3 ms·

OP didn't specify why this was posted, but I was glad to find out about the issue discussed. SCOTUS is also selective about taking cases beyond what you listed

by blagie 3y ago

OP didn't specify why this was posted, but I was glad to find out about the issue discussed. SCOTUS is also selective about taking cases beyond what you listed. It's one court for the whole of the US. Not taking a case is absolutely not a symbol of unimportance of an issue, or taking a side. Their current purpose is mostly to clarify / set case law. Many cases just aren't a good fit for doing that. For example: - The case might be messy, have auxiliary issues, or otherwise introduce unnecessary complexity - They might not be ready to decide. For example, they might be waiting to hear more from lower courts, social consensus to come together, etc. - They might not have time, or there might be more important issues ... and so on. I don't think that was the implied conclusion. For a lot of us, it's still interesting to follow issues like this one.

pmoriarty 3y ago
The above assumes good faith and a lack of political agenda, which is not likely to be the case for the current Supreme Court.
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  [flagged]
- blagie 3y ago
  With Supreme Court, I assume good faith. I haven't seen anything to the contrary; differences in values and opinions -- even ones I strongly disagree with -- aren't the same as a lack of good faith. As for lack of political agenda, the Supreme Court may be more polarized than it has ever been (at least in my lifetime), but it's worth looking in context: it's one of three branches. As has always been the case in US history, it still has much less of a political agenda than either of the other two branches. - If you're on the left, who seems most reasonable: Donald Trump, Kevin McCarthy, or the most anti-left member of the Supreme Court? - If you're on the right, you can do the same exercise with Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and the most anti-right member of the Supreme Court. I have read many Supreme Court rulings I strongly disagreed with and which didn't reflect my values, but I've never read any which felt stupid, corrupt, or done in bad faith. That contrasts with legislative and executive completely.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - feoren 3y ago
    > With Supreme Court, I assume good faith. I haven't seen anything to the contrary Really? You haven't seen anything to the contrary? You haven't seen a supreme court justice being literally bribed for decades? You didn't see three recent supreme court appointees lie to congress?
Tangurena2 3y ago
For state versus state cases, the US Supreme Court is the first and only court to hear their cases.

by blagie 3y ago

pmoriarty 3y ago

The above assumes good faith and a lack of political agenda, which is not likely to be the case for the current Supreme Court.

friend_and_foe 3y ago
[flagged]
blagie 3y ago
With Supreme Court, I assume good faith. I haven't seen anything to the contrary; differences in values and opinions -- even ones I strongly disagree with -- aren't the same as a lack of good faith. As for lack of political agenda, the Supreme Court may be more polarized than it has ever been (at least in my lifetime), but it's worth looking in context: it's one of three branches. As has always been the case in US history, it still has much less of a political agenda than either of the other two branches. - If you're on the left, who seems most reasonable: Donald Trump, Kevin McCarthy, or the most anti-left member of the Supreme Court? - If you're on the right, you can do the same exercise with Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and the most anti-right member of the Supreme Court. I have read many Supreme Court rulings I strongly disagreed with and which didn't reflect my values, but I've never read any which felt stupid, corrupt, or done in bad faith. That contrasts with legislative and executive completely.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  [flagged]
- feoren 3y ago
  > With Supreme Court, I assume good faith. I haven't seen anything to the contrary Really? You haven't seen anything to the contrary? You haven't seen a supreme court justice being literally bribed for decades? You didn't see three recent supreme court appointees lie to congress?

Tangurena2 3y ago

For state versus state cases, the US Supreme Court is the first and only court to hear their cases.