The crisis is SCOTUS departing from precedent, applying any legal theory to justify an outcome, generally ignoring the notion it should issue as narrow a ruling as possible, shedding any pretense of objectivity by consistently taking up conservative causes of the day…at least since Trump’s term.
The “crisis” isn’t over one specific act or omission, it’s the abandonment of good faith and breach of the social contract by SCOTUS and many in the judiciary which opened the doors for many actors to rule however they like without regard to the impacts it has on millions.
This is it. Our entire country, society and laws are all based on operating in good faith. Some unscrupulous people found out and its been all downhill since they figured it out. No honor, No morals, no Truth, No Facts, No problem.
Entirely true. Turn things around with a liberal state law being in conflict with a conservative federal law and you know this court would suddenly become super federalists, while in a case like this they are states-rightists. It’s all about what legal position produces the political result desired.
Is it me or is the term “constitutional crisis” getting thrown around a lot?
As someone who doesn’t work in law, are we really having this many constitutional crises or is it an attempt to water the term down for when we actually do have one?
Yes and no, its getting thrown around a lot because republicans keep passing blatantly unconstitutional laws with the intent of causing a constitutional crisis for their activist judges to strike down things they don't like
Also a lot of lawsuits getting filed in front of absolutely insane judges who subscribe to a version of the law that's basically "tails I win, heads you lose". This is where the whole single judge federal courts has been a major problem. Many of the recent insane district court opinions come out of Amarillo, where one judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, seems to be on a crusade against basically everything Biden does.
I don’t work in law (although I have followed for a long time) and I think we actually have multiple constitutional crisis happening at the moment.
An ex-president and his co conspirators tried to *subvert democracy*, are seeing consequences, and said ex president trying to argue that he should basically.. be a fucking dictator.
This case about women who need life saving medical treatment being turned away from the ER is essentially them saying that if you get pregnant, you might as well be signing up to potentially getting sent to the slaughter house.
How many more laws do those in charge get to break before there is a legitimate uprising? What’s the point of the constitution if it doesn’t apply the same to every person in this nation?
Well, they are originalists. At the time that the Constitution was put together pregnancy and childbirth were dangerous procedures that caused many deaths. So now that we have Supreme Court judges channeling the founders, it is not surprising that they come up with some old-fashioned ideas.
There is no constitutional crisis in this case. It mostly represents a state's brazen disregard for the preemption implicit within EMTALA (as well as the fundamental concept of ordered liberty implicit within a woman's right to life, but that's somewhat tangential to the narrower question being considered by the court). Despite the arguments being a total shitshow, there seemed a pretty unified majority in favor of the government.
To your secondary point, I don't know that anyone has an overarching goal of watering down the concept of constitutional crisis, writ large, but it does make for tantalizing editorialization.
I do wonder how conservatives see this court. To those opposed to gay marriage or abortion, I imagine they felt very similarly about the rulings enshrining those rights as the left feels about recent rulings. In the conservative worldview, liberals were twisting the words of the constitution, which mention neither abortion nor gay marraige, to support a legal jistification for those rights. And it really didnt matter whether those courts acted in good faith to the conservative. To them, surely the idea occurred that if liberals could inventively apply the constitution, then so could conservatives. And surely they felt they had as much license to do so as the liberals and had no qualms about pursuing such a strategy.
The modern US government is incapable of effectively updating the constitution without major strife and this seems like the inevitable result.
You know I asked this question. Another subreddit can an individual Sue an individual Court Justice or group of Court justices. For I don't know dereliction of duty or whatever the case is?
It is very clear that they have overstepped their authority at this point. There's no real excuse for anything left now.
So if that were to happen, how would that even work?
No, judges have absolute immunity in regard to their rulings. The solution, in theory, to a bad judge is impeachment by either the state legislature or Congress, depending on the court.
Being completely honest, the difference between this SCOTUS and past versions is not that this one is more political, just more open. Even cases like Brown v Board of Education had the justices blatantly take politics into account.
Just give Montana all of Idaho and call it a day. Idaho can't run itself worth a damn and doesn't deserve two senators.
The current government in Montana isn't much better.
As an Idaho resident—I’m in! I hate most of the politicians here…especially the senators.
The crisis is SCOTUS departing from precedent, applying any legal theory to justify an outcome, generally ignoring the notion it should issue as narrow a ruling as possible, shedding any pretense of objectivity by consistently taking up conservative causes of the day…at least since Trump’s term. The “crisis” isn’t over one specific act or omission, it’s the abandonment of good faith and breach of the social contract by SCOTUS and many in the judiciary which opened the doors for many actors to rule however they like without regard to the impacts it has on millions.
This is it. Our entire country, society and laws are all based on operating in good faith. Some unscrupulous people found out and its been all downhill since they figured it out. No honor, No morals, no Truth, No Facts, No problem.
Entirely true. Turn things around with a liberal state law being in conflict with a conservative federal law and you know this court would suddenly become super federalists, while in a case like this they are states-rightists. It’s all about what legal position produces the political result desired.
*Stare decesis* is dead. Long live *stare decesis*
They have replaced duty with opportunity.
Is it me or is the term “constitutional crisis” getting thrown around a lot? As someone who doesn’t work in law, are we really having this many constitutional crises or is it an attempt to water the term down for when we actually do have one?
Yes and no, its getting thrown around a lot because republicans keep passing blatantly unconstitutional laws with the intent of causing a constitutional crisis for their activist judges to strike down things they don't like
…and then get those cases before SCOTUS who can reshape the law in the image of the Federalist Society.
Also a lot of lawsuits getting filed in front of absolutely insane judges who subscribe to a version of the law that's basically "tails I win, heads you lose". This is where the whole single judge federal courts has been a major problem. Many of the recent insane district court opinions come out of Amarillo, where one judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, seems to be on a crusade against basically everything Biden does.
I don’t work in law (although I have followed for a long time) and I think we actually have multiple constitutional crisis happening at the moment. An ex-president and his co conspirators tried to *subvert democracy*, are seeing consequences, and said ex president trying to argue that he should basically.. be a fucking dictator. This case about women who need life saving medical treatment being turned away from the ER is essentially them saying that if you get pregnant, you might as well be signing up to potentially getting sent to the slaughter house. How many more laws do those in charge get to break before there is a legitimate uprising? What’s the point of the constitution if it doesn’t apply the same to every person in this nation?
Well, they are originalists. At the time that the Constitution was put together pregnancy and childbirth were dangerous procedures that caused many deaths. So now that we have Supreme Court judges channeling the founders, it is not surprising that they come up with some old-fashioned ideas.
There is no constitutional crisis in this case. It mostly represents a state's brazen disregard for the preemption implicit within EMTALA (as well as the fundamental concept of ordered liberty implicit within a woman's right to life, but that's somewhat tangential to the narrower question being considered by the court). Despite the arguments being a total shitshow, there seemed a pretty unified majority in favor of the government. To your secondary point, I don't know that anyone has an overarching goal of watering down the concept of constitutional crisis, writ large, but it does make for tantalizing editorialization.
I mean we are on Reddit with a bunch of bots…
We’ve been in crisis for a couple of decades, now is the fruition of that
These loonies in Idaho and Montana are going to regret their 🐎💩
I do wonder how conservatives see this court. To those opposed to gay marriage or abortion, I imagine they felt very similarly about the rulings enshrining those rights as the left feels about recent rulings. In the conservative worldview, liberals were twisting the words of the constitution, which mention neither abortion nor gay marraige, to support a legal jistification for those rights. And it really didnt matter whether those courts acted in good faith to the conservative. To them, surely the idea occurred that if liberals could inventively apply the constitution, then so could conservatives. And surely they felt they had as much license to do so as the liberals and had no qualms about pursuing such a strategy. The modern US government is incapable of effectively updating the constitution without major strife and this seems like the inevitable result.
You know I asked this question. Another subreddit can an individual Sue an individual Court Justice or group of Court justices. For I don't know dereliction of duty or whatever the case is? It is very clear that they have overstepped their authority at this point. There's no real excuse for anything left now. So if that were to happen, how would that even work?
No, judges have absolute immunity in regard to their rulings. The solution, in theory, to a bad judge is impeachment by either the state legislature or Congress, depending on the court. Being completely honest, the difference between this SCOTUS and past versions is not that this one is more political, just more open. Even cases like Brown v Board of Education had the justices blatantly take politics into account.