• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Supreme Court Won’t Explain Itself

NWRatCon

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
33,055
Reaction score
33,302
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The Supreme Court Won’t Explain Itself (Atlantic)

I keep being reminded how completely the current Supreme Court cabal of Trumpists is from any respect for the Constitution or the rule of law, but this tops the list. I'll leave it for you to read the excellent gifted article for a thorough understanding.
 
NWRatCon said:
The Supreme Court Won’t Explain Itself (Atlantic)

I keep being reminded how completely the current Supreme Court cabal of Trumpists is from any respect for the Constitution or the rule of law, but this tops the list. I'll leave it for you to read the excellent gifted article for a thorough understanding.
Click to expand...
I read that article this morning. Besides the comment on the number of shadow docket rulings handed down without any explanation, I thought the following part of the article put a big bow of perspective on the subject, especially that second sentence:

“The judiciary is a branch of government that is meant to provide reasons for its actions—to explain, both to litigants and to the public, why judges have done what they have done. This is part of what distinguishes law from the raw exercise of power, and what anchors the courts as a component of a democratic system rather than setting them apart as unaccountable sages.”

I believe history is going to portray this court even more poorly than they are thought of today, if that’s possible. I certainly have no time or patience to listen to any of John Roberts’ whining about the Supreme Court’s low public confidence numbers when they pull this crap of not issuing any opinions at all, in the majority or in the dissent. His court has become increasingly lazy with an apparent thirst for more unchecked power.

Roberts burns about the lack of confidence citizens have in his court, but heck, he should focus instead of the lack of respect he and his justices have garnered through their own actions. That would be a start for that pompous ass.
 
The most striking aspect of the article is how Jurecic describes the Court’s refusal to justify its decision as a form of domination. A way of saying, “We don’t need to explain ourselves to you.” It is a direct attack on the fundamental principles of the rule of law, where rights are not only to be protected but also openly and intelligibly justified. Without such transparency, the Court loses its role as a dispenser of justice and becomes an instrument of raw power.
 
The Supreme Court is not independent anymore but a rubber stamp for Trump, and Congress is utterly useless and powerless. All power has moved to the Executive branch.
 
www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org

Most Americans Support Checks on Presidential Power | The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Despite low trust in the government, a new survey reveals that most Americans support judicial and legislative checks on the president.
www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org
The policy center’s Institutions of Democracy survey finds that trust in the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to decline since the court’s 2022 Dobbs ruling overturning the constitutional right to abortion codified in Roe v. Wade. Trust in the nation’s highest court has slid 27 percentage points since 2019, from 68% six years ago to 41% in March 2025. Nearly a third of those surveyed (32%) say they have no trust at all in the Supreme Court to operate in the best interests of “people like you.” In just the past 10 months, since May 2024, the percentage of those with no or low trust in that court grew to 59% from 55%.


Happy MAGA.
 
This is what happens through the accumulation of wealth and you end up with a judiciary that is bought and paid for by the right wing. And their opposition, in the form of the Democratic Party is weak and feckless and doesn't actually work to oppose Republicans.

So you let something like the Federalist Society just run amok for decades.
 
More stupid shit from The Atlantic.

The Supremes didn't "step in". An appeal was brought before them. They simply ruled on the appeal. The Atlantic tries to make it sound like addressing this issue is something the Supremes did on purpose.

If the lower courts and the Trump haters are pissed off at the ruling, they should get off their ass and decide the case before them instead of just issuing and injunction and then shelving the case. The Supreme's ruling forces them to either shit or get off the pot.
 
Mycroft said:
More stupid shit from The Atlantic.

The Supremes didn't "step in". An appeal was brought before them. They simply ruled on the appeal. The Atlantic tries to make it sound like addressing this issue is something the Supremes did on purpose.

If the lower courts and the Trump haters are pissed off at the ruling, they should get off their ass and decide the case before them instead of just issuing and injunction and then shelving the case. The Supreme's ruling forces them to either shit or get off the pot.
Click to expand...
since May 2024, the percentage of those with no or low trust in that court grew to 59% from 55%.

Yeah, they're doing a great job.
 
Mycroft said:
More stupid shit from The Atlantic.

The Supremes didn't "step in". An appeal was brought before them. They simply ruled on the appeal. The Atlantic tries to make it sound like addressing this issue is something the Supremes did on purpose.

If the lower courts and the Trump haters are pissed off at the ruling, they should get off their ass and decide the case before them instead of just issuing and injunction and then shelving the case. The Supreme's ruling forces them to either shit or get off the pot.
Click to expand...
(he didn't read the article...)
 
Bubber said:
(he didn't read the article...)
Click to expand...
Obviously. The level of ignorance and mendacity displayed by that post is unmeasurable. As usual, the opposite of reality. Pure Trollery.
 
Last edited:
Grogu said:
I read that article this morning. Besides the comment on the number of shadow docket rulings handed down without any explanation, I thought the following part of the article put a big bow of perspective on the subject, especially that second sentence:

“The judiciary is a branch of government that is meant to provide reasons for its actions—to explain, both to litigants and to the public, why judges have done what they have done. This is part of what distinguishes law from the raw exercise of power, and what anchors the courts as a component of a democratic system rather than setting them apart as unaccountable sages.”

I believe history is going to portray this court even more poorly than they are thought of today, if that’s possible. I certainly have no time or patience to listen to any of John Roberts’ whining about the Supreme Court’s low public confidence numbers when they pull this crap of not issuing any opinions at all, in the majority or in the dissent. His court has become increasingly lazy with an apparent thirst for more unchecked power.

Roberts burns about the lack of confidence citizens have in his court, but heck, he should focus instead of the lack of respect he and his justices have garnered through their own actions. That would be a start for that pompous ass.
Click to expand...
This is the most anti-Constitutional Court in US history, That includes the Courts that issued Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson. As you note, it is not about history, precedent, tradition or comportment with the Constitution, but imposition of pure power and they know it.
 
Juks said:
The most striking aspect of the article is how Jurecic describes the Court’s refusal to justify its decision as a form of domination. A way of saying, “We don’t need to explain ourselves to you.” It is a direct attack on the fundamental principles of the rule of law, where rights are not only to be protected but also openly and intelligibly justified. Without such transparency, the Court loses its role as a dispenser of justice and becomes an instrument of raw power.
Click to expand...
That is completely correct.
 
Mycroft said:
Your denial of reality is palpable.

I did read the article.
Click to expand...
Then you didn't understand it. My apologies, I will learn not to jump to conclusions
 
Bubber said:
Then you didn't understand it. My apologies, I will learn not to jump to conclusions
Click to expand...
Don't fall for it. That was a lie, too. Just an effort to derail the discussion to make it about him.
 
Mycroft said:
The Supremes didn't "step in". An appeal was brought before them. They simply ruled on the appeal. The Atlantic tries to make it sound like addressing this issue is something the Supremes did on purpose.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why that would be a main take-away after reading the article. As I read it, that was just a small side comment. Totally irrelevant to the big picture of what's being said.
 
Binary_Digit said:
I'm not sure why that would be a main take-away after reading the article. As I read it, that was just a small side comment. Totally irrelevant to the big picture of what's being said.
Click to expand...
Of course it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom