[X] My Assistant

So from what I have heard mainly ABC News and others it would seem that the supreme court have gone far to the right. With the recent rulings lately. Like Roe v. Wade, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Trump v. United States and several others it looks like the court has taken a highly conservative approach lately. Tell me if I missed anything. Is this just news media hype and hand picked facts from several news media or is there merit to this. Also there is an entirely different issue with the court. Like how they are influenced by money and such to favour one side or the other. Who does scotus answer to? Usually they are only exploring technical parts of a law that seems to be interpreted differently in different states or parties. Lately its gone far right. Its far from independent since when a new judge is appointed its usually based on if the president is from the gop or dems. The president would prefer to point a judge that leans more to the right if its a republican. If the president comes from the democrats it would be more to the left. Has it always been this political? Does not sound healthy at all. More accountability and a balance between left and right. Would that not be better?

What do you think?



[en.wikipedia.org] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court...e_United_States
[www.c-span.org] https://www.c-span.org/supreme-court/
[www.scotusblog.com] https://www.scotusblog.com/
[www.c-span.org] https://www.c-span.org/video/?536293-1/hous...me-court-ethics
[www.theguardian.com] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-inte...-2023-2024-term

So from what I have heard mainly ABC News and others it would seem that the supreme court have gone far to the right.

The main argument is that the Democrats reduced some of the safe guards when appointing Supreme Court Justices because they believed Hillary would win and they could push all their candidates through. When they recently controlled both houses they could have restored the process to what it was previously but chose not to. So implicitly the problem is that they are saying is that 'the decks were stacked but we did not get to do it this time'.

The justices that were appointed were selected for being constitutionalists rather than activists, which arguably is a centrist position because they are looking at 'what is the legislation' and 'what is the constitution'.

A lot of left leaning decisions in the past were due to poorly constructed legislation and legislative gaps that Democrats and Republicans have failed to address.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
-The original rulings explicitly stated that the legal basis of the decisions were not on firm grounds and could be challenged in future and that congress needed to pass new legislation confirm the position.
-Challenges against state and federal vaccine mandates on the same legal basis as Roe v Wade brought the ruling down where it went back to state powers.

Democrats have controlled both houses like seven times since 1973 and easily could have passed legislation and it was challenges against their own poorly constructed vaccine mandates that brought it down. They decided to keep it as a wedge election issue, similar to health care reform, where they had the opportunity to pass reforms but establishment democrats opposed them.

Fun fact: Norma McCovey aka Jane Roe, later launched appeals against the decision and became a campaigner against the Roe v Wade decision.

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council 1984

The basic ruling was originally was where there was a grey area interpretation of legislation the courts would allow the government agencies to look to the intentions and discussions of congress when they decided regulations and policies.
The problem is scope creep of organizations such as EPA building upon multiple layers of interpretations to impose new regulations and costs without new legislation. Its a legislative failure, it was supposed to be allowed as reasonable as a stop gap until new legislation was passed. Again Republicans and Democrats failed to update the legislation since the 80s.

Trump v. United States

There has been an assumed partial immunity for Presidents and constitutional processes in place for like 100-200 years. Presidents have relied upon this for the past 100 years. Obama and Bush would be war criminals, Clinton would be done in for corruption, Biden would be done in for acts of war without congressional oversight (and a bunch of stuff as VP which they say he is too senile to be charged for). The supreme court simply ruled on how it applies and where the courts and current processes apply. Democrats seriously did not want this overturned, just they wanted the decision after the election.

The problem I would say is actually with Biden, who is signing off things as president without reading and comprehending (he has literally said this) and this is effectively shielding other administration actors under presidential privileges.

[b]Also there is an entirely different issue with the court. Like how they are influenced by money and such to favour one side or the other.

This is a major problem throughout US politics at multiple levels. When Trump tried to ban activists and special interest loby groups from the white house it caused a shockwave in govt agencies, congress and the senate, when you think it should be normal practice.

I can't complain too much, the left wing government in my country has been caught up in a corruption case they are trying to suppress desperately. The left wing party is ruled by the unions, but one of the major unions is run by the crime syndicates. Its just a coincidence they blocked and overruled legislation that would have reduced the profits of the unions and the syndicates.

Lately its gone far right. Its far from independent since when a new judge is appointed its usually based on if the president is from the gop or dems.

It depends whether you believe that justices should be constitutionalists or activists. The constitutionalist candidates at least seem to be well qualified. A lot of the Dem picks in recent times have had great activist qualifications and are pretty poor on constitutional law.

Personally I am a bit of a fence sitter, I believe the constitution is important but the function is to serve the needs of the people and country. Most of the cases you listed are legislative failures. Congress Dem and Republican seem too focused on stuffing bills with special interest amendments rather than getting the legislation right.

The president would prefer to point a judge that leans more to the right if its a republican. If the president comes from the democrats it would be more to the left. Has it always been this political?

The nominees under Trump were at least qualified, but were constitutionalists, which by their nature are more conservative. They have ruled against what Republicans want if it went against the constitution and they refused to hear any of Trump's 2020 cases.

The Dem recent nominees haven't been very qualified apart from working with activist and special interest groups that fund democrat causes. They would arguably make judgements in line with the establishment Democrats, eg not far left.

So in reality, Dems weakened the nomination process hoping to stack the deck with Hilary backing special interest activists (but establishment supporting not far left) and instead Republicans with Trump nominated multiple staunch constittuionalists, who whilst being more conservative, have not always ruled in favor of what Republicans want.



Appointing justices has become so controversial in the US that conventions of retiring due to age and health have been overturned. So it may need to have a fixed term limit like 10 years? The problem is Republicans and Democrats oppose that as the timing might go against them.

The US really just needs to restore the process to the pre-2013 process. Dems changed the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive appointments only required a simply majority rather than a supermajority.

A super majority usually meant you needed some cross party support, which pushed most candidates to being more moderate / qualified.

[www.washingtonpost.com] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen...e67c_story.html

The only basis for assuming the current supreme court is right wing is that Democrats explicitly wanted to stack the deck in 2016 so they assume that Republicans did as they intended.

Its kind of projection I guess.


Meanwhile the Supreme court in my country is stacked pretty radically left wing, they wanted to destroy the government and overturn the whole system recently. Unfortunately for them, the people voted against what they wanted. They are still going ahead with most of the plans but a lot slower.

Literally fucking nothing in the West has gone "far right" since the 1940s. The only thing that has changed in recent decades is that the media coverage keeps shifting their coverage further to the left, and little by little declares ideas that used to be moderate or centrist to be "far right". I mean the idea that there are two genders is now be labelled "a far-right hate speech conspiracy theory" by the majority of publications. Not even 10 years ago it was just common sense all but the most extremist Twitter activists would've agreed on.

I just recently read that where I live 80% of journalism students are now women. And we all know how women vote (and what a mistake that was). Go figure why the press is in the state that it is.

ah yes, the famous right winger, socialist Franklin Roosevelt.
Also the red scare and lavender scare in the 1950s seemed like a right wing swing to me.

Barry Goldwater felt that the republican party moved farther to the right than he was comfortable with by the end of his time serving. And at one point he had been considered extremely far right.

Anyway, back on topic of the supreme court, interesting that most people were voting "corrupt." That's what I'd picked too.

This post has been edited by Moonlight Rambler: Aug 13 2024, 00:12

Anyway, back on topic of the supreme court, interesting that most people were voting "corrupt." That's what I'd picked too.

I think most Americans do not understand their own system and the media companies do not help much either.

This post has been edited by EsotericSatire: Aug 13 2024, 13:00

I think most Americans do not understand their own system and the media companies do not help much either.

I don't think you need a very complex understanding of the inner workings of any political system to understand that the ones who make it to the top are corrupt. The SCOTUS might not technically be politicians, but they're tools of the political apparatus.

ah yes, the famous right winger, socialist Franklin Roosevelt.
Also the red scare and lavender scare in the 1950s seemed like a right wing swing to me.

Barry Goldwater felt that the republican party moved farther to the right than he was comfortable with by the end of his time serving. And at one point he had been considered extremely far right.

Anyway, back on topic of the supreme court, interesting that most people were voting "corrupt." That's what I'd picked too.

The reason why I voted corrupt is not only because they received the money or service for free but also because their spirits are corrupted. They actually arrogated some of the legislation right from Congress by judgment. Is there any kind of federal law which prohibits or approves abortion? Legalisation or not of abortion and any other actions ONLY should be completed by lawmakers rather than judges. However, these corrupted judges cannot be satisfied with their lifetime high salaries and supreme social honours. They greedily put their hands on everyone and everything. The so-called "balances" and "separation of powers" is a joke. It is a competition for efficiency. Between legislative, executive and judicial powers, the one who shows a higher efficiency will get more powers from the others. Unfortunately, the lawmakers and President, or politicians, usually do not have a smart brain when they are compared to the judges who finished one of the hardest courses in university. And they only need to get an agreement from several people rather than half of Congress. Once they have tasted the power of defining what is legal, they will not return it.

They actually arrogated some of the legislation right from Congress by judgment. Is there any kind of federal law which prohibits or approves abortion? Legalisation or not of abortion and any other actions ONLY should be completed by lawmakers rather than judges.

Roe v. Wade was the usurpation of authority from legislators to judges - striking it down explicitly returned that question where it belonged. To the degree it was banned was the degree that states had more restrictive laws on the books and declined to update them to reflect that new responsibility.

The reason why I voted corrupt is not only because they received the money or service for free but also because their spirits are corrupted. They actually arrogated some of the legislation right from Congress by judgment. Is there any kind of federal law which prohibits or approves abortion? Legalisation or not of abortion and any other actions ONLY should be completed by lawmakers rather than judges. However, these corrupted judges cannot be satisfied with their lifetime high salaries and supreme social honours. They greedily put their hands on everyone and everything. The so-called "balances" and "separation of powers" is a joke. It is a competition for efficiency. Between legislative, executive and judicial powers, the one who shows a higher efficiency will get more powers from the others. Unfortunately, the lawmakers and President, or politicians, usually do not have a smart brain when they are compared to the judges who finished one of the hardest courses in university. And they only need to get an agreement from several people rather than half of Congress. Once they have tasted the power of defining what is legal, they will not return it.

Do you know why it was called "Roe v. Wade"? Because it was a court case. That's not how laws or acts are named.
How can overturning a court case (a previous judges' decision) be the court stepping on the toes of the legistlation? Literally all they did was erase a ruling (by judges) from the record so it doesn't interfere with the lawmakers.

Do you know why it was called "Roe v. Wade"? Because it was a court case. That's not how laws or acts are named.
How can overturning a court case (a previous judges' decision) be the court stepping on the toes of the legistlation? Literally all they did was erase a ruling (by judges) from the record so it doesn't interfere with the lawmakers.

Yes. It is one example which reflects what I said. The wide range of abortion bans after the overruling is the backfire of their abuses. The same issue also happened with gun control when ATF revised the definitions. Judges and these administration departments always want to steal power from lawmakers by playing with words. And the lawmakers are numb and slow when their actions cannot bring them the votes in the short term. Just imagine what would happen if they made a new law rather than a judgment to confirm that abortion is one of women's rights; what would happen if they made a law for gun control? Some people would say, they would not make the law, and these word games were the best people can do. However, it jeopardised the motivation of legislative institutions to do this. Why do they need to do the hard job when there is an easier way? As a result, any progress which was made by the shortcut can be destroyed in the same way easily. If it is an emergency, okay. However, after that, what they did was just like asking a recovered patient to keep using enteral feeding because it worked when he was unconscious.

They actually arrogated some of the legislation right from Congress by judgment. Is there any kind of federal law which prohibits or approves abortion? Legalisation or not of abortion and any other actions ONLY should be completed by lawmakers rather than judges.

As has been mentioned, all the 'corrupt rulings' of SCOTUS have literally been rulings that the federal government should legislation. They failed to legislation for decades. Even in the original Roe vs Wade, they explicitly mention that the ruling was tenuous and that they needed federal legislation. Without the federal legislation, all it has done is return the powers to the state to legislate on.

This is not corruption of SCOTUS its ineptitude of congress, for all the rulings recently (which largely were challenged due to Joe Biden's administration incompetence pushing issues that would then go to the supreme court), it was the failure of congress.

Democrats for instance had six opportunities to legislate a formal federal abortion regulation law.

Yes. It is one example which reflects what I said. The wide range of abortion bans after the overruling is the backfire of their abuses. The same issue also happened with gun control when ATF revised the definitions.

This was another example of the failure of congress. Several agencies rely on gaining new powers from ancient legislation that desperately needs updates by congress. Both parties campaign on wedge issues, then when they gain power forget those issues and just pass money bills with tax exemptions for corporations and grants for lobby groups.

Ultimately it leads to massive expansion of government without regulation, which means less money going to things that actually count.

I see the results points mostly to corrupt and that is a fair assumption I guess. Before I would be naive thinking that ''great empires'', ''big corp'' and ''deep state'' would be something real. Its just in the movies and games. Yet, it seems I'm naive to think it is not. Movies and games got nothing on real corruption. It plays out differently but its not good at all.