comment: >
  
  13 justices to match the 13 Court of Appeals.
context: Four of the justices in the majority — Neil Gorsuch joined the left of the Court in dissent — previously held (at the height of the pandemic’s death toll, no less) that health policies could not restrict religious services. But now that COVID-19 is largely at bay, Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Barrett now think COVID is a fine reason to restrict immigration? The math’s not mathing. That is until you see the through line is current conservative political goals, not any sort of jurisprudential theory.
  
  This can not be overstated. Judges are supposed to be impartial. I understand that true impartiality doesn’t exist but certain SCOTUS judges could at least cut down on the blatant political bias. >
  
  That Gorsuch sided with the liberals is absolutely telling of jiggery-pokery. >
  
  TBH, my impression of Gorsuch is that, while he's a shite human being he still harbours the illusion of being a grand jurist with SCOTUS as a pristine institution.  Yes, he'll twist  facts, etc. in his decisions, but he's still going to try and maintain the vaneer. >
  
  Indeed.
  In an era of YOLO outcome-determinative jurisprudence he at least does have a legal principle theory of law that he sticks to. 
  His institutionalism is appreciated the same way I appreciate Pence for not participating in J6. >
  
  He understands that the legitimacy of the court is entirely how those partisan political decisions will manage to last.
  The idea of stare decisis isn't some mystical reverence for past decisions or the people making them. The idea is that once sound reasoning had been applied by enough courts that it got to the Supreme Court of the US, and the SCOTUS ruled reasonably and fairly, the bar to overturn that precedent is now extraordinarily high. It's not set in stone, but it's that the reasoning is so sound that it would take a remarkable case to reintroduce ambiguity or uncertainty.
  Gorsuch understands that all these batshit insane, illogical decisions made by this court are simply going to welcome decades of challenges. Eventually, they will all be overturned. Can't imagine how annoying it must be working with the likes of Bret Boofer and that bible-thumping weirdo ACB. >
  
  I simply can’t imagine being on the left side of the court and not strangling the YOLOs. I’d do time for that. >
  
  Im sure they'll soon rule that Biden's loan forgiveness plan is invalid because the Covid pandemic is no longer an emergency, while simultaneously maintaining that 'Remain in Mexico' must be enforced because the Covid pandemic is a pressing emergency. >
  
  What frustrates me the most about that lawsuit is the company the plaintiffs claim to be suing on behalf of has said repeatedly that they had no problem with the loan forgiveness.  In fact, they were drafting an email telling borrowers that their loans were forgiven.  The lawsuit has no basis since it hasn't caused anyone any harm, but nooooo how dare we try to lessen the burden on the Gen X and millennials who were lied to about how a college education would open all the doors. >
  
  I dont expect a fundamental issue like lack of standing to get in the way of this conservative Court's activism. If this iteration of SCOTUS was sane and predictable, they'd just dismiss all of this this for lack of standing and/or defer to the Dept of Ed. under the Chevron doctrine until such a time that Congress decides to revisit the Heroes Act or address the issue of student loan forgiveness more directly. But the SCOTUS hasnt been sane or predictable for a while and I dont see that changing anytime soon. >
  
  Oh absolutely.  That's why when it was announced it was going to SCOTUS for a final judgement, I knew it was dead.  I mean, they have no issues erasing a huge precedent that stood for 40+ years in one day.  Not making certain congressmen testify (cough cough Lindsay Graham), letting Trump delay investigations over claiming privacy over some classified documents, etc.  They are off their rocker and I super hope we can get a Senate and House soon that will set term limits and expand the seats. >
  
  They actually denied Graham and 45*, but there's no way they're not killing the debt forgiveness because this is America and that program might have helped poor people. Cant do that. >
  
  
  Its Contempt For Consistency
  
  Tony Scalia replacement - "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,"
  Ruth Bader Ginsburg replacement - FUCK YOU >
  
  She also should have stepped down like she was asked to. This would have solved this problem. >
  
  The fact that she didn't has jeopardized so many. I get she was an Icon but seriously the fact that she didn't may have fucked us for so long I feel that her legacy will be smeared by that. >
  
  Her legacy is now merely catastrophic hubris. >
  
  yup, another ego driven centrist.  As far as I'm concerned she may as well be considered another (R).  All she did was delay them, and then hand them the keys >
  
  
  yup, another ego driven centrist.
  
  You do know why she stayed so long, don't you???
  She knew the Democrats couldn't get anyone approved as liberal as she was.
  And she was right. >
  
  Was she?  Because what we got was way worse. >
  
  She was right.  She said we would get something worse.  We did.
  On top of that, Mitch McConnell is responsible for Mitch McConnell's actions. >
  
  We need term limits, age limits, and an expanded court. These activists are dismantling democracy before our eyes. >
  
  FDR and Democrats in Congress at the time threatened enacting age limits for the court when they were dealing with an elderly, highly conservative Supreme Court that kept harpooning New Deal policies. It worked, the court backed off. Not sure how effective that would be today though. >
  
  An important difference is that FDR had the spare seats to make good on his threats, the Dems need at least 10 more seats to have a chance of pulling it off. >
  
  FDR had 70 Democrats in the Senate.
  For a brief period after Obama was first elected, he had 60 seats (for about 72 days), and used that to (barely) pass the ACA. 
  Even with 60 seats (the minimum to be filibuster proof), it was still a compromise. >
  
  Which is even funnier being that the ACA was very similar to the HEART act, written by the Heritage Foundation and floated by the republican leadership in the early 1990s. >
  
  Modern GOP is nothing but a platform designed to create hate against Liberals so that the GOP can continue to pull money out of the government and into private business while avoiding their proper tax liabilities. They don't do anything except lie to their base. Climate change. Election fraud. ANTIFA. COVID. Even immigration issues where their base has no idea that the border issue is mostly caused by asylum seekers and nothing Biden has done has caused the issue. In fact, their claims that the border is open and that liberals will give them free stuff is part of what drives people to come here, only to get stacked up at the border. The GOP is a party of lairs, conmen and dopes, and nothing more. >
  
  Except the total of illegal immigrants has actually gone down over the last decade. Neither side can Google or count. >
  
  That may be true but only one side is lying for nefarious reasons, the other is simply unable to combat the firehose of bullshit aimed at them. Something about taking an order of magnitude more energy to refute bullshit than to spew it. >
  
  Yes, lol, you have to be smarter than the firehose. >
  
  The problem is that anyone can simply grab it as it whips around uncontrollably with all the ways people have now to express their shitty opinions.
  This problem has always existed, just with never this level of connectivity. When like-minded people got together in history, plots unfolded. Consider the recent post about the Medici family literally destroying the Pazzi for treason in Florence. They did that because the Pazzi plotted to assassinate the heads of the Medici at the time.
  Now these people can simply connect using any number of social media services, and can easily recruit and radicalize others through online mediums. I think of people who used to go on 4 Chan's /b as teens, who have become so deluded that it's become their source of truth now as adults. >
  
  Wow, what a surprise, the Supreme Court showing their complete and utter lack of consistency and blatant disregard for legitimacy once again. I mean, why bother with any sort of consistency or principle when it might get in the way of achieving their political goals? And let's be real, who cares about the Court's legitimacy anyway?
  It's so typical that the shadow docket had to be the vehicle for this latest blow to the Court's credibility. And of course, it's a 5-4 decision because of course it is. I mean, why not just rub salt in the wound and make it as divided and controversial as possible?
  And the inconsistency on COVID policy is just mind-boggling. Just a few months ago, four of the justices in the majority (with Gorsuch as the lone dissenter) were all about protecting religious services during the pandemic, but now that COVID is largely under control, they think it's totally fine to use the virus as an excuse to restrict immigration? Give me a fucking break. It's clear as day that their only guiding principle is furthering current conservative political goals, not any kind of consistent jurisprudential theory.
  Gorsuch's dissent is spot on, calling out the majority for rushing to review a case that's no longer relevant to the COVID emergency and perpetuating administrative edicts for the sake of political expediency. But let's be real, the Court has become a bunch of unelected policymakers in robes. >
  
  
  the Court has become a bunch of unelected policymakers in robes.
  
  This is spot on. And there is no feasible check on that power because all we can do is impeach one justice at a time, and the barrier to do that is so high that it's impossible with a Senate this polarized. Republicans today would never impeach their own pick, but Democrats would if the Justice in question were caught doing something egregious enough. The only real option is to expand the court to the number of federal circuit courts (13 currently) and lock it to that reference, but I'm not sure what it would take to accomplish that, so maybe that's not really possible either. >
  
  Ironically this is what Scalia warned about several years ago in his dissent from the gay marriage decision. He said he had no problem with gay marriage in concept but that there was nothing the Supreme Court could use to legalize it based on his reading of the constitution. As a result, he went on to basically say that the court had become a legislative body (“legislating from the bench” is the term for it) of 9 unelected officials, and that this type of precedent works well when the justices are doing things that align with your political views…but it could be terrible if things went the other way and suddenly the court is 9 unelected officials essentially passing legislation that is against your views.
  And that’s exactly what we’re seeing today. Legislative agendas have been pushed through the court instead of congress for years now, and that’s all fine and dandy when it aligns with progressive things but now we’re witnessing the negative of that same approach…because it can go the other way too.
  The only thing I’ll disagree with you on is the democrats impeaching a justice. There’s no way either political party would impeach a scotus justice that aligned with their agenda. >
  
  He was flat out wrong though, the gay marriage decision is pretty sound. Scalia was a slimeball, don't waste your time taking him at face value >
  
  While I ultimately don’t think it was an incorrect decision I don’t think it was 100% sound. It’s a relatively loose reading of a constitutional clause that was of course never written with something like gay marriage in mind. I think overall the court came to the right conclusion given what we strive to achieve as a nation with individual rights, but it’s certainly not an airtight argument >
  
  Pretty sure what the framers "had in mind" was due process and equality under the law. This is not some controversial interpretation of the constitution.
  The fact that's it's a constant court battle to prove that "liberty" means "liberty" for everyone is the absurd part.  
  edit: I do love the thought though. Some guy goes back in time and asks Madison or Hamilton or Jefferson, "Hey man, when guys said 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' does that mean we gotta let dudes bang each other?"  
  Palm to forehead they resignedly say "yes, I suppose so". >
  
  A “shadow docket” for a “Supreme Court” is inherently dystopian >
  
  With republican politicians pushing for a Christian theocracy and republican SC judges pushing for religious law, America is caught between two branches of our government trying their best to dissolve our historic democracy.  Most of us go about our day to day business ignoring most of this.  So, most of us will wake up in surprise some day in the not too distant future with Christian priests enforcing religious law on the street.  We're on that path.  Pay attention. >
  
  Hospitals are already forced to deny women necessary and life-saving healthcare because of these theocratic laws.
  To put it another way, what you fear is coming is already here. >
  
  It has arrived.  But it is only a fraction of what it will be.  Only a few schools are hanging God banners in the school.  We still have access to contraception.  LBGTQ can still live their lives in relative safety in many states (the Dem ones).  Public businesses, for the most part, still can't deny you service because their god might disagree with your choices.  All this is coming, and more, if we don't politically stamp this out with gusto.  Rapid gusto. >
  
  Oh, I agree with you. It's just begun, and I believe there is no way to stamp it out and the country is going to be unrecognizable in 30 years. >
  
  “I believe there is no way to stamp it out and the country is going to be unrecognizable in 30 years.”
  I agree—especially as the climate crisis worsens. Of course I hope we’re wrong, but I’ve started thinking that a sudden cataclysm (big meteor, a carrington event, etc.) will our only “hope”
  But maybe I’ve just grown to be really cynical; a doomer some would say >
  
  I absolutely love how the conservatives on the Court rage against those questioning its validity but continue to use the shadow docket to initiate Court rulings. If they truly wanted the perception of having integrity, they wouldn't even use it. >
  
  The conservative judges aren’t raging at anything. In fact their pockets are heavily lined with money, and their outrage is purely fabricated lol >
  
  Vote for a criminal as your president and this is what you get. >
  
  Corrupt court, not supreme. >
  
  GOP states on student loan forgiveness: Fuck no! COVID is over so there is no "emergency" to allow forgiveness!
  GOP states on immigration: We will suffer insurmountable harm if this COVID policy ends! Let's keep the "emergency" going! >
  
  Looks like mods deleted my original response so I’ll say my point in hopefully a more “approved” manor.
  What do you think about people that argue Title 42 should end because covid is spreading anyways but also say student loan debt should be forgiven through the HEROES Act and executive order due to the covid emergency? Seems like anyone that supports the opposite set of policies is also twisting themselves in knots to selectively use covid as justification for policy they support in general but can’t get past the legislator. >
  
  You were calling downvotes hilarious in the removed comment, saying how much you love it. I don't really agree with some mod removals but apparently that's an example they show for trolling. I haven't read through the rules and most people don't, so I can see that one being unexpected.
  
  Editing comments to brag about downvotes or entice inflammatory replies
  
  This is moreso the progressive position on Title 42.
  
  There is no public health reason for allowing Title 42 to override our immigration laws, especially given our nation’s testing capacity, screening systems, effective vaccines, and other tools. Title 42 prevents people from pursuing the legal process set forth by Congress to apply for asylum ...
  
  There's an alternative for Title 42 that preserves their legal right to seek asylum while addressing covid concerns. Offer them vaccines, monitor/screen for symptoms, decide how to handle their claim. It's part of what they were doing to prepare for Title 42 removal.
  That an alternative for Title 42 exists, which preserves the caution against spreading covid, doesn't contradict student loan forgiveness. If they were gonna remove Title 42 with no plan for addressing covid in detention facilities, then I would say that's a contradiction. Covid's still an ongoing problem, there's still economic fallout, restarting payments without at least the IDR changes would cause a new set of problems.
  
  DHS officials have previously cited the border vaccination campaign as one of the ways they are preparing for the end of Title 42, the policy first implemented by the Trump administration that allows U.S. officials to expel migrants without processing their asylum claims.
  Title 42, which the government had argued was needed to prevent migrants from spreading the coronavirus inside border facilities, is set to end next week, but a federal judge in Louisiana could force the Biden administration to continue it >
  
  Thanks for pointing out the rules. The funny thing though is I put the stuff about downvotes to get people to take a second and think about why someone would find their response so funny. I'm not sure I consider that a troll in such a hostile environment to pushback but if it's there it's there. 
  Here is the thing - I don't agree with Title 42. And none of my comments are about justifying whether it's a good policy. The legal justification is over covid though and despite what you said multiple different courts have left it in place based on that justification. 
  Let's be straight up - Title 42 is about trying to stop immigration because it does create some level of deterrent to people coming over.
  But let's take student loan forgiveness. It was a thing desired by many for a long time. Covid is being used as an excuse to push through executive order.
  Let's be straight up - Student loan forgiveness is about giving relief to people in debt because people have felt like the burden has been too great for a long time.
  I'm not sure how they are different other than people being sympathetic to one vs the other (and vice versa). In both cases, Covid was used to pass policy. In both cases, courts will decide if that policy is legal. In both cases, it's something that the groups pushing for the policy wanted before covid was a thing. >
  
  Pack the Court.