. Pan brought pure heat and evened the scales; I didn't anticipate too many conservatives showing up even though the OP is devoid of agenda and as neutral as it could possibly be.

It shows the republicans really don’t give a shit either.

My issue is that in the other threads it’s like talking to absolute morons.

 

[Rob Battisti]

My general issue is that I think you even see ITT people who are “anti-originalism” being “anti-originalism” because they think those judges are making rulings they don’t like.

I’m not a constitutional scholar. I can’t dissect rulings and say “wow that’s definitely an originalist ruling!”.

I believe that we should adhere to the written word as much as possible, limit activist judges and legislation from the bench and amend when necessary.

As many have said, is it nearly impossible to gain consensus in today’s world? Yes. That, I believe was always the intention and not an indication that the constitution was incorrect in its structure.

I do agree we need to ban all gifting, investigate misconduct and potentially even put in place term limits on the court and the elected branches.

 

[Rob Battisti]

It just strikes me as chaotic and very unstable, but I suppose we've been living in absolute crazy town for a decade now already. Thomas with millions in gifts, Alito flying the god damn flag upside down at his residences, Gorsuch issuing passive-aggressive threats to the President, Kavanaugh flipping out at the confirmation hearing, Barrett lying her ass off? I didn't watch that one. And then there's John Roberts strutting around in his robe, telling everyone to fuck off and mind their business. All of that is to say nothing of some of the actual rulings made (I personally love NYSRPA v. Bruen), and whatever comes next.

Yeah I am against packing purely because when does it end?

Do you only need a majority in the senate and house to pack the court? That is insane.

 

[Jack V Savage]

My general issue is that I think you even see ITT people who are “anti-originalism” being “anti-originalism” because they think those judges are making rulings they don’t like.

I'm anti-originalism because it's literally impossible to be consistently pro-originalism. It is used as a cover for terrible decisions, but that's beside the point.

The whole point of having a judicial branch is that judgment has to be used. It would be great if it weren't so, but it is so.

Yeah I am against packing purely because when does it end?

Do you only need a majority in the senate and house to pack the court? That is insane.

You need the Senate, the House, and the WH. That's how it is now and how it has always been.

 

[jx820]

Decisions I disagree with aside, the biggest grievance I have with the supreme court is that a lifetime appointment and a finite number of seats makes it all the more important that there be a real code of ethics.

But in practice the justices don't even follow the BS code of ethics that they currently have. We're asked to believe that Ivy league lawyers forgo millions of dollars in income over decades to work a government job for peanuts because they're such nice, civic minded, people.

Our entire goverment (and large swathes of the public) have spent a great deal of time and effort on rolling back any ethical guard rails on public officials.

This court specifically has ruled in Snyder v. United States that you can tip a public official after the fact and it is not a bribe.

"Citizens United" made Unlimited campaign donations (often in secret) totally legal.

In 2016 we found out the Emolument's clause was optional, and people vehemently defended it. In 2025 it is possible that the mechanism of publicly traded stocks will become a viable means for directly bribing a public official and neither campaign even wants to discuss that.

The congress is allowed to trade stocks on privileged information gained from their positions and it's not so much as an ethical concern.

And they can do all of this because you don't care about bribery and corruption. You care about Tampons in the boys room, who was mean to cat ladies, and which team you're on.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Decisions I disagree with aside, the biggest grievance I have with the supreme court is that a lifetime appointment and a finite number of seats makes it all the more important that there be a real code of ethics.

But in practice the justices don't even follow the BS code of ethics that they currently have. We're asked to believe that Ivy league lawyers forgo millions of dollars in income over decades to work a government job for peanuts because they're such nice, civic minded, people.

Our entire goverment (and large swathes of the public) have spent a great deal of time and effort on rolling back any ethical guard rails on public officials.

This court specifically has ruled in Snyder v. United States that you can tip a public official after the fact and it is not a bribe.

"Citizens United" made Unlimited campaign donations (ofent in total secret) totally legal.

In 2016 we found out the Emolument's clause was optional, and people vehemently defended it. In 2025 it is possible that the mechanism of publicly traded stocks will become a viable mechanism for directly bribing a public official and neither campaign even wants to discuss that.

The congress is allowed to trade stocks on privileged information gained from their positions and it's not so much as an ethical concern.

And they can do all of this because you don't care about bribery and corruption. You care about Tampons in the boys room, and who was mean to cat ladies, and which team you're on.

100% agree which is why I’m so infuriated when people claim money plays little role in our system.

I couldn’t agree with you more.

 

[Deorum]

I'm ok with that, honestly. I don't really care if the court keeps growing and changing at the whims of the senate when we're stuck with lifetime appointments. If the result is a more balanced bench in partisan terms, and it gives justices an incentive to be impartial and ethical lest they get another wave of new co-workers, that's much better than what we've got.

What's your general position on the 2A? Take your time on any reply, I just don't recall ever seeing you post much on it. I'm more or less a 2A absolutist, shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. And before you ask/chide: No, that doesn't include explosives, much less "tanks" or "fighter jets" (c'mon). It does include actual post-1986 assault rifles at fair market value. No ordinary citizen has legal access to them nor "machine guns" if they were manufactured after that year. You can buy pre-1986's, but they run like 50 grand, and I can't justify that even to myself. It's a de facto ban.

I grew up in rural America raised by crazy right-wingers, and a lot of the cultural and (some) political components of that upbringing simply stick -- even being intelligent and old enough to know better. Guns are one of those things. In fact, my biggest single-issue political fear is another round of heavy-handed, top-down federal legislation in the vein of the NFA of 1934, GCA of 1968, FOPA of 1986; or one of your packed liberal courts throwing down severe restrictions with a wide scope. These types of decisions and written opinions from your favorite Supreme Court Justice of all-time legit fill me with childlike glee.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

www.scotusblog.com

The Supreme Court’s new gun ruling means virtually no gun regulation is safe

New York State Rifle v. Bruen is poorly reasoned. But its implications are potentially catastrophic.

www.vox.com

Spoiler: Based

Progressive As Fuck, IMO.

 

[Sinister]

The quality of discussion in this thread relative to the majority of shit that fills the rest of the subforum has been phenomenal. It is exactly what I was looking to cultivate by starting it. Pan brought pure heat and evened the scales; I didn't anticipate too many conservatives showing up even though the OP is devoid of agenda and as neutral as it could possibly be.

@panamaican worthy of the utmost respect as a poster. I've been curtailing my time here a bit because of a house move and restarting a 3rd daily class at my gym, but he's worth the time and effort to respond with as much passion and detail as is in this thread.

@Rob Battisti has come very far as well. I dont grit my teeth a bit anymore when I see he's tagged me lol

 

[Rob Battisti]

@panamaican worthy of the utmost respect as a poster. I've been curtailing my time here a bit because of a house move and restarting a 3rd daily class at my gym, but he's worth the time and effort to respond with as much passion and detail as is in this thread.

@Rob Battisti has come very far as well. I dont grit my teeth a bit anymore when I see he's tagged me lol

I actually have come to respect you here a lot. Way more than the other posters.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Yeah I am against packing purely because when does it end?

Do you only need a majority in the senate and house to pack the court? That is insane.

I thought it was just the senate (I’m no expert in all of this, either), but they’re the ones that pick the justice. The house has to create a new seat. So it’s unlikely to happen.

That said, I think the requirement of all that agreement first and foremost means it wouldn’t happen often. And when it did, it would give the justices incentive to at least appear impartial and ethical, so as to dampen any desire to add new justices for partisan reasons. I really can’t see it running wild.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Decisions I disagree with aside, the biggest grievance I have with the supreme court is that a lifetime appointment and a finite number of seats makes it all the more important that there be a real code of ethics.

But in practice the justices don't even follow the BS code of ethics that they currently have. We're asked to believe that Ivy league lawyers forgo millions of dollars in income over decades to work a government job for peanuts because they're such nice, civic minded, people.

Our entire goverment (and large swathes of the public) have spent a great deal of time and effort on rolling back any ethical guard rails on public officials.

This court specifically has ruled in Snyder v. United States that you can tip a public official after the fact and it is not a bribe.

"Citizens United" made Unlimited campaign donations (often in total secret) totally legal.

In 2016 we found out the Emolument's clause was optional, and people vehemently defended it. In 2025 it is possible that the mechanism of publicly traded stocks will become a viable means for directly bribing a public official and neither campaign even wants to discuss that.

The congress is allowed to trade stocks on privileged information gained from their positions and it's not so much as an ethical concern.

And they can do all of this because you don't care about bribery and corruption. You care about Tampons in the boys room, who was mean to cat ladies, and which team you're on.

And in 2024, they gave every president a shiny new DOJ action figure to play with, immunity from answering to any non-scotus approved evidence if they decide to go commit some crimes, and hey let’s throw in a nice, roomy, expansion of regulatory power for scotus. Yay democracy.

 

[Sinister]

What's your general position on the 2A? Take your time on any reply, I just don't recall ever seeing you post much on it. I'm more or less a 2A absolutist, shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. And before you ask/chide: No, that doesn't include explosives, much less "tanks" or "fighter jets" (c'mon). It does include actual post-1986 assault rifles at fair market value. No ordinary citizen has legal access to them nor "machine guns" if they were manufactured after that year. You can buy pre-1986's, but they run like 50 grand, and I can't justify that even to myself. It's a de facto ban.

I grew up in rural America raised by crazy right-wingers, and a lot of the cultural and (some) political components of that upbringing simply stick -- even being intelligent and old enough to know better. Guns are one of those things. In fact, my biggest single-issue political fear is another round of heavy-handed, top-down federal legislation in the vein of the NFA of 1934, GCA of 1968, FOPA of 1986; or one of your packed liberal courts throwing down severe restrictions with a wide scope. These types of decisions and written opinions from your favorite Supreme Court Justice of all-time legit fill me with childlike glee.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

www.scotusblog.com

The Supreme Court’s new gun ruling means virtually no gun regulation is safe

New York State Rifle v. Bruen is poorly reasoned. But its implications are potentially catastrophic.

www.vox.com

Spoiler: Based

Progressive As Fuck, IMO.

I grew up down South. Gun racks on pickups, utility drawers (or junk drawer, or packing drawer) with bullets and/or shells, and sometimes an actual handgun in them. My Father had a bad habit of running afoul with the law, so he kept a loaded shotgun in the corner of his bedroom behind the door. I do think our gun culture is overly absurd, and I say that as a Boxing Coach, where I hear from kids on a regular basis. Kids dont even want to fight anymore, they want to shoot. That's their go-to. But I also believe that pacifistic practices in schools have contributed to this. I wrote an article for Sherdog.com about it when Mark Muñoz lost his job as a PE Coach for letting two kids spar, supervised.

That being said, Historically, even former conservative SCOTUS Justices, in retrospect, didnt fully agree with essentially disregarding the "organized militia" portion of the 2nd Amendment.





Now, I'm not 100% sure I agree with their assessments fully, however, I recall reading that in the earlier days of the US, the 2nd Amendment was never regarded as a right to arm yourself as you please, but rather as a way for Militias to level their own armories in the event of not having access to Military armories, and that average home gun laws were relegated to the States or even the municipalities.

The fact of the matter is, that despite current gun fanaticism, gun control is also as American as apple pie:



All the way down to private prohibition of carrying. Gun-free "safe spaces" lol

 

[Rob Battisti]

I thought it was just the senate (I’m no expert in all of this, either), but they’re the ones that pick the justice. The house has to create a new seat. So it’s unlikely to happen.

That said, I think the requirement of all that agreement first and foremost means it wouldn’t happen often. And when it did, it would give the justices incentive to at least appear impartial and ethical, so as to dampen any desire to add new justices for partisan reasons. I really can’t see it running wild.

Even if it’s all three in unison, at what point does it end?

My solution for ‘fixing’ the court would be:

All current jurors would be grandfathered with their current tenure.

Newly promoted justices would serve for 18 years maximum.

No justice shall be the recipient of any ‘gift’ of any kind and will receive yearly audits to ensure adherence.

This seems like the best way to go about it IMO but I’m open to suggestions.

I would also limit senators and congressmen to the 18 year limit.