The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[n_huffhines]

I don't think this is what judicial review is about. Could be wrong but I don't believe states/localities could ever pass legislation violating the BORs. I think the issue with JR is that it gives SCOTUS the authority to rule on things outside of the BORs like when it overruled Trumps EO on dreamers or the when it ruled on same sex marriage. It basically made itself the supreme branch of government since it can rule any action unconstitutional.

Is this what you're talking about as an explanation?

SCOTUS predates the BORs, you know? So why did they exist before the BOR?

 

[hog88]

Is this what you're talking about as an explanation?

SCOTUS predates the BORs, you know? So why did they exist before the BOR?

By 2 years. Because the constitution required a supreme court.

 

[RockyTop85]

So who decides if a California statute is in violation of the 4th amendment?

Are you asking how it actually happens or under the hypothetical where the Supreme Court doesn’t have the power of judicial review?

 

[n_huffhines]

By 2 years. Because the constitution required a supreme court.

LOL. OK, but for what purpose?

 

[RockyTop85]

LOL. OK, but for what purpose?

https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/04/treanor.pdf

 

[85SugarVol]

Are you asking how it actually happens or under the hypothetical where the Supreme Court doesn’t have the power of judicial review?

Yes

 

[RockyTop85]

Yes

I don’t know about the hypothetical. It’s kind of counter factual.

In reality, the Supreme Court can review state court decisions, but there has to be a federal issue.

California passes a law that says police can search your home without a warrant.
police search home. Find my giant stash. Arrest me. Charge me. I move to suppress. Judge denies citing California law. I appeal. California courts deny all my appeals.

As long as the issue involves a right guaranteed under the US constitution that is applicable to the states, then SCOTUS can grant certiorari.

If I only raised the California constitution then I have potentially waived my remedy to appeal to the Supreme Court because there’s no federal issue.

Taking the 2020 election issue from PA, for example: the state Supreme Court interpreted the state constitution and said laws restricting absentee ballots, or whatever, were unconstitutional. One school of thought is that this is outside scotus’s purview because it’s a state court deciding state constitution. The other school of thought is that the US constitution grants supremacy to the state legislatures on matters of federal elections so there may be a federal issue. This is why some of these state redistributing maps are being rejected by scotus right now and some aren’t.

 

[n_huffhines]

https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/04/treanor.pdf

Yeah, I'm vaguely aware of some sort of tax that was reviewed by SCOTUS before M vs. M, and not surprised to find there are other examples.

I'm pretty sure judicial review is the entire point of having a SCOTUS, but I gotta hear him out because I haven't really probed the people saying that's not their job.

 

[85SugarVol]

I don’t know about the hypothetical. It’s kind of counter factual.

In reality, the Supreme Court can review state court decisions, but there has to be a federal issue.

California passes a law that says police can search your home without a warrant.
police search home. Find my giant stash. Arrest me. Charge me. I move to suppress. Judge denies citing California law. I appeal. California courts deny all my appeals.

As long as the issue involves a right guaranteed under the US constitution that is applicable to the states, then SCOTUS can grant certiorari.

If I only raised the California constitution then I have potentially waived my remedy to appeal to the Supreme Court because there’s no federal issue.

Taking the 2020 election issue from PA, for example: the state Supreme Court interpreted the state constitution and said laws restricting absentee ballots, or whatever, were unconstitutional. One school of thought is that this is outside scotus’s purview because it’s a state court deciding state constitution. The other school of thought is that the US constitution grants supremacy to the state legislatures on matters of federal elections so there may be a federal issue. This is why some of these state redistributing maps are being rejected by scotus right now and some aren’t.

Appreciate the detailed response.

So how would all of this relate to the border issue and individual states having different statutes that all roll up and impact us at the federal level?

 

[hog88]

https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/04/treanor.pdf

Thanks, I read part I and VI, I'll read the rest later. Gave me a lot to think about.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

'We should put their a***s in jail': Lindsey Graham reacts with fury when SCOTUS nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson attempts to justify 'supervision' as adequate deterrent for pedophiles in ANOTHER tense Senate exchange

Lindsey Graham tore into Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson again on Wednesday as he lambasted the Supreme Court nominee for thinking 'supervision' was an adequate deterrent for child pornography distributors and viewers.

It came as he asked the nominee about other issues, including on whether an illegal immigrant should be allowed to vote or if a 20-week-old fetus can feel pain, to which she said she did not know.

Graham claimed during the third day of Jackson's confirmation hearing that the only punishment should be putting their 'a** in jail.'

Jackson pushed back against the South Carolina senator's claim that she believes the number of images viewed or distributed shouldn't be considered in child porn cases' sentencing. She insisted instead that her judicial record does show that she imposed 'substantial' internet supervision on violators.

'Wait, you think it is a bigger deterrent to take somebody who is on a computer, looking at sexual images of children in the most disgusting way, is to supervise their computer habit versus putting them in jail?' Graham questioned, raising his voice and showing visual disgust.

'No, I didn't say versus,' Jackson tried to clarify but was interrupted by Graham's irate line of questioning.

'That's exactly what you said,' the Republican lawmaker asserted.

'I think the best way to deter people from getting on a computer and viewing thousands and hundred – and over time maybe millions, the population as a whole – of children being exploited and abused every time somebody clicks on is to put their a** in jail,' he offered. 'Not supervise their computer usage.'

Graham's 20 minutes of questioning was in line with other criticism of Jackson issued Tuesday when Republicans questioned Jackson on her sentencing of child porn offenders.

DAY TWO: REPUBLICANS CRUZ, HAWLEY AND BLACKBURN GRILL JACKSON OVER CRITICAL RACE THEORY, CHILD PORN SENTENCING AND DEFINING WOMEN

Also on Tuesday, Jackson refused to define the word 'woman' during a tense exchange with Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, with the nominee claiming she was not a biologist.

Blackburn pressed Jackson on sex and gender issues amid the fallout of swimmer Lia Thomas, who was born biologically male, storming to victory in the NCAA championships against biologically female competitors.

Quoting late Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Blackburn said: 'Physical differences between men and women are enduring. The two sexes are not fungible. A community made up exclusively of one sex is different from a community composed of both.'

'Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?' the senator asked.

When Jackson claimed she had never heard the quote, Blackburn asked directly: 'Can you define the word ''woman''?'

'Can I provide a definition?' Jackson responded.

'No, I can't,' she declared, before adding: 'I'm not a biologist'.

Jackson's staunch refusal to offer a definition of a woman came at the end of the second day of questioning which tackled the big issues of race, abortion and judicial philosophy.

'Put their a***es in jail': Graham says of pedophiles in tense exchange with Ketanji Brown Jackson | Daily Mail Online

 

[n_huffhines]

 

[05_never_again]

The simple fact she avoids answering basic questions in a feeble attempt to try and hide her activist/political beliefs should keep her from sitting on the bench at any level let alone the Supreme Court.

Honestly, I think it is way more likely she said that to avoid screeching from far left/woke elements rather than disguising her own views. The people most likely to be "cancelled" on this planet are moderate/sane/"normal" liberals who deviate ever so slightly from woke orthodoxy, because they are seen by the woke as being within their camp.

 

[85SugarVol]

So if California passed a law striking down the 4th amendment, and the California state Supreme Court held it as constitutional, is that where it ends?

That is where it SHOULD end. CA has a 4th Amendment in their own State Bill of Rights (Section 13).

What

 

[AM64]

Scared, no, and I agree it's not the fundamental problem. The fundamental is a national teachers union that has driven right leaning teachers out of public schools and into private schools while promoting left leaning educators into administrative positions where the silently (to parents) promote their social agenda over teaching the basics of reading, writing, math and science. On a world wide basis our test scores are plummeting, while the educational day is being diluted with "social" indoctrination. THAT is the FUNDAMENTAL problem.

Left wing reeducation camps for kids who haven't even been educated. Next they'll be defining child abuse as parents who would dare teach kids something counter to the party line. We've seen this kind of thing before in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. In Russia, Cuba, China, and other hardline states after the revolutions, too. If it's not undisputed fact, it doesn't belong in K-12 education.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Pre K-12 School Where Judge Jackson Sits on Board Pushes Cultural Marxism on Kids

Georgetown Day School, the private Pre K-12 school where Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson sits on the board of trustees, teaches radical critical theory pedagogy, and boasts on its website “everyone will engage in the work of social justice within all aspects of school life” — which Judge Jackson would be required to “support” and “promote” as a member of the board.

During her second day of questioning by senators on Tuesday, Judge Jackson took questions from a number of Republicans pertaining to her opinion on “Critical Race Theory” — and Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) specifically probed her on race-essentialist materials being taught at Georgetown Day School, such as “Antiracist Baby” by Ibram X. Kendi.

However, teaching “Antiracist Baby” is not the only radical material being pushed on children at the school where Judge Jackson sits on the board.

GDS brags about its far-left curriculum in its 2021-22 high school profile “curricular highlights,” showcasing a course, for instance, about “Exploring Reproductive Justice,” and a 9th Grade Seminar “flagship social justice course that serves as a launching point for a GDS High School Education.”

The school hosted a speech in September, 2020, by Dr. Dena Simmons, called “Self-Care, Healing, and Equity-Responsive Practices,” which discussed “opening the door for our continued anti-racist work.”

A GDS teacher also led a talk at a conference in 2018 called, “Sticks and Stones: Exploring the ’N-Word’ in our School Communities.”

The elite private school touts on its website that it is a “proud recipient” of the “Leading Edge Award for Equity and Justice,” from the National Association of Independent Schools, which, as Breitbart News has previously reported, is a central purveyor of race-essentialist teaching materials to private schools across the country.

Georgetown Day School, which has over 1000 students, has assets totaling roughly $288 million as of fiscal year 2020, and the headmaster is paid over $1 million yearly salary, according to the school’s 990 form. Tuition to the school is $40,000-$50,000 per year.

The school offers “anti-racist resources” on its website, including reading materials titled, “Growing up a Black man in America: Why Our Souls are on Fire,” “Your Black Colleagues May Look Like They’re Okay—Chances Are They’re Not,” “Maintaining Professionalism in the Age of Black Death Is…A Lot,” “White Supremacy Culture,” and “The End of Policing.”

Pre K-12 School Where Judge Jackson Sits on Board Pushes Radical Cultural Marxism on Kids

 

[BowlBrother85]

Trump had nothing to do with Jan 6th. Adults took matters into their own hands. Just stop with shifting the blame.

Donald Trump had a lot to do with Jan. 6th.

Donald Trump's rhetoric that day was filled with falsehoods, and it was irresponsible. During the rally in front of The White House, Trump falsely claimed that it was still possible for him to retain the presidency. Trump also falsely claimed that his Vice President had the legal authority to not count votes during the certification of the electoral college tally from swing states that they had lost. This rhetoric instilled members of the crowd with the false hope that they could influence Mike Pence's actions, and in doing so, help Donald Trump retain the presidency.

Do Republicans want Kamala Harris to have that same power in January of 2025? I highly doubt it.

 

[hog88]

Donald Trump had a lot to do with Jan. 6th.

Donald Trump's rhetoric that day was filled with falsehoods, and it was irresponsible. During the rally in front of The White House, Trump falsely claimed that it was still possible for him to retain the presidency. Trump also falsely claimed that his Vice President had the legal authority to not count votes during the certification of the electoral college tally from swing states that they had lost. This rhetoric instilled members of the crowd with the false hope that they could influence Mike Pence's actions, and in doing so, help Donald Trump retain the presidency.

Do Republicans want Kamala Harris to have that same power in January of 2025? I highly doubt it.

Dude, let it go.

 

[Hunerwadel]

Brown refused to define the word “woman”. She said she isn’t a biologist.

She’s disqualified to be on the court. Several cases will involve women.

What is a person born with XY chromosomes, female genitalia and undescended testes?

Edit: I don't know. But I would ask a biologist before I would a judge.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Dude, let it go.

LOL. It was a reply.

 

[TN Ribs]

LOL. It was a reply.

And a very good reply. Unfortunately, many posters on here seem to think that voting in elections no longer matters and that people that attempt to overturn free and fair elections against the will of the people should not be held accountable. Autocracy is now the Republican agenda.

 

[hog88]

And a very good reply. Unfortunately, many posters on here seem to think that voting in elections no longer matters and that people that attempt to overturn free and fair elections against the will of the people should not be held accountable. Autocracy is now the Republican agenda.

Only people that broke the law should be held accountable.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Only people that broke the law should be held accountable.

If by "be held accountable," you mean "face legal consequences," then I agree... but don't say that Donald Trump had nothing to do with the events of that day in Washington DC. Trump had a great deal to do with Jan. 6th.

 

[hog88]

If by "be held accountable," you mean "face legal consequences," then I agree... but don't say that Donald Trump had nothing to do with the events of that day in Washington DC. Trump had a great deal to do with Jan. 6th.

He had as much to do with it as Harris and many other Dem politicians did the BLM riots.

 

[lawgator1]

There is just no limit on Graham's incessant ability to embarrass the GOP.