comment: >
  
  Cry about it, just like you all do with every single thing you don't have a complete stranglehold over.
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. >
  
  13 justices to match the 13 Court of Appeals. >
  
  Fuck that, I want 100 justices. Yes, I'm serious. We need to make these individual bozos matter less and the best way to do that is to make it so there's way more of them. >
  
  I'm not sure that would work. It may hurt us more. So many justices would get lost in the rush of daily news. Trump (and currently Biden) appointed many many judges in the lower courts. I'm sure some of them are terrible Brett kavanaugh's but we just aren't aware. What do you think? >
  
  I think that'll happen but it's also mostly fine? The whole point of having a lot of justices is that one bad pick isn't gonna affect the system that much. I actually want each president picking 10 supreme court justices and it not being a big deal.   
  So much current extremism is couched in the idea that the supreme court picks matter more than anything else. You have people who literally think Trump was the worst president ever but still supported him because they wanted those supreme court picks. It shouldn't matter that much. The fact that it does is super anti-democratic and just a toxic incentive on our whole political system. >
  
  
  The whole point of having a lot of justices is that one bad pick isn't gonna affect the system that much. I actually want each president picking 10 supreme court justices and it not being a big deal.
  
  And then presidents are going to pick 10 bad justices, Einstein >
  
  10 justices are 10 percent of 100 justices. Significantly less than Trump's 33% of justices. This shit isn't very hard. I hate to think about how confused you must get when looking at the McDonald's menu. >
  
  Isn't a court basically meant to be the most consistent thing in a government, because that's how you get security in what the law means? If they change their opinions on a whim then that kinda makes a lot of the law unclear. >
  
  “And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency,” the dissent said. “We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort.” >
  
  Which is ironic because for like twenty years now the court has been policymakers of last resort. Both dem and gop justices have been that and the justices in the majority are always fine with it when it suits their political leanings. When the court goes the other way those now minority justices always complain that the court shouldn’t be legislating from the bench while ignoring the fact that they did just that in previous years.
  All of the justices are hypocrites when they complain about it >
  
  SCOTUS now has more power than the other two branches of our Democracy. >
  
  I’m just going to say it. We need term limits >
  
  I feel like, of the myriad of topics to bug the hell out of our Reps/Senators with, this is probably one of the top ones. 
  The Supreme Court is unelected and, as of McConnell’s bullshit during the Obama Administration, largely illegitimate. 
  The only way to rein in the obvious maneuvering to dismantle democracy by Republicans and the ~~Fascist~~ Federalist Society is to impose term limits and increase the seats on the bench. Legislating from the bench is exactly what those fuckheads were projecting about and hearing their bullshit from the recent KBJ nomination, it was fucking infuriating. 
  The court, as it is, is absolutely the arm of Conservative bullshit - paid for by the highest ~~bribe~~ donations. It’s high fucking time to clean house and set up rules to prevent it from happening again. >
  
  Someone really needs to explain to me how SCOTUS could legitimately support Trump's executive use of Title 42 as legal because of what the CDC guidelines, but now, despite the CDC guidelines changing, they are saying it's still applicable. The application of Title 42 is also clearly placed in the hands of the executive branch, to boot, so that ruling makes zero fucking sense.
  And then explain how the fuck that decision is legitimate when it was put forth by 19 states in what is clearly a bad faith argument based on public health concerns while at the same time those 19 states are not taking any measures within their states to handle the public health problem they are claiming still exists.
  SCOTUS is not legitimate. >
  
  OK dumb question. I can see the argument the courts would have jurisdiction to review if an executive order is constitutional. However an executive order is effectively the will of the President...what possible say would they have over a President rescinding one? >
  
  We're basically ruled by the supreme court at this point. They have unlimited power and no one can check it. Something to has to give and hopefully it does before shit pops off for real. >
  
  Damn. It's almost like we should have supported Hillary. >
  
  “Their political goals” is a phrase that should never be uttered in reference to the supreme court >
  
  Republican hacks on the court are destroying all credibility and then complain that they aren’t getting the respect they deserve. >
  
  There's no Constitutional justification for this structure to the Supreme Court in the first place.  This aristocratic model we've been using is as un-American as it could be.  It's an affront to the basic ideas the country was founded on.
  What I think would be better is a Supreme Court built like the Senate.  Pick two justices from each state, and give them each a limited term.  Have panels of, say, nine justices hear most cases, and only go en banc as an appeal if one of the other two branches formally demands it.
  The court would be far more representative and less insane.  No more bullshit appointed-for-life power-mad stupidity or doddering.  The court would manage to get through all business before it, which would hobble the power of the shadow docket and reduce the idiotic power behind the throne.  
  Just say no President can seat more than maybe two justices per year.  It'd take a long time for us to fill up the remaining seats, but that'd be fine. >
  
  Isn’t the constitutional justification literally the constitution itself? >
  
  The constitution only says there should be a chief justice, a supreme court and that justices should have lifetime appointments.  
  Everything else is up to congress to define. >
  
  And the lifetime appointment doesn't have to be just for the Supreme Court.  The solution is to have a rotating bench where SC justices are regularly subbed out and get put on one of the federal circuits.  They still get their lifetime appointments but they just don't spend their appointment on the SC for their entire lives. >
  
  The idea that "their offices" actually means whatever offices we feel like rotating them into,  would be a pretty tough sell.  Especially considering which branch needs to be convinced. >
  
  Theocratic governance is the GOPs M.O. >
  
  Time to pack the court.  Seriously. >
  
  Term limits need to be a thing. 
  No term limits is a fascist mindset. It’s unfortunate limits weren’t added to SC justices from the jump. >
  
  Religious fundamentalists only make things worse. >
  
  This would be an opportunity. Biden should ignore a ruling on his authority to reverse an executive order. >
  
  ELI5: how is a "shadow docket" even a thing for the highest court of the land that typically sees cases of the utmost national and legislative importance? >
  
  I remember when the supreme Court was the most trusted government body. What a joke and a nightmare today.  I hope we survive. >
  
  The current scotus is trash. They have the lowest public approval rating of any court in the last 50 years. Overturning Roe was a sign of things to come and if they’re not careful, they could ruin America with some terrible decision like ruling in favor of Independent State Legislature Theory >
  
  They will ruin America. That’s their plan. >
  
  They don't care about anything other than their Marching orders from the Federalist society.   Welcome to the world of voting for Trump, a third party candidate,  or not voting.   The Federalist society is extremely dangerous and any candidate they support or that supports them should be treated like the plague. >
  
  Biden should take a page from Andrew Jackson and issue a countermanding executive order anyway.  Put the SC in the uncomfortable position of having to explicitly claim a current President can't override a previous President's decree.  If the SC is going to burn down our democracy anyway I wouldn't mind seeing them spill some gasoline on themselves while they fumble with the matches. >
  
  This supreme court thinks it is its job to use the "Law as a Teacher" and force their beliefs on you. Of course there is no consistency when viewed from a legal perspective, the only consistency is that of Christian supremacy. >
  
  *the heavily conservative majority of the Supreme Court >
  
  They should NOT HAVE ANY political goals. >
  
  Religious beliefs need to be removed from our courts..period.!!! Those beliefs are personal and should never be projected onto non believers. AMERICA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY..!! >
  
  What's that? Reprehensible conservative trash possesses no plan beyond cruelty and profit and is unwilling to follow even the most basic of ethical principles.
  Surely you jest. Must just be a day that ends in y. >
  
  Pack the court harder than dtrump packs ketchup up his ass >
  
  Now that's classic fake news. He doesn't shove ketchup packets up his ass! Those are for flinging at the wall. It's flourescent light bulbs he shoves up his ass. >
  
  I thought it was bleach! >
  
  Nah he drinks that. Per his 2020 instruction >
  
  The bigger question for me is why has Biden not shut down the use of Title 42 for this via executive order?
  Edit: Found this story, apparently they're using it to get rid of Hatian migrants.. of course they are. 
  So we have had full on migrant camps at our borders and no one is talking about it? >
  
  Read the article! Theres and injunction against lifting title 42. 
  Basically when Trump issued Executive orders they were forever and the new executive cant use executive power to stop it. >
  
  The Supreme Court is political.  Courts are political.  Laws are biased.  
  We keep acting like we just found this out yesterday.
  The myth of equality under blind Justice might be comforting to some, but it's always been bullshit. >
  
  The Supreme Court is wrecking all respect for itself. >
  
  Biden needs to expand the fucking court already. >
  
  The court seems to be entirely independent of the people and the nation, and is expanding its power as fast as possible. They are becoming the government. They are currently making immigration policy. If you want a medal of freedom for Vladimir Putin you just need to sue somebody over it and keep appealing till you get to the Supremes. >
  
  Why in the blue fuck would the arbiters of justice be appointed for life, I'll never understand. Our constitution was supposed to protect against tyranny, so why is there lifetime tenure?! >
  
  It's time to expand the courts, set up term limits. >
  
  The Supreme Court SHOULD. NOT. HAVE. POLITICAL GOALS!!!! Why is it that most people on the left only want what's right and what's fair, like a neutral Supreme Court, fair elections where it's easy to vote, you know things like that, while most on the right want EVERYTHING rigged in THEIR favor? >
  
  Lol they are so transparent in their BS but it’s the way in how they are open about they’re play that is  hilarious. All the while the fascists oligarchs keep running their program and keep creating stalemates but somehow always get their agenda moved forward. What does that ultimately tell you? >
  
  Shits broken. Needs fixin. Very unhealthy for democracy. Tentacles of minority rule. >
  
  Mitch McConnell will only be remembered for his villainy for how he stacked Supreme Court. He caused this. And they aren’t doing anything he wanted in the way he wanted. >
  
  Tfw Gorsuch is the least unethical RW SCOTUS appointee: 🤯 >
  
  THEIR POLITICAL GOALS?!! EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL! Is what is on the front of the building NOT I DO WHAT I WANT FOR ME. >
  
  Having lived over 70 yrs I have no good feelings about our so called impartial judiciary. They have been bought just like the rest of Washington >
  
  Actually, the 4 conservatives are sticking to their underlying white Christian preferential leaning. The migrants don't fit what Conservative Republicans consider desirable new residents.  If they were Scandinavians the Supreme Court majority would vote to lift the restrictions. >
  
  I'm guessing you aren't a lawyer. >
  
  Don’t need to be a lawyer to understand the court’s real intentions. >
  
  Maybe the judiciary committee should choose the calendar. >
  
  Crazy how much power these judges get at a term limit that’s 10 times a president. Ridiculous. >
  
  From the bottom of my heart, Chief Justice John. Roberts can get fucked.  The sooner that fucker is off the court, the better.  Fuck him for Citizens United.  I am wholly blaming him for what's going on in politics today. >
  
  He’s the reason Obamacare passed though. He also voted for gay marriage >
  
  Time for torches and pitchforks. Mass action. Something, anything...citizens are going to have to pressure this government in some way, but that will never happen. >
  
  It’s an illegitimate court run by right wing ideologists >
  
  Hypocrisy shaming is meaningless because their goal is all that matters not the methods. They're incredibly consistent when you stop listening to them lie about WHY they're doing what they're doing and just look at what they're doing. They're trying to rebuild white Christian patriarchy and they're succeeding through the judiciary. >
  
  The Court is playing a dangerous game.  Respect for the rule of law is a fundamental requirement for civilization to thrive.  Undermining the prestige of the Court for short-term political gain is insane. >
  
  I'm struck by two things in that photo.
  
  
  The placement of people. Eg.Kbj next to da Chief, and that lil scamp alito.
  
  
  Just how badly fitted/tailored is the supreme court dress on most of the Justices. Sloppy, almost a comedic impersonation. The dress is supposed to herald legal majesty, mastery, solemnity.
  
  
  It is a COURT, after all with the rights of a Royal court. >
  
  Justices robes have traditionally been in a more baggy style. Justices are free to choose whether they want that baggier style or if they want to tailor or taper parts of the robe >
  
  "Activist judges! Activist judges!" >
  
  There is a huge stink of illegitimacy of this court. Gorshuch shouldn’t be on it, the accusations towards Kavanuagh was not thoroughly investigated.Democrats should be making a more of a fuss of it and shouldn’t be normalized >
  
  We need term limits >
  
  They should not have life terms >
  
  Click bait article intended to feed the uneducated liberal masses of Reddit.
  The author lost all credibility when he tried to make the claim that the right to practice religion, a constitutionally protected right, is the same as illegal entering a country. >
  
  The issue is the basis for applying the restriction was Covid-19.  When the conservative justices limited enforcement of the restrictions last time, part of the reason is they said Covid is over.  Now, they’re saying actually maybe Covid is still a really big problem that warrants restrictions.
  This is typical for the conservative Supreme Court.  They will constantly shift their reasoning to reach the result that aligns with their party politics, even if it means they have to blatantly contradict themselves. >
  
  But that’s not true. When the justices limited enforcement of covid restriction, it was at the height of the covid pandemic, and their argument was that religious expression  could not be limited as it was a protected right.
  If we want to talk about contradictions, how do we buy the Administration insistence that Title 42 is no longer needed because “covid is over” while at the same time yesterday announcing new travel restrictions from China?  Talk about shifting their reasoning. >
  
  First, the article is actually referring to a dissenting opinion, which pointed out the majority’s reasoning is contradictory.  So this isn’t the opinion of the person writing the article.  It’s actually the opinion of some justices on the Supreme Court.
  Second, the Court is absolutely contradicting itself.  At the height of the pandemic, they said Covid restrictions were no longer needed and we shouldn’t keep them in place indefinitely.  Whether that was true or not, it’s contradictory to now say Covid is an emergency that requires continuing restrictions.
  As for travel restrictions to China, this is the type of false reasoning conservatives love to employ.  A blanket restriction on immigration nationwide is not the same as a travel restriction for a country that is having a current Covid emergency.  But conservatives will conflate these two completely different situations to try to get what they want. >
  
  This is the part of the article that I was referring too, not the justices dissenting opinion.   
  "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?"   
  Those are the authors words, not the Justices.  
  The author is trying to make the claim that illegal entry into this country has the same constitutional protection as religious worship. To support this claim of contradiction, he uses a narrow part of one justices Dissent to support his claim.(the line about covid being over) However that was a throwaway line in the dissent's argument, and the main argument the justices put forward for blocking New York's laws against in person religious service was the way that New York was treating, secular gatherings differently than non-secular gatherings, a clear violation of the second amendment.  
  There is no blanket restriction on immigration to the United States. Nor is there a constitutional right to enter the country illegally. And this administrations current policy of selecting  visitors to ban from China is relevant here, because they are making the statement that they need to control entry for safety reasons at the airport, while advocating for uncontrolled entry in the southern border. If the administration is arguing in court that Covid is no longer a threat and they can allow uncontrolled illegal entry, why do they have to block Chinese visitors? 
  You accuse Conservatives of conflating two completely different situation to get what you want, in a discussion about an  article where a liberal author conflates 2 separate situations to to get what  he wants. The irony is rich here. Democrats love to sweep under the rug logical inconsistencies and hypocrisies as long as it is their side doing it. >
  
  oh, so this is about Title 42? hard to tell from the comments. >
  
  The US, Argentina and other countries are going thru this same narrative (true or not), that the supreme court is old and sabotaging the country. It is very interesting that the same narratives are been propagated to serveral countries at the same time. >
  
  This isn’t a new narrative lol. This has been a narrative about scotus for decades lol. One side thinks that when they’re in the minority and then when the other side is in the minority said side now thinks the court is terrible. We’ve gone back and forth like this for like 100 years >
  
  Immigration isn't a right like religious expression is. Immigration is a privilege. And until the liberal, non-border states start helping out with the flood of illegals coming over the border, yall can shut the fuck up about how we do things. Want to have a voice? Then help us stem the flood. You think a couple hundred being bused to Harris' residence on Christmas Eve is bad? What about the 2,000 illegals on the streets in El Paso that night when it was below freezing and couldn't get any help because everyone is full to over capacity with thousands of more illegals? >
  
  It isn't a right for you mentally ill religious hicks to force your mental illness on rational people. >
  
  Obligatory: Listen to 5-4 Podcast. >
  
  Please Don't Write Titles Like This If They Are Phrased As A Compound Sentence >
  
  Its almost willful to be this ignorant of the processes of the judiciary at this point.  Nevermind the Bill of Rights.  The author isn't even trying to keep it a simplified.
  Everyone and their dog knows that when Title 42 is lifted, there will be a huge influx of illegal immigration at the border.  We're already at record levels.  Several states sued to stop lifting the border because they fear what will happen with that influx.  This creates a "harm" (I'm using simplified language here).  And since they would be harmed while their right to fight this in court, they asked for a stay.  SCOTUS, by accepting this case, is willing to let that stay stand while they review it.
  Now let's compare to the other decision the author referenced.
  This case has nothing to do with stays - its really just a straight strict scrutiny case.  Can the government violate a civil right in this way?  The case, the lockdowns were also restricted people from going to church.  I won't go into the entire process of strict scrutiny (its actually kind of simple once you get the hang of it) but rather the justices noted that liquor stores were allowed to open, but not churches.
  These two are only related if you take the approach who won or lost.  And the first isn't even done yet.  We're just getting the pre-trial motions, for the lack of a better comparison.
  As to the issue at play - its pretty obvious that Title 42 is going to fall, but I don't think anyone is going to really like the final outcome.  Its likely that the SCOTUS is going to say something along the lines of "If Title 42 is going to be removed because COVID is no longer an emergency, it must be that way for the entire federal government."
  And as for the dissent... I'm happy that Gorsuch brought this up:
  
  And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency,” the dissent said. “We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort
  
  I'd love to see the SCOTUS overturn or limit Marbury but I have a doubt that will never happen. >
  
  Term limits and expand the court. It’s the only short term bandaids we have until we figure out how to prevent future GOP fuckery. >
  
  A corrupt court, with justices that all lie under oath. >
  
  As someone who’s not from the US, it baffles me how the Supreme Court judges are politically selected by a president, instead of being selected based on merit by other judges or the appropriate ministry. It makes no sense that, in an institution where impartiality is essential, it fails on being that from the get go. I just can’t wrap my head around how something like that can even be allowed in the first place. It just doesn’t make sense to me, at all. >
  
  So far from Supreme >
  
  Y of those so-called Christians believe they are above the law for sure.  They think the constitution is theirs for the changing no matter the truth! >
  
  I don't think you understand the Constitution. >
  
  Republicans have appointed 16 of the last 21 Supreme Court justices since 1969.  
  We can blame the Supreme Court, but the fault comes down to the citizens who voted for scumbag republicans even after they were outed as scumbags in the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and all the way to today.
  I swear to god, progressives just need to run as republicans because that’s the only way they’re winning a race in half this country.