The Supreme Court

[McParadigm]

Last week I would have said there was no way in hell they’d expand the court. Now I’m not so certain.

Joe Manchin and Angus King have been talking it up in the last few days. That’s a clear message that it’s fully attainable within the caucus. Obviously someone like Brian Schatz or some House progressive discussing it means nothing, but the types of senators who would ordinarily be the hardest sells are now openly wrestling with the idea.

I’d say it really depends on the actions the Court takes in the next few months. If the court were to make or signal any controversial decisions in the near term, or were to decide against the ACA (for example), I would be hesitant to bet against Democrats undertaking significant reforming action.

[B]

[JuanHamm]

Is she catholic? I thought she was in a cult.

[Bi_3]

Is she catholic? I thought she was in a cult.

My sweet summer child

[Green Habit]

So what now, court stacking or jurisdiction stripping? (If/when Democrats win)

I doubt jurisdiction stripping will be that effective, given that SCOTUS could still intervene on constitutional matters.

[96583UP]

pack that shit they fuckin broke their own rule

[4/5]

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Fulton v. Philadelphia today, a case over whether religious organizations are entitled to exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.

[4/5]

Looks like Roberts and Kavanaugh are on board with the severability argument, leaving most of the ACA intact. Also sounds like there are questions over whether Texas and other claimants have standing in the first place to bring this case to the Court.

[Rob]

Looks like Roberts and Kavanaugh are on board with the severability argument, leaving most of the ACA intact. Also sounds like there are questions over whether Texas and other claimants have standing in the first place to bring this case to the Court.

My younger brother was following someone who was live tweeting it and suggested Gorsuch was sympathetic to the law, and that he and maybe even Barrett seemed skeptical of this lawsuit. Is that your take?

And if I can ask a broader question to you guys who follow this closely - It doesn't seem like the conservative justices are the scary activist types that conservatives want them to be, and liberals fear. Usually, anyway, I don't know enough on my own. Barrett is still new, so we'll see. But the other 2 don't seem to have made the left mad yet. Again, is this how you guys feel, generally?

edit - the other 2 Trump appointees, I mean. (Roberts, too).

[4/5]

Looks like Roberts and Kavanaugh are on board with the severability argument, leaving most of the ACA intact. Also sounds like there are questions over whether Texas and other claimants have standing in the first place to bring this case to the Court.

My younger brother was following someone who was live tweeting it and suggested Gorsuch was sympathetic to the law, and that he and maybe even Barrett seemed skeptical of this lawsuit. Is that your take?

I was teaching this morning, so I couldn't follow it live, just read a quick recap so I'm not sure. The article I read said Roberts and Kavanaugh specifically sounded like severability was the preferred route and that "multiple Justices, both conservative and liberal" raised questions over whether the challengers had standing to challenge the law, so that might be what your brother is talking about, I'm not sure. I'll read more when scotusblog has some posts up.

And if I can ask a broader question to you guys who follow this closely - It doesn't seem like the conservative justices are the scary activist types that conservatives want them to be, and liberals fear. Usually, anyway, I don't know enough on my own. Barrett is still new, so we'll see. But the other 2 don't seem to have made the left mad yet. Again, is this how you guys feel, generally?

edit - the other 2 Trump appointees, I mean. (Roberts, too).

Obviously that's a really broad question. I'm inclined to somewhat agree with what you've said, a lot of it is political theater and can be overblown. At the same time I think that the Court is very likely to agree to further limits to abortion access by states. I know some people say (probably including me at various times) that the right doesn't really want to take away abortion, they just want to use abortion as an issue to get people to polls, but there are 6 pro-life Justices on the Court and 4 of them were willing to directly overturn a precedent from like 3 or 4 years ago on a virtually identical law just a few months ago. I have no reason to believe Barrett wouldn't be the 5th vote for a similar case.

That said, I think the Justices are smart enough to not go too far against public opinion, so I'd expect them to continue slowly expanding civil rights protections to groups they might not be fond of while at the same time rolling back more expansive federal policies and giving states more freedom in areas that the public might not be watching as vigorously. Idk. I guess I think it depends, which is a pretty terrible answer on a message board.

Personally, I mostly want the Court to protect individual rights and civil rights and I'm definitely concerned about some of the Justices eagerness to uphold the 4th Amendment as strongly as I'd like them to.

[simple schoolboy]

Aren't all the new justices substantially better than Merrick Garland on 4A and criminal justice issues?

[4/5]

Aren't all the new justices substantially better than Merrick Garland on 4A and criminal justice issues?

I've read that about Garland, yes. Honestly, I haven't read up on Barrett at all. I certainly hope you're right.

[B]

"Whatever one may think about the COVID restrictions, we surely don't want them to become a recurring feature after the pandemic has passed," said Alito, who was nominated to the court by President George W. Bush.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... s-n1247657

There goes our secret plans to use COVID-19 to keep anyone from every going to church again! Curses!

[simple schoolboy]

Liberals are simultaneously angry and not understanding the mild rebuke NY State received from SCOTUS.

You cannot keep religious organizations entirely closed and deem them non essential, especially when you allow operation of not clearly 'essential' commercial operations (bars and restaurants).

Previously SCOTUS declined several suits regarding occupancy restrictions. What cannot be done is relegate religious institutions to a more restrictive form of regulations whatever equivalent sized or occupied commercial interest are subject to. Also commercial entities are not subject to strict scrutiny in their regulation, while anything 1A covered surely must be.

Related (After ACB made the difference):

[verb_to_trust]

Gorsuch really hammered Cuomo. You love to see it.

[simple schoolboy]

Gorsuch really hammered Cuomo. You love to see it.

Clearly the Emmy comitte > SCOTUS. Sorry I don't make the rules.

[B]

Gorsuch really hammered Cuomo. You love to see it.

I mean, he had that sick burn about liquor stores not being essential, but other than that, his argument that "stores get to be open, why not church?" is stupid and certain to kill people.

[verb_to_trust]

Gorsuch really hammered Cuomo. You love to see it.

I mean, he had that sick burn about liquor stores not being essential, but other than that, his argument that "stores get to be open, why not church?" is stupid and certain to kill people.

Oh well

[The Argonaut]

Liquor stores are essential because you can't just cut an alcoholic off cold turkey. Drugs are legal, these are the consequences

[simple schoolboy]

Maybe draft laws that on their face don't discriminate against religious institutions and they wont get smacked down.

Cuomo could have made the rules neutral but he has a hard on for religion. Anti-religious animus is pretty easy to avoid.