The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[CobbVol]

So in Padilla's world, it is OK for judges to do executive branch stuff and now with him we have Senators who think they are the judicial branch.

Padilla Statement on Supreme Court Ruling Paving the Way for Racial Profiling in Los Angeles Immigration Enforcement - Senator Alex Padilla

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, issued the following statement after the Supreme Court granted the government’s request to lift restrictions on discriminatory raids happening as part of the Trump...

www.padilla.senate.gov

 

[BeardedVol]

Liberals about a month ago….
“Trump ignoring court rulings is a threat to our democracy!!!!”
Liberals today…..
“The Supreme Court is wrong and we reject its ruling”

Was the Supreme Court wrong when it upheld 'Dred v. Scot'? How about 'Plessy v. Ferguson'? What about 'Buck v. Bell? 'Korematsu v. United States'?

 

[OrangeTsar]

Was the Supreme Court wrong when it upheld 'Dred v. Scot'? How about 'Plessy v. Ferguson'? What about 'Buck v. Bell? 'Korematsu v. United States'?

Wow!!!!! You have just repeated what we conservatives have said about every liberal court decision over the last 50 years (until we finally got a sane majority again).
How about Roe vs Wade?

 

[BeardedVol]

Wow!!!!! You have just repeated what we conservatives have said about every liberal court decision over the last 50 years (until we finally got a sane majority again).
How about Roe vs Wade?

So were they right when they upheld those decisions?

 

[Sea Ray]

Was the Supreme Court wrong when it upheld 'Dred v. Scot'? How about 'Plessy v. Ferguson'? What about 'Buck v. Bell? 'Korematsu v. United States'?

Their rulings were consistent with the law and that's what they're supposed to do. After Dred Scott the Constitution needed to be amended because their ruling was consistent with the law.

 

[OrangeTsar]

So were they right when they upheld those decisions?

Right or wrong isn’t the question at play here (or at least that is the way I am reading it). The question is, do the other branches of government have to follow a SCOTUS decision regardless of their opinion of the correctness of said decision.

The original juxtaposition I raised was from earlier in the year when all of the district court judges started throwing up injunctions against everything Trump was trying to do. All we heard at that point from the chattering class was that if Trump tried to circumvent those rulings, he was being an authoritarian who was destroying the republic.
But now that the SUPREME (not district) court has ruled against democrats; I am hearing a lot of talk that is awful close to threats to ignore the ruling and continue to try and hamper Trump’s now adjudicated authority.
Is that a fair question to raise?

 

[BeardedVol]

Their rulings were consistent with the law and that's what they're supposed to do. After Dred Scott the Constitution needed to be amended because their ruling was consistent with the law.

You believe 'Korematsu v. United States' was consistent with the Constitution?

Ironically, it was a 6-3 decision concerting the constitutionality of an Executive Order using race as a basis for incarceration.

 

[BeardedVol]

Right or wrong isn’t the question at play here (or at least that is the way I am reading it). The question is, do the other branches of government have to follow a SCOTUS decision regardless of their opinion of the correctness of said decision.

The original juxtaposition I raised was from earlier in the year when all of the district court judges started throwing up injunctions against everything Trump was trying to do. All we heard at that point from the chattering class was that if Trump tried to circumvent those rulings, he was being an authoritarian who was destroying the republic.
But now that the SUPREME (not district) court has ruled against democrats; I am hearing a lot of talk that is awful close to threats to ignore the ruling and continue to try and hamper Trump’s now adjudicated authority.
Is that a fair question to raise?

So, after complaining about "liberals calling the Supreme Court ruling wrong", you're struggling with how to reconcile the fact that it's very possible for the Supreme Court to be completely and utterly wrong in a ruling?

 

[Sea Ray]

You believe 'Korematsu v. United States' was consistent with the Constitution?

Ironically, it was a 6-3 decision concerting the constitutionality of an Executive Order using race as a basis for incarceration.

I wasn't alive at the time but I agree with John Roberts that it was wrong. But it stood as the law of the land at the time. I disagree with Roe v Wade too

 

[Sea Ray]

So, after complaining about "liberals calling the Supreme Court ruling wrong", you're struggling with how to reconcile the fact that it's very possible for the Supreme Court to be completely and utterly wrong in a ruling?

It's possible, absolutely. What's your point?

 

[n_huffhines]

Federal judges anonymously criticize Supreme Court for overturning decisions with emergency rulings

Federal judges criticized the Supreme Court for overturning lower court rulings against President Donald Trump's administration in emergency decisions.

www.foxnews.com

"A fourth judge, however, appointed by President Barack Obama, conceded that several judges had been out of line with their rulings against Trump."The whole ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ is a real issue. As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane," that judge said."

Whining about their rulings being overturned. Classic.

We should not be suspending the bill of rights for fakeass emergencies while we wait for SCOTUS to rule on the bill of rights. This is fkn madness. Wait until the dems use this ******** against you. It's all good when it's brown people, but what about when it's anti-government types? Me saying to you right now that, "you will hate yourself for forsaking the bill of rights" is giving you too much credit, because I don't even think you would connect the two things.

 

[OrangeTsar]

So, after complaining about "liberals calling the Supreme Court ruling wrong", you're struggling with how to reconcile the fact that it's very possible for the Supreme Court to be completely and utterly wrong in a ruling?

Absolutely not. I fear you misapprehend me. It is obvious that the Supreme Court has often been terribly wrong. There is no need for me to struggle to reconcile the obvious.
The question at hand is what is the appropriate response when you feel a court is incorrect?
The left correctly raised objections when Trump supporters indicated that he should ignore incorrect rulings. All I am asking is if the left is prepared to follow their own admonitions now that the shoe is on the other foot so to speak.
If you feel a court is wrong you either change the law, amend the constitution, or wait for the makeup of the court to changes.

 

[C-south]

We should not be suspending the bill of rights for fakeass emergencies while we wait for SCOTUS to rule on the bill of rights. This is fkn madness. Wait until the dems use this ******** against you. It's all good when it's brown people, but what about when it's anti-government types? Me saying to you right now that, "you will hate yourself for forsaking the bill of rights" is giving you too much credit, because I don't even think you would connect the two things.

Yet this is the first time you’ve cried about it.

 

[rekinhavoc]

We should not be suspending the bill of rights for fakeass emergencies while we wait for SCOTUS to rule on the bill of rights. This is fkn madness. Wait until the dems use this ******** against you. It's all good when it's brown people, but what about when it's anti-government types? Me saying to you right now that, "you will hate yourself for forsaking the bill of rights" is giving you too much credit, because I don't even think you would connect the two things.

I am not going to argue with you. I don't care about your ramblings or your petty insults.

Your tough guy, social justice warrior act is old. Find someone else to stalk.

 

[BeardedVol]

I wasn't alive at the time but I agree with John Roberts that it was wrong. But it stood as the law of the land at the time. I disagree with Roe v Wade too

It was made law of the land by their ruling, but it was in fact wholly unconstitutional.

 

[C-south]

I am not going to argue with you. I don't care about your ramblings or your petty insults.

Your tough guy, social justice warrior act is old. Find someone else to stalk.

He fell hard after the election. He fought hard to hide his lunacy for years but can’t any longer.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Hakeem is trying his best to make high political points w/his lunatic buddies on the left by saying the most outlandish lies & made up BS by calling the US SC a radical organization bc they rule on things that matter against his radical party of hate and division. He's trying his best to piss someone off so he can be arrested & put in jail. He's a circus clown at best.

 

[jmacvols1]

 

[jmacvols1]

Eric Daugherty
@EricLDaugh
·
1h

BREAKING: Democrat voting rights groups are now frantically preparing for the Supreme Court to ABOLISH the Voting Rights Act districts, resulting in a whopping *+19 MORE REPUBLICAN HOUSE SEATS* being added.

Holy smokes.These districts are drawn for minorities to favor Democrats - but SCOTUS is on the verge of overturning it, per POLITICO."That calculation...would all but guarantee Republican control of Congress.

"The case: Louisiana v. Callais, will be heard by SCOTUS in one week.

SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas is sure to take a torch to this ridiculous practice of drawing districts based on race.

END IT ONCE AND FOR ALL!

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/08/republicans-scotus-vra-00597212

 

[jmacvols1]

Glad to see Fitton going after this issue of election integrity ...

 

[Orange_Crush]

So, after complaining about "liberals calling the Supreme Court ruling wrong", you're struggling with how to reconcile the fact that it's very possible for the Supreme Court to be completely and utterly wrong in a ruling?

I think he's having trouble reconciling the apparent liberal hypocrisy on the matter.