Tumgik
#Roberts supreme court
arthropooda · 9 months
Text
Tumblr media
530 notes · View notes
saywhat-politics · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media
177 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media
332 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media
This is a gift🎁link so anyone can read the entire NY Times article, even if they don' subscribe to the Times.
Jamelle Bouie does another excellent job of looking at current events through the perspective of American history. In this column, he compares the current Roberts Court with the infamous late 1850s/ early 1860s Taney Court--the Court that lost all credibility with its Dred Scott decision. Below are a few excerpts.
If the chief currency of the Supreme Court is its legitimacy as an institution, then you can say with confidence that its account is as close to empty as it has been for a very long time. Since the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization nearly two years ago, its general approval with the public has taken a plunge. [...] In the latest 538 average, just over 52 percent of Americans disapproved of the Supreme Court, and around 40 percent approved. [...] At the risk of sounding a little dramatic, you can draw a useful comparison between the Supreme Court’s current political position and the one it held on the eve of the 1860 presidential election. [color emphasis added]
[See more below the cut.]
NOTE: Remember that back in the 1850s/1860s the Democrats were the party that supported slavery. The Democrats and Republicans switched positions on civil rights in the late 20th century.
It was not just the ruling itself that drove the ferocious opposition to the [Taney] Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which overturned the Missouri Compromise and wrote Black Americans out of the national community; it was the political entanglement of the Taney court with the slaveholding interests of the antebellum Democratic Party. [...] Five of the justices were appointed by slave owners. At the time of the ruling, four of the justices were slave owners. And the chief justice, Roger Taney, was a strong Democratic partisan who was in close communication with James Buchanan, the incoming Democratic president, in the weeks before he issued the court’s ruling in 1857. Buchanan, in fact, had written to some of the justices urging them to issue a broad and comprehensive ruling that would settle the legal status of all Black Americans. The Supreme Court, critics of the ruling said, was not trying to faithfully interpret the Constitution as much as it was acting on behalf of the so-called Slave Power, an alleged conspiracy of interests determined to take slavery national. The court, wrote a committee of the New York State Assembly in its report on the Dred Scott decision, was determined to “bring slavery within our borders, against our will, with all its unhallowed, demoralizing and blighted influences.” The Supreme Court did not have the political legitimacy to issue a ruling as broad and potentially far-reaching as Dred Scott, and the result was to mobilize a large segment of the public against the court. Abraham Lincoln spoke for many in his first inaugural address when he took aim at the pretense of the Taney court to decide for the nation: “The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.” [color/ emphasis added]
[formatting edited]
74 notes · View notes
nodynasty4us · 1 year
Link
484 notes · View notes
thoughtportal · 1 year
Video
Corporate takeover of the US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell_Jr.
297 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media
Abortion bans brutally triple maternal deaths it’s a betrayal of their right to live.
Republicans want women dead.
27 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media
Important decision by Pennsylvania Supreme Court on reproductive liberty
Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have written an essay about an important decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that stands as a firm rebuke to the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs. The decision points the path forward for other states. See Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, Pennsylvania Supreme Court rebukes Dobbs, Sam Alito's abortion views.
As explained by Lithwick and Stern, Pennsylvania has a state constitutional “equal rights amendment”, adopted in 1971, which bars the denial or abridgment of “equality of rights” because of “the sex of the individual.” Based on that provision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that “abortion restrictions do amount to sex-based discrimination.”  
Lithwick and Stern explain:
On Monday, the court issued a landmark opinion declaring that abortion restrictions do amount to sex-based discrimination and therefore are “presumptively unconstitutional” under the state constitution’s equal rights amendment. The majority vehemently rejected Dobbs’ history-only analysis, noting that, until recently, “those interpreting the law” saw women “as not only having fewer legal rights than men but also as lesser human beings by design.” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision thus spurned Dobbs in two ways. First, the majority held that laws regulating a woman’s body do discriminate on the basis of sex, a truth that has been widely understood by legal scholars for decades. And second, the majority explained that rooting women’s rights in the past is, itself, a form of sex discrimination, perpetuating misogynistic beliefs about gender inequality by judicial decree.
The decision in Pennsylvania points the way forward for other states until we can expand the Court and undo the travesty of Dobbs.
[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]
21 notes · View notes
Text
Oh thank god the Supreme Court rejected the Independent State Legislature theory. That’s one of the big worries off my mind.
59 notes · View notes
jerseydeanne · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media
311 notes · View notes
mysharona1987 · 11 months
Text
SCOTUS is corrupt.
It genuinely seems every Justice, liberal or conservative, could sit outside the court with a large sign saying “Bribe me!” with literally no consequences.
Gee, letting 9 flawed with political connections people have total power to decide on the rights of 200 million people was a bad idea in the first place.
Who could have foreseen this totally likely scenario?
65 notes · View notes
saywhat-politics · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
305 notes · View notes
Text
For over 20 years, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted luxury gifts from GOP megadonor Harlan Crow that included vacations on Crow’s superyacht and trips on the billionaire’s private jet as well as a week each summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks.
Source
172 notes · View notes
Text
This is an important article by Linda Greenhouse, writing in The New York Times. Therefore, the link above is a gift 🎁 link, so anyone can read the article, even if they don't subscribe to the Times.
Below are some excerpts from the article:
To understand today’s Supreme Court, to see it whole, demands a longer timeline. To show why, I offer a thought experiment. Suppose a modern Rip Van Winkle went to sleep in September 2005 and didn’t wake up until last week. Such a person would awaken in a profoundly different constitutional world, a world transformed, term by term and case by case, at the Supreme Court’s hand. To appreciate that transformation’s full dimension, consider the robust conservative wish list that greeted the new chief justice 18 years ago: Overturn Roe v. Wade. Reinterpret the Second Amendment to make private gun ownership a constitutional right. Eliminate race-based affirmative action in university admissions. Elevate the place of religion across the legal landscape. Curb the regulatory power of federal agencies. [...} That was how the world looked on Sept. 29, 2005, when Chief Justice Roberts took the oath of office, less than a month after the death of his mentor, Chief Justice Rehnquist. And this year? By the time the sun set on June 30, the term’s final day, every goal on the conservative wish list had been achieved. All of it. To miss that remarkable fact is to miss the story of the Roberts court. It’s worth reviewing how the court accomplished each of the goals. It deployed a variety of tools and strategies. Precedents that stood in the way were either repudiated outright, as the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision did last year to Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, or were simply rendered irrelevant — abandoned, in the odd euphemism the court has taken to using. In its affirmative action decision declaring race-conscious university admissions to be unconstitutional, Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion did not overturn the 2003 Grutter decision explicitly. But Justice Thomas was certainly correct in his concurring opinion when he wrote that it was “clear that Grutter is, for all intents and purposes, overruled.” Likewise, the court has not formally overruled its Chevron decision. Its administrative-law decisions have just stopped citing that 1984 precedent as authority. The justices have simply replaced Chevron’s rule of judicial deference with its polar opposite, a new rule that goes by the name of the major questions doctrine. Under this doctrine, the court will uphold an agency’s regulatory action on a major question only if Congress’s grant of authority to the agency on the particular issue was explicit. Deference, in other words, is now the exception, no longer the rule. But how to tell a major question from an ordinary one? No surprise there: The court itself will decide. [...] My focus here on what these past 18 years have achieved has been on the court itself. But of course, the Supreme Court doesn’t stand alone. Powerful social and political movements swirl around it, carefully cultivating cases and serving them up to justices who themselves were propelled to their positions of great power by those movements. The Supreme Court now is this country’s ultimate political prize. That may not be apparent on a day-to-day or even a term-by-term basis. But from the perspective of 18 years, that conclusion is as unavoidable as it is frightening.
133 notes · View notes
nodynasty4us · 3 months
Link
From the December 31, 2023 article:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. did not address any of those contemporary issues Sunday in his annual “Year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary.” Instead, he looked back on technological advancements in the nation’s court system, detailing developments from the quill pens used by justices in the 19th century to electronic databases of the 1980s to online trial proceedings prompted by the coronavirus pandemic.
Roberts, a history buff, also expounded on the potential for artificial intelligence to both enhance and detract from the work of judges, lawyers and litigants. For those who cannot afford a lawyer, he noted, AI could increase access to justice.
...
Roberts used his year-end wrap-up, released by tradition on New Year’s Eve, in part to thank the court system’s technologists and cybersecurity experts. Those experts, he said, keep the judicial branch running behind-the-scenes and answer calls from judges, including Roberts, who said he has “been known to call on help desk staff for urgent and essential assistance.”
Roberts did not mention that this time last year the court was finishing its investigation into the shocking leak of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s draft opinion that eventually overturned a half-century of abortion rights. The court’s investigative report released last January did not determine the identity of the leaker. While the court’s IT experts did not rule out a hack, the report said there was no evidence to suggest improper access to the court’s IT networks.
24 notes · View notes
Text
The Republicans could lose several seats in the House of Representatives due to a surprise Supreme Court ruling which will create a new Black majority district in Alabama, according to a new study.
On Thursday the Supreme Court backed a lower court's ruling, by five votes to four, which found the districts drawn up by the state violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits "discrimination on the basis of race" in the electoral process. Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh, both widely regarded as conservatives, voted with the court's three liberal members to deliver the result.
The ruling means the boundaries of Alabama's seven House districts will need to be redrawn ahead of the 2024 congressional elections, in a move that is expected to benefit the Democrats. It will also increase pressure on other Republican states to follow suit, strengthening the Democratic position in North Carolina and Louisiana.
The Cook Political Report, a non-partisan analytics website, updated its ratings for five House districts following the ruling.
Alabama's 1st and 2nd congressional districts, currently represented by Republicans Jerry Carl and Barry Moore respectively, have been changed from "solid Republican" to "toss up."
The same has happened to Louisiana's 5th and 6th districts, putting seats currently held by Republicans Julia Letlow and Garret Graves, at risk to the Democrats.
Tumblr media
Finally North Carolina's 1st congressional district, which is occupied by Democrat Don Davis, transitions from "toss up" to "lean Democrat."
However the Cook Political Report does add a caveat to its predictions, commenting: "Until courts or legislatures enact remedial plans, it's difficult to predict exactly which Republican incumbents will be impacted."
The Supreme Court's decision could open the door to additional legal challenges in other states whose maps have faced contention from critics arguing they purposefully dilute minority voters to favor Republicans. Louisiana and Georgia—whose state legislatures passed redistricting plans with similar characteristics to Alabama's—could face renewed legal challenges to their maps on the grounds they disproportionately diminish the power of the state's voters.
Thursday's court ruling was welcomed by President Joe Biden, who repeated calls for Congress to pass wider ranging voting reform.
"Today's decision confirms the basic principle that voting practices should not discriminate on account of race, but our work is not done," he commented.
However Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall insisted the state will continue the fight, stating: "Although the majority's decision is disappointing, this case is not over."
Derrick Johnson, president of civil rights group the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) saluted the decision as "a victory for Black America and a triumph for our democracy."
45 notes · View notes