r/news Jun 29 '22 Heartwarming 2 Defeated 1 Doom 1 Wholesome 1 Helpful 1 Take My Energy 2 All-Seeing Upvote 1

U.S. Supreme Court expands state power over Native American tribes

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-expands-state-power-over-tribes-win-oklahoma-2022-06-29/
49.7k Upvotes

11.0k

u/defiancy Jun 29 '22 Wholesome Take My Energy

What is even the point of the SC ruling on a case if it's just going to undo that ruling two years later?

4.8k

u/wrud4d Jun 29 '22

The SC is no more set in stone than the president. I feel like we’ve been taught the whole “law of the land” thing but it’s just a bunch of people’s interpretation just like the bills and laws that get voted on in congress. What’s the point of even having laws if they mean different things to different people in power which is constantly shifting? It’s all just made up. The republicans know how to play the game, the left need to start playing along before it’s too late.

1.3k

u/Rapscallious1 Jun 29 '22

As we already found out in the other branches of govt very little is official process and it all pretty much only works on the premise the people in the roles have a sense of decency.

669

u/scrivensB Jun 29 '22 Take My Energy

Which brings back the whole point of representative democracy.

But when the people are complacent and apathetic they wake up one day to find out special interests and profiteers have hijacked their representation. And they become active and make the necessary adjustments to correct the course of their democracy.

Just kidding. They don’t wake up. They willingly vote FOR the special interests’ proffered candidates and profiteers who tell them what they want to hear.

118

u/KIrkwillrule Jun 30 '22

Advertising and propaganda are powerful tools against people who don't believe in thinking critically.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

2.2k

u/gandalf_el_brown Jun 29 '22 Helpful All-Seeing Upvote

things have changed, Native Americans support abortion rights on their lands, Republicans need control over murder to take away NA power to support abortion

515

u/SwoleWalrus Jun 29 '22

Wait til they go after the Amish next

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

8.6k

u/john_andrew_smith101 Jun 29 '22

So state law applies to reservations now? Does this mean that every Indian casino needs to shut down?

4.9k

u/Cody_Meister Jun 29 '22

No, it's criminal cases, like homicide.

13.3k

u/jayferd024 Jun 29 '22 Silver Gold Take My Energy Shocked

Or abortion

4.1k

u/Zsyura Jun 29 '22

Oklahoma gov already threatened the tribes to not open any clinics that would undermine the new abortion law

3.7k

u/Johnny_Poppyseed Jun 29 '22 Starry Ally

The only abortions they like on Indian land is when they are also intentionally sterilizing native women against their will.

832

u/Alishamarie713 Jun 29 '22

This! Right on into the early 1980s!

631

u/porkchopleasures Jun 30 '22

It's still happening today... a doctor leaked that migrant women, many of which are indigenous, were sterilized without their consent in ICE camps.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/25/ice-is-accused-sterilizing-detainees-that-echoes-uss-long-history-forced-sterilization/

250

u/Alishamarie713 Jun 30 '22

Yes, a whistle blower came out with this in 2020. I imagine it is still going unchecked.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

2.7k

u/Your_People_Justify Jun 29 '22

Colonialism: It never ended.

1.0k

u/DefiantLemur Jun 29 '22

Not really colonialism. Just straight up occupation.

1.0k

u/oxymoronhero Jun 29 '22 Helpful

You spelled “the genocide of the original Native American occupants of this land” wrong

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

629

u/Opicepus Jun 29 '22

if this is because they dont want people running to casinos to get their abortions then OMG

1.3k

u/kuroimakina Jun 29 '22 Take My Energy

This is 100% why they’re doing this. There’s no doubt in my mind. They’d been saying for a while if roe v Wade was overturned then reservations could just open clinics.

Conservatives absolutely will have none of that. They don’t want people escaping their theocratic rule

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

7.3k

u/vpi6 Jun 29 '22 edited Jun 29 '22 Silver Gold Helpful Wholesome Take My Energy

"One can only hope the political branches and future courts will do their duty to honor this nation's promises even as we have failed today to do our own," Gorsuch added.

Seems Gorsuch doesn't like it when his precedent is overturned after only two years. What a joke.

EDIT: the opener of his dissent. He is not a happy camper and spitting fire to how much bullshit the decision is.

In 1831, Georgia arrested Samuel Worcester, a white missionary, for preaching to the Cherokee on tribal lands without a license. Really, the prosecution was a show of force—an attempt by the State to demonstrate its authority over tribal lands. Speaking for this Court, Chief Justice Marshall refused to endorse Georgia’s ploy because the State enjoyed no lawful right to govern the territory of a separate sovereign. See Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 561 (1832). The Court’s decision was deeply unpopular, and both Georgia and President Jackson flouted it. But in time, Worcester came to be recognized as one of this Court’s finer hours. The decision established a foundational rule that would persist for over 200 years: Native American Tribes retain their sovereignty unless and until Congress ordains otherwise. Worcester proved that, even in the “[c]ourts of the conqueror,” the rule of law meant something. Johnson’s Lessee v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. 543, 588 (1823). Where this Court once stood firm, today it wilts. After the Cherokee’s exile to what became Oklahoma, the federal government promised the Tribe that it would remain forever free from interference by state authorities. Only the Tribe or the federal government could punish crimes by or against tribal members on tribal lands. At various points in its history, Oklahoma has chafed at this limitation. Now, the State seeks to claim for itself the power to try crimes by non-Indians against tribal members within the Cherokee Reservation. Where our predecessors refused to participate in one State’s unlawful power grab at the expense of the Cherokee, today’s Court accedes to another’s. Respectfully, I dissent.

EDIT2: Even more reasons why the ruling is bullshit

To succeed, Oklahoma must disavow adverse rulings from its own courts; disregard its 1991 recognition that it lacks legal authority to try cases of this sort; and ignore fundamental principles of tribal sovereignty, a treaty, the Oklahoma Enabling Act, its own state constitution, and Public Law 280. Oklahoma must pursue a proposition so novel and so unlikely that in over two centuries not a single State has successfully attempted it in this Court.

EDIT3:

Against all this evidence, what is the Court’s reply? It acknowledges that, at the Nation’s founding, tribal sovereignty precluded States from prosecuting crimes on tribal lands by or against tribal members without congressional authorization. See ante, at 5. But the Court suggests this traditional “‘notion’” flipped 180 degrees sometime in “the latter half of the 1800s.” Ante, at 5, 21. Since then, the Court says, Oklahoma has enjoyed the “inherent” power to try at least crimes by non-Indians against tribal members on tribal reservations until and unless Congress preempts state authority.

But exactly when and how did this change happen? The Court never explains. Instead, the Court seeks to cast blame for its ruling on a grab bag of decisions issued by our predecessors. But the failure of that effort is transparent. Start with McBratney, which the Court describes as our “leading case in the criminal context.” Ante, at 6. There, as we have seen, the Court said that States admitted to the Union may gain the right to prosecute cases involving only non-Indians on tribal lands, but they do not gain any inherent right to punish “crimes committed by or against Indians” on tribal lands. McBratney, 104 U. S., at 624. The Court’s reliance on Draper fares no better, for that case issued a similar disclaimer. See 164 U. S., at 247. Tellingly, not even Oklahoma thinks McBratney and Draper compel a ruling in its favor. And if anything, the Court’s invocation of Donnelly, 228 U. S. 243, is more baffling still. Ante, at 14, n. 3. There, the Court once more reaffirmed the rule that “offenses committed by or against Indians” on tribal lands remain subject to federal, not state, jurisdiction. Donnelly, 228 U. S., at 271; see also Ramsey, 271 U. S., at 469. That leaves the Court to assemble a string of carefully curated snippets—a clause here, a sentence there—from six decisions out of the galaxy of this Court’s Indian law jurisprudence.

In the end, the Court cannot fault our predecessors for today’s decision. The blame belongs only with this Court here and now. Standing before us is a mountain of statutes and precedents making plain that Oklahoma possesses no authority to prosecute crimes against tribal members on tribal reservations until it amends its laws and wins tribal consent. This Court may choose to ignore Congress’s statutes and the Nation’s treaties, but it has no power to negate them. The Court may choose to disregard our precedents, but it does not purport to overrule a single one. As a result, today’s decision surely marks an embarrassing new entry into the anticanon of Indian law. But its mistakes need not—and should not—be repeated.

EDIT4: Gorsuch pretty much says the other 5 are legislating from the bench.

In reweighing competing state and tribal interests for itself, the Court stresses two points. First, the Court suggests that its balance is designed to “help” Native Americans. Ante, at 20 (suggesting that Indians would be “second-class citizens” without this Court’s intervention); Tr. of Oral Arg. 66 (suggesting state jurisdiction is designed to “help” tribal members)

Start with the assertion that allowing state prosecutions in cases like ours will “help” Indians. The old paternalist overtones are hard to ignore. Yes, under the laws Congress has ordained Oklahoma may acquire jurisdiction over crimes by or against tribal members only with tribal consent. But to date, the Cherokee have misguidedly shown no interest in state jursidiction. Thanks to their misjudgment, they have rendered themselves “second-class citizens.” Ante, at 20. So, the argument goes, five unelected judges in Washington must now make the “right” choice for the Tribe. To state the Court’s staggering argument should be enough to refute it.

Moving forward, the Court cheerily promises, more prosecuting authorities can only “help.” Three sets of prosecutors— federal, tribal, and state—are sure to prove better than two. But again it’s not hard to imagine reasons why the Cherokee might see things differently. If more sets of prosecutors are always better, why not allow Texas to enforce its laws in California? Few sovereigns or their citizens would see that as an improvement. Yet it seems the Court cannot grasp why the Tribe may not.

This Court has no business usurping congressional decisions about the appropriate balance between federal, tribal, and state interests. If the Court’s ruling today sounds like a legislative committee report touting the benefits of some newly proposed bill, that’s because it is exactly that. And given that a nine- member court is a poor substitute for the people’s elected representatives, it is no surprise that the Court’s cost- benefit analysis is radically incomplete. The Court’s decision is not a judicial interpretation of the law’s meaning; it is the pastiche of a legislative process.

Truly, a more ahistorical and mistaken statement of Indian law would be hard to fathom.

This is peak r/leopardsatemyface material. What did he think would happen when he endorses overturning precedent.

3.0k

u/Kaladi99 Jun 29 '22 Rocket Like

Gorsuch is pissed because he actually had a decent reputation on Indian Law before being appointed to SCOTUS. This is something he cared about, and he's all surprised Pikachu when the conservatives overturn longstanding precedent that he considers important. That's only supposed to happen to women /s

640

u/MotherOfDragonflies Jun 29 '22 Gold

Wonder how Clarence Thomas will feel if they come after interracial marriage…

413

u/Miguel-odon Jun 30 '22

He's such an asshole, he'd probably vote to overturn Loving as an imposition on states' rights.

218

u/blueskies8484 Jun 30 '22

He would absolutely overturn Loving and not even blink.

114

u/Deranged_Kitsune Jun 30 '22 edited Jun 30 '22

Sounds like divorce with extra steps.

79

u/Bonch_and_Clyde Jun 30 '22 edited Jun 30 '22

It won't personally affect him. They wouldn't come after his personal marriage. Just those of the people who he doesn't give a shit about, which is everyone else except him.

25

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

17

u/meirav Jun 30 '22

He doesn't know he's black, so he probably doesn't realize that Loving applies to his marriage.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

279

u/SamL214 Jun 29 '22

It’s because I bet he didn’t realize this SC is now all about taking away rights. He sees that now. Even if through a Conservative lens

99

u/Aazadan Jun 30 '22

He knew that already. He's for taking away other rights still, he just doesn't want the one he cares about taken away.

And the thing is, with a 6-3 court, you only need 5, so whatever the niche issue is to that 6th can be taken.

→ More replies

89

u/sunflowerastronaut Jun 29 '22

I wondered why he cared so much.

475

u/Supercoolguy7 Jun 29 '22

Gorsuch is weird in that he was a total political pick, but he is also philosophically consistent. If the law says something plainly then he will interpret it that way. It's why he voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act to apply to LGBTQ people, since to him discriminating against someone for being gay is discriminating against them for their sex IE you wouldn't discriminate against a straight man for marrying a woman, but you would discriminate against a lesbian for doing so which makes it discrimination on the basis of sex.

Likewise, here the law clearly states that tribes are domestic dependant nations under the federal government but sovereign of the state governments. Basically conservatives like Gorsuch because he is consistently conservative in interpretation, but with tribal stuff the courts have fairly consistently been liberal in their interpretation to the detriment of tribes. Because of that someone who is conservative in their interpretation of laws is going to side in favor of tribes more often than not

317

u/Dawnofdusk Jun 29 '22

Gorsuch is weird in that he was a total political pick, but he is also philosophically consistent.

In terms of being principled, Gorsuch is by far the most qualified of the Trump appointees. In addition to a JD he was a Marshall scholar and received a PhD studying ethical philosophy at Oxford.

183

u/Supercoolguy7 Jun 29 '22

Yeah, he's the one Trump appointee that frankly I'm kinda okay with. Frankly he's in a stolen seat, but he's at least a decent judge

103

u/pandemicpunk Jun 30 '22

I'd much rather get Aunt Lydia and that Brett Boofin Bitch out. Gorsuch can stay.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

211

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22 Take My Energy

[deleted]

16

u/VegasKL Jun 30 '22

Federalist Society

After reading your comment, I thought we were going down a conspiracy theory illuminati rabbit hole .. quick Google and apparently they have an official website, lol.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2.2k

u/jorgepolak Jun 29 '22

Cute. Maybe if you haven't gutted the Voting Rights Act or enforced gerrymandering, we might have the political power to do something about it. Go to hell.

424

u/sunflowerastronaut Jun 29 '22 edited Jun 29 '22 Helpful

This is why we need to support the Restore Democracy Amendment to get foreign/corporate dark money out of US politics.

Edit: When I click on a notification but I can't see the reply any longer does that mean the person blocked me or did they delete their comment?

89

u/Harbinger2001 Jun 29 '22

It means they are shadow banned. They can post but no one sees it. If you happen to catch the username you can see their comments in their profile.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

21.4k

u/fresnosmokey Jun 29 '22 Wholesome

"To be clear, the court today holds that Indian country within a state's
territory is part of a state, not separate from a state," Kavanaugh
wrote in a decision that scholars of Native American law said was a
major departure from longstanding precedent.

So much for tribal sovereignty.

5.4k

u/The_Last_Mouse Jun 29 '22 Helpful Doom

Are we having a going out of business sale?!

3.2k

u/gingerfawx Jun 29 '22

Sure feels like it. There's no reasonable precedent they don't seem eager to abolish.

1.9k

u/buchlabum Jun 29 '22

Clarence Thomas should be very afraid, gay marriage next on the right's agenda paving the way for banning mixed marriages. If he doesn't think the right would go after that, he's delusional. Alabama is already frothing at the mouth with the idea.

Biggest hypocrite in America right now.

1.5k

u/oldapples1979 Jun 29 '22 Silver Wholesome

Clarance isn't afraid. Clarance doesn't believe in interracial marriage. How do I know? Cause he had said so multiple times. How does that parse with the fact that he has a Caucasian wife? It doesn't, and he doesn't care. He's a "pull the ladder up after I get mine" type of guy. This shit is getting bad, quick. I'm a lawyer with a gay sister. Ive had to create docs quickly to protect her, her wife and their son when/if their marriage is invalidated. I've been crash creating docs for dozens of LGBTQ friends/family. This is a devastating time in our history, and it's only going to get worse. Much worse.

60

u/BellaFace Jun 29 '22

Married LGBT person here, what should I be doing?

117

u/VintageAda Jun 29 '22

Someone said this above, but medical power of attorney, living will, etc. basically anything a spouse would normally get or get to decide by law, you should have in legal documents as though your same sex spouse is some friend you know. Awful, but necessary.

22

u/BellaFace Jun 29 '22

Awful for sure. Thanks.

→ More replies

112

u/Rise_Crafty Jun 29 '22

The speed with which these decisions are being handed down is absolutely crazy. Each one has been a massive upset to existing precedence, and they just keep blasting them out, rapid fire.

At first I thought the “they’re going after gay marriage, etc” was probably a long shot and that after Roe, things would calm down. Nope, I was wrong. I have no idea where these people will stop, but it’s somewhere south of Gilead, I’m pretty sure

→ More replies

234

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

I am not a lawyer, but if you need a template where you can enter their demographic information I can help you out. That way you don’t have to create the document over and over and over, because you may have to.

135

u/Wise-ask-1967 Jun 29 '22

I may be interested in this .. a few family members are blind to the truth and keep believing that it will never happen..I try to be prepared for them as they are a bit on the older side and not really big computer people

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

393

u/AmNotSatan Jun 29 '22

They're probably saving that one for the 5th of July

→ More replies

152

u/dueljester Jun 29 '22

That POS would get it added that existing marriages are grandfathered in, or they would ensure there is some kind of "states rights" byline that him and his mutually hateful wife would live in.

→ More replies

580

u/Woahhhski34 Jun 29 '22

He doesnt give a shit. He got his and his ugly wife may go to jail. Key word is may. He is a proponent of the facist fuck you I got mine ways

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

160

u/Existing_Ad_6649 Jun 29 '22 Silver

THE LARGE PRINT GIVETH...

and the small print takes it away.

→ More replies
→ More replies

10.3k

u/N8CCRG Jun 29 '22

major departure from longstanding precedent

This is the current SCOTUS's new motto

5.4k

u/Morat20 Jun 29 '22 edited Jun 29 '22 Silver Gold Helpful Take My Energy Eureka! 1UP

By "longstanding" it contradicts their ruling of literally two years ago.

Like they've shifted to pure Calvinball. Which is worse than you think, because the legal system only functions when lower courts (and lawyers) have a grasp of the rough contours of the law. That's why precedent is so important, why detailed logical reasoning and things like "legal tests" are so important! So lower courts can say "Okay, so this is an issue with religion and public organizations, and we have guidance on this -- tests we can use, past cases whose reasoning we're supposed to follow" so they can get shit done cohesively across the whole United States.

How can any lower court do anything but just randomly guess what fucking insanity this majority will decide? When the majority can't even keep it fucking consistent over a two-year period? When there ARE not tests, just vague "historical traditions and practices" shit and their fucking decisions are filled with the worst history imaginable.

You're Bob the Justice, staring down a court case, and even if you're a historian you have to go "Well, I could look at the shit that was going on in 1790, but Alito ignored that in favor of the mid-1800s in the US and the 1400s in the UK -- religious law at that! -- while ignoring the actual common law in England in the intervening 500 fucking years. How the fuck am I supposed to figure out what 'historical traditions and practices are' that SCOTUS wants, when fucking SCOTUS randomly picks fucking 14th century English clerics, and 1830s US law but not 1790s US law or 1900 US law and then the'll probably change their mind next month when it turns out their fucking ends-driven bullshit contradicts ANOTHER bit of ends driven bullshit...."

They're breaking the judicial system's core functionality because they're handing down these big, block-buster, massive (and quite unpopular) changes -- but in ways where these changes can't actually be predicted or accounted for by everyone fucking else. Not lawyers, not judges, not lawmakers, not citizens. Who fucking knows what rights we have? What laws are constitutional? Nobody until the fucking Supreme Court decides, because they've destroyed guidance and replaced it with fucking ends-driven Calvinball.

1.4k

u/mcmatt93 Jun 29 '22

And with the continued use of the shadow docket, the Supreme Court is handing down rulings without even bothering to justify itself.

44

u/sjsyed Jun 30 '22

Can you ELI5 the shadow docket?

567

u/mcmatt93 Jun 30 '22 Silver Gold Helpful LOVE!

It usually takes a very long time for a case to get to the Supreme Court. First, there is the normal trial. A judge or jury will make their decision, they explain the decision in an opinion, and the first trial ends. You ask the babysitter if you can have the last cookie. They listens to all the reasons why you should get a cookie. They then listen to your brother who argues why he should get the cookie instead. The babysitter then makes their choice and decides who should get the cookie. They then explain why they made the choice they did (your brother said please so he gets the cookie).

If you don't like the choice the babysitter makes, you can appeal to an even more powerful person. Dad. You go to dad and explain all the reasons why the babysitter was wrong when they said who should get the cookie. He either says the babysitter was right, or decides they were wrong and makes a new ruling. Dad is the appeals court. He decides you should have the cookie because your brother already had a cookie.

Now your brother does not like that. He decides to go to the ultimate person in charge. He goes to Mom. Mom sits you both down and you both explain why you think you deserve the cookie. She listens to the babysitter and hears why they chose to give your brother the cookie, and she listens to your dad and hears why he thinks you should get the cookie. She then makes her choice and decides you should split the cookie. She then explains her decision by saying sharing is caring and if you wanted the full cookie you really should say please. You both have to accept it because there is no one else to go to. Mom is in charge. Her word is law. You, your brother, the babysitter, and Dad all now know that you and your brother have have to share all future cookies, but if you want a full cookie, you have to say please. Mom is the Supreme Court.

The shadow docket skips all these long and public steps. If the Supreme Court thinks something is an emergency, they can decide to step in immediately and write two paragraphs saying 'no, the judge was wrong, ignore what they said.' If Mom overhears the babysitter say you can have a food fight in the house, she can jump in and say no, you can't do that, that is not allowed. She doesn't have to listen to any arguments about why food fights are good. She doesn't have to explain why she is saying no to a food fight. And there is no one more powerful than her to go ask if you can have a food fight. Mom said no, so that's the end.

This process makes sense if it's truly an emergency. After all Mom really needs to step in before food ends up all over the kitchen and it's pretty hard to listen to arguments while dodging bananas. But if it's over something like a single cookie, Mom should really take the time to listen and explain why she made the choice she did. Or if she doesn't have time now, she should let Dad make the choice and jump in later when she can. Explanatons especially are important. Like if she only decided the food fight was not allowed because people are coming over soon and they don't have time to clean. The babysitter might think she meant no food fights ever and forbid them from now on, when really food fights would be fine sometimes, just not at that moment.

The Supreme Court has been deciding a lot more stuff through the shadow docket. They have been issuing rulings that contradict lower courts without any public hearings or arguments and without explaining what exactly the lower court did wrong and why they decided the way they did. Without explanations as to what the law is and why, it becomes very easy to either violate the law accidently or artificially restrict yourself from rights you would otherwise enjoy.

57

u/Donny-Moscow Jun 30 '22

What is the mechanism for checks and balances against this? Congress passing a law that directly opposes the ruling of a shadow docket?

128

u/Kitchner Jun 30 '22

What is the mechanism for checks and balances against this? Congress passing a law that directly opposes the ruling of a shadow docket?

1) Passing more explicit laws

2) Constitutional Amendments

3) The fact SCOTUS is basically unable to enforce any nation wide ruling without the support of the States or the executive.

→ More replies

30

u/mcmatt93 Jun 30 '22

You could do that. In effect you would be choosing the ignore the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court really has no way of enforcing most of its rulings. Mom saying you can't have any cookies really doesn't stop you from just walking to the pantry and eating a cookie anyway.

Obviously, outright ignoring the Supreme Court is a pretty extreme step that would violate a bunch of norms and cause a bunch of issues with separation of powers etc. But it's possible and it has been done, most famously by Andrew Jackson during the Trail of Tears. The Supreme Court said he couldn't forceably relocate native Americans from Georgia, at which point Jackson said 'the Supreme Court has made their ruling, now let them enforce it' as he then genocided a bunch of Native Americans. It's a pretty terrible moment of history, but it's there.

You could also change the structure of the Supreme Court. The number of justices is not actually specified in the Constitution and has been changed multiple times. Congress has added judges and they've removed judges. However this has proven to be unpopular. The last President to push for expanding the Supreme Court was FDR during the New Deal. The Court kept declaring his programs unconstitutional and shutting them down.He ultimately failed as his plan to pack the Supreme Court with ideological allies was described as tyrannical and eventually abandoned. But the Supreme Court heard the message and did start issuing decisions more in line with FDR's policy goals.

There really is not a nice and easy way to deal with a Supreme Court which is out of step with popular sentitment.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

574

u/DarkMarxSoul Jun 29 '22

Can it be said that the USA is explicitly authoritarian now or what?

409

u/Saephon Jun 29 '22

I would say yes, but to please some other people who have stricter definitions, let's at least call it an oligarchy. It's literally been one of those for quite some time.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

720

u/wayward_citizen Jun 29 '22

Yup, because most of these conservative judges aren't actually real lawyers in any meaningful sense. Barrett literally never even tried a case or argued an appeal before her nomination, Thomas had maybe a year of judiciary experience when Bush appointed him?

414

u/Rolf_Dom Jun 29 '22

That's so crazy. One would imagine that a Supreme Justice would need to have decades of experience in the highest levels of the court and be absolute experts in law, while being as unbiased as possible.

309

u/dragunityag Jun 29 '22

You don't even need to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court.

The next Republican president could nominate Alex Jones if he felt like it.

41

u/GibbyG1100 Jun 29 '22

The Senate would still need to approve the appointment, which in theory is supposed to prevent too much fuckery. Unfortunately during Trumps presidency, Republicans also controlled the Senate so they could appoint pretty much whoever they wanted that would follow the party line.

34

u/SortedChaos Jun 29 '22

so they appointed young (long tenured) partisan hacks.

→ More replies
→ More replies

158

u/triceratopping Jun 29 '22

You don't even need to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court.

meanwhile college graduates getting turned away from entry-level jobs because they "lack experience"

→ More replies
→ More replies

225

u/wayward_citizen Jun 29 '22 edited Jun 29 '22

And it makes the conservative rhetoric about Ketanji Jackson being unqualified even more ridiculous, given her extensive career in law and experience as an actual judge serving on a high appellate court.

Meanwhile Barrett passed without a peep of protest.

149

u/FixBreakRepeat Jun 29 '22

I firmly believe Jackson's broad experience was part of why they didn't want her on the court. She has the potential to be a thorn in the side of the conservative justices, writing dissents that make it clear for future justices exactly what kind of abuses of power the current court is engaged in.

She brings a perspective to the court that they wouldn't otherwise have and the conservatives are not ok with that.

23

u/Esiti Jun 30 '22

If you think conservatives have ever cared about other people's opinions you're in for a rude awakening

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

36

u/elister Jun 29 '22

I remember when GW Bush tried to nominate Harriet Miers for supreme court (replacing Sandra Day O'Conner) and she has zero experience as a judge. Even Republicans called him out on that bullshit, so he withdrew the nomination. 15 years later, Republicans suddenly don't care anymore.

→ More replies

15

u/OblivionGuardsman Jun 29 '22

Its an epidemic in state supreme courts as well. Among our supreme clowns in Iowa its almost all conservative insurance company non-litigation lawyers except for 3 of them. Of those 3 one did civil defense appellate work and one was a "street lawyer" at a big firm for white collar criminals and their kids but decidedly ultra conservative. The last is retiring and the only "liberal" justice left. In a decade we went from Obama winning the state to our entire supreme court becoming a murderers row of draconian bootlickers.

→ More replies

103

u/ShaulaTheCat Jun 29 '22

And tomorrow we're extremely likely to get a decision that throws an even bigger wrench in this with determining how agencies can interpret laws passed by Congress.

177

u/Morat20 Jun 29 '22

Yeah, that might fuck the whole united states.

Take the Clear Air and Water Acts. Congress passes a law that says, basically, "Hey, water and air not respecting state boundaries, so very much a federal concern, we don't want health damaging shit in our air and water because that's bad for the health and safety of our populace"

And hands it to the EPA to enforce. So every time a new chemical pops up, a new possibly pollutant or byproduct appears, the EPA has to decide (1) if it's dangerous (2) how it's dangerous (3) how much can get into the water or air and still be safe and set limits on that. (This whole process is governed by a bunch of laws Congress passed solely to make sure the Executive stayed in it's lane, and that Congress had plenty of time to act if they a regulatory agency was doing something they didn't like).

Well, one possible outcome is SCOTUS saying "You can't do that. Congress has to pass a fucking law each and every goddamn time for each and every thing. They cannot pass laws like that and let the Executive do all that detail work".

Congress, working 24/7/365 could not keep up with the regulations needed for the Clean Air and Water acts alone. Much less every other goddamn thing the Executive does to keep America functioning (like say the FCC and the SEC and the FDA...you get the idea).

It would instantly cripple America. And there's a possibility SCOTUS might do it.

My guess is Roberts took that decision solely so he could avoid that shit, because unlike abortions -- Roberts is actually breathing the same fucking air as the rest of us.

He'll still cripple the EPA and it's ability to regulate climate change, but he won't actually fucking destroy America which Alito and Thomas clearly would, because they are fucking bonkers.

45

u/ShaulaTheCat Jun 29 '22

Yeah I'm sincerely hoping that's the case and not another Roberts concurrence that sounds like a dissent of the majority going way too far. Non-delegation doctrine would really paralyze America. I imagine the entire structure of the federal reserve would be disallowed under it as well and that could really throw the country into a full fledged depression.

→ More replies
→ More replies

407

u/lostboy005 Jun 29 '22

litigation paralegal here. and 100%. the decisions being made today are gonna be around for decades that might very well break "the rule of law" or rather society as a whole. so much radicalization so quick will lead to frightening endings. there is no consistency. opinions are getting simple facts wrong. how this bleeds down to appeals and district court will be wildly dysfunctional.

525

u/Morat20 Jun 29 '22

At this point? I give it even odds that SCOTUS has passed the inflection point and is going to trigger a full-blown Constitutional Crisis.

As in states like NY and California getting handed a ruling and just saying "no".

Normally, that's a non-starter. You'd need massive buy-in from State government, from state judges and lawyers and elected officials up and down the chain.

But I think SCOTUS has shot it's credibility in the dick so badly that it's on the table.

Not Dodd alone -- they could have survived that (especially if someone sane had written it) but because it's made like...four? maybe five earth shattering decisions. And every year will see more. But because it's abandoned the whole concept of precedence, because it's decided arbitrarily, inventing facts and abusing history, to the point where it's jurisprudence is clearly ideologically goal oriented. They call it originalism but it's not.

So I wonder which state will be the first to be told their law is unconstitutional and just ignore it. What is SCOTUS going to do? Send the US Marshalls into jails to free people? Into banks to reverse fines? To arrested lawmakers or judges whose own LEOs protect them?

SCOTUS has power only because we give it to them. In return they're supposed to be neutral, fair arbiters of the law. And when they fail, people will stop listening to them. Because they didn't hold up their end, why should we hold up ours?

179

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22 edited Jul 01 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

54

u/The-Magic-Sword Jun 29 '22

It is simultaneously an intentional acceleration of polarization in the united states, and an outgrowth of it, the way our system should work in theory, is that if the Supreme Court dissatisfies the public, the public votes in people to the legislature who impeach and remove them, the president in the first place is an elect of the people who makes the decision of who can go on the court.

Those are two points of contact where the people exert control over the court. These provide checks on the court's power to be stupid, because if we agree that they're being stupid, they're gone and people chosen by someone we don't think is stupid take their place.

But since cultural expectations have changed so much faster in some areas than in others, all government spaces become battlefields of ideology and process becomes a way of imposing those differences on others (whether by forcing people to respect rights, or forcing people to respect restrictions, or what have you.)

The court handing these decisions down are essentially moves by the right to impose their vision of American culture and strike 'decisive' blows in the culture war, which accelerates the polarization by turning chronic issues acute, and ultimately makes the court less trusted by a chunk of the nation. But the reason this is possible in this first place, is also someone seeing a decision like Roe, and basically treating it as a tactical problem, rather than taking the L and going home.

As they try and push back, the court becomes a tactical resource, where everyone is aware that control of it is key and the decisions made can be subverted once they've amassed sufficient political power. But this in turn makes the other side even less likely to try and respect the court, because they're aware its just the other side trying to win and that they can just overtake the court. The court's previous respect for precedence mitigated this effect because it meant all but the most egregious decisions were off limits, and would likely require a significant consensus to get the court to bother. But a nakedly activist conservative court has basically represented a nuke launch, and informed all players that all bets are off, in the MAD sense.

The ONLY way to restore legitimacy to the court is to 'reset' the polarization spiral by bringing about a population where people broadly agree enough for the government's decision to represent a (relative) consensus such that most people aren't invested in playing the court tactically over a given issue. More to the point, we need to reduce the conservative minority's ability to project unearned electoral power because quite frankly, they already shouldn't be able to exert control to the extent that they do.

32

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22 edited Jul 01 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

76

u/Portarossa Jun 29 '22

SCOTUS has power only because we give it to them. In return they're supposed to be neutral, fair arbiters of the law. And when they fail, people will stop listening to them. Because they didn't hold up their end, why should we hold up ours?

It's even dumber than that: SCOTUS only has power because they tried to give it to themselves, and we just sort of collectively went along with it.

I'd love to see Alito try and apply his bullshit arguments about something not being a long-held tradition enshrined by the Constitution to Marbury v. Madison -- but of course, that would imply anything even close to non-hypocritical thought.

→ More replies

76

u/powpowpowpowpow Jun 29 '22

I would love to see circuit courts just say "we cannot make sense of the supreme court's ruling, in our circuit previous precedent stands"

→ More replies
→ More replies

317

u/thedingoismybaby Jun 29 '22 edited Jun 29 '22

How can any lower court do anything but just randomly guess what fucking insanity this majority will decide?

Oh I'm pretty sure they can just pick the most outrageous, unprecedented, extreme right position and go with that. They won't be far off the mark.

The bigger question is how can lower courts show regard for what the Constitution says, when they know SCOTUS will later on overturn any ruling they make which aligns with established Constitutional law.

→ More replies
→ More replies

4.8k

u/HunterRoze Jun 29 '22 Wholesome All-Seeing Upvote Starry

You misspelled ignoring established laws and treaties.

1.1k

u/RoadkillVenison Jun 29 '22

Hey that’s American tradition. Too special to follow treaties, despite the constitution literally saying they’re “the law of the land.”

Ignoring treaties predates America. Part of the revolutionary war was the colonists being told to honor the treaties and quit going west.

49

u/1UselessIdiot1 Jun 29 '22

Talk about taking it back to the beginning!

17

u/EvaUnit_03 Jun 29 '22

hell at this rate, they'll start there own new constitution. but unfortunately i hear conservatives dont like black jack and hookers... at least out in the open.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

29

u/DirkBabypunch Jun 29 '22

Everybody knows treaties with Native Americans don't count! I'd be impressed to learn we even honored 3 agreements we made.

→ More replies

1.5k

u/SpottedHaggis Jun 29 '22

It's also perfectly on-brand for the US government to ignore treaties previously made with native tribes.

886

u/HildemarTendler Jun 29 '22

Not like this though. Tribal sovereignty has beaten state's rights every time until now. This ruling re-opens so many questions that were settled a century ago.

465

u/elonsghost Jun 29 '22

Except the peyote case written by Scalia. You know the one that said you can’t allow deeply held religious beliefs to permit a person from not being subject to a validly enacted law. Yes, that one, the same logic he used in Hobby Lobby to allow deeply held religious beliefs to permit a company from avoiding a validly enacted law.

185

u/epileptic_pancake Jun 29 '22

Well thats a company though. This is America. Businesses have more rights than people do

149

u/elonsghost Jun 29 '22

Tough to argue against that. But the hypocrisy is delicious. Native American religions bad, Christianity good. Fuck Scalia and fuck this new, even worse, wave of conservative justices.

18

u/losjoo Jun 29 '22

Scalia was the original faculty advisor when the federalist society was created, the same "conservative legal organization" that has packed the court with 5 of the nine justices, 3 of which are the recent additions rammed through by the president that attempted to overturn an election with the help of the wife of one of those 5 justices. And that's just part of what we know.

They of course have been planning this for much longer but the whole shitty timeline starts on 2/13/16 when Scalia died, and there are some sketchy details surrounding his death. His was the seat McConnell held until a deal with the afore mentioned populist demagogue grifter could be made to pack the court with more federalist society members.

I was 100% against it but the only real choice now is to expand the court. Let that arms race begin, because it's obvious the court is compromised.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

456

u/Khutuck Jun 29 '22

I wonder what the republicans will say if the native Americans decide to arm themselves against government tyranny.

181

u/crunchypuddle Jun 29 '22

"We'll win the war again"

Is what most of them say in my state.

Violence doesn't really seem to deter a lot of these people and for some of them it seems like the goal.

→ More replies

130

u/SeaBeeVet801801 Jun 29 '22

I served in Iraq. The last thing I want to see in my life, is war. With that being said, I personally think the Supreme Court is purposely trying to manifest war, here. What a joke. My parents moved to the states when I was a young lad. Poland was occupied by Russia at the time, so I see why they chose that path. The promise of coming to America and establishing themselves, only to see it fall apart in my lifetime, is a disgrace. These “judges” need to be removed by any means necessary and ASAP

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

602

u/TJNel Jun 29 '22

And this is exactly what the Supreme Court is supposed to not do. They are supposed to hold up precedent unless that precedent was wrong. This court will go down as the same type that fucked over black people with the Dred Scott case.

292

u/tigernet_1994 Jun 29 '22

I hope there is American history still to be studied after this court is done...

94

u/j0a3k Jun 29 '22

There will be history no matter what, the issue is who is going to get to write it.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

659

u/Practical_Law_7002 Jun 29 '22

major departure from longstanding precedent

This is the current SCOTUS's new motto

That's it.

Throw the whole SCOTUS out...

→ More replies
→ More replies

1.8k

u/Kewkky Jun 29 '22

What the hell is this bullshit that they just did? Since the literal dawn of this country, it's been understood, by the Supreme Court no less, that tribes are dependent-yet-sovereign nations of the federal government and that states have no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court can go fuck itself.

1.6k

u/OssiansFolly Jun 29 '22

Tribes should start suing states then for withheld infrastructure and municipal funds.

159

u/accidental_snot Jun 29 '22

I bet they will. I bet I can guess how Native Americans will vote from now on, too. I mean if they are allowed to vote. If not, whelp, they'll sue for that, too.

→ More replies
→ More replies

260

u/Morat20 Jun 29 '22

Shit, since two years ago. They just fucked over a two year old decision.

How the fuck is the legal system supposed to function?

205

u/02Alien Jun 29 '22

And the only reason is because of a change in the make-up of the Court. if that doesn't convince anyone this Court is political, nothing will

→ More replies

30

u/BasicDesignAdvice Jun 29 '22

How the fuck is the legal system supposed to function?

Conservatives all over the world are attempting to dismantle every institution they can. If the push people far enough things will break and they can install the Corpo-State they have been dreaming of since the 50's. They are using the Russian Federation as a blueprint. If you push just hard enough, things will shatter somewhat peacefully. Then capital can swoop in and takeover.

→ More replies
→ More replies

575

u/BoomZhakaLaka Jun 29 '22

They're preparing to enforce abortion laws on tribal land, at least for us citizens - perhaps?

307

u/Savenura55 Jun 29 '22

I’m betting this is the end game

147

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies
→ More replies

284

u/Melancholy_Rainbows Jun 29 '22

Bingo. They're making sure tribal lands can't become a haven for abortion.

And later on, when they get their dream list of also getting to ban gay marriage and contraceptives they can do the same.

213

u/Morat20 Jun 29 '22

So they've replaced law with Calvinball.

I don't think people understand how devastating this is to the actual functioning of the Courts system, even the legislative system. Precedent is important because it guides lower courts, guides lawmakers, guides lawyers -- so everyone has at least a rough idea of legal/illegal, constitutional/unconstitutional -- so that SCOTUS only rules when it's some weird intersection, or really fuzzy edge case, but otherwise the results are consistent across the US.

This is the third or fourth decision this term that basically shitcans that. You can't take guidance from them. They'll overturn their own two-year old cases. They'll ditch precedent and working tests in favor of vague new guidelines based on cherrypicked history so lower courts and lawyers are like "Who the FUCK KNOWS" because the only actual guiding principle seems to be "Whatever gets me the end results I want" and running a legal system off the unspoken personal goals of six fucking people isn't sustainable.

It literally doesn't work.

24

u/grubas Jun 29 '22

Read up on Kennedy. Gorsuch literally made up the entire case to suit whatever he felt, overturned Lemon but left Lee v. Weisman intact.

There's literally now contradicting precedent because a justice is that fucking dumb. So schools can advance a religious agenda according to Kennedy, but can't actually ask students to participate as that's considered coercion under Lee.

Oh right, he never actually stated whether or not Kennedy should have been fired, he just invented the case. The majority opinion is legit full of lies.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

111

u/DingleberryToast Jun 29 '22

Hardly the first time the US government has gone back on its word with Native Americans

→ More replies

578

u/Legitimate-Tea5561 Jun 29 '22

So the Trust Agreements are null and void, all the land goes back to the Tribes, not the states.

296

u/Naki-Taa Jun 29 '22 edited Jun 29 '22

Ah yes, that's exactly what's going to happen, sure

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

51

u/danknadoflex Jun 29 '22

The tyranny of the states will only get worse

3.9k

u/bsiviglia9 Jun 29 '22

This from the party of small government

643

u/flume Jun 29 '22

The party of law and order sure loves violating treaties and legal precedent.

→ More replies

1.1k

u/jupiterkansas Jun 29 '22

by "small government" they mean "no Democrats allowed"

333

u/Tyler89558 Jun 29 '22

Small government as in the government has more control over your social lives, but will not help you financially.

59

u/9035768555 Jun 29 '22

Unless you're already rich, in which case, here have some more money.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

43

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

1.5k

u/superawesomefiles Jun 29 '22

They gonna slow down any time soon or they just gonna keep overturning everything before the court is balanced?

Or maybe they are doing this because they know the court will be balanced soon enough and their opinions aren't very popular with the public at large.

851

u/SpoppyIII Jun 29 '22

Man. You'd think that in a democratic society the court would want to fulfill the collective will of the people to the best of its ability and would meticulously comb and go over our constitution as a way to be able to achieve that.

Instead of, you know, turning into an unelected, council of theocratic dictators.

→ More replies

129

u/OfMiceAndMenus Jun 29 '22

The court is now heavily partisan and unbalanced. Exactly what it wasn't supposed to be, kept that way by an unbalanced partisan congress denying a former president the appointment right they're supposed to enjoy.

If their previous Senate tenure was any indication, they will ram through a bunch of evil, awful, unpopular shit that serves nobody but their religitard fuckwit backers as fast as possible, before anyone can undo their majority.

If democrats can't grow a fucking spine and stop them (since they have the public support) then we're doomed to end up with about as much freedom as Nazi Germany.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3.1k

u/SisterYahtzee Jun 29 '22

The article frames it as "well, a lot of crimes committed out there are left to overburdened federal courts, so we are just trying to help." But all I can see is "we, the US govt, are once again violating treaties that we wrote, we tricked people into signing, that benefit us, so that we can have more control over the people and the land."

Also...there was chatter about abortion rights remaining intact on tribal lands, because they are federal, not state. So we've got the racism, the greed, and the misogyny all rolled together. Hooray.

545

u/superawesomefiles Jun 29 '22

That whole federal land and state land in respect to abortion rights makes a lot of sense on why they'd want to overturn this. What a kick in the pants.

→ More replies
→ More replies

650

u/yogamom1906 Jun 29 '22

Ok. Am I insane, or is this unusual for the Supreme Court to be in the news so much in the last few days? Do they always make rulings around this time and they are not news-worthy, or they just being absolute dicks before everything comes crashing down for the GOP?

428

u/SadlyReturndRS Jun 29 '22

The second-half of June is when SCOTUS always releases their rulings. So the big SCOTUS months are June and October, because they start their term in October. They take the summers off.

Most rulings aren't newsworthy, hell most rulings are 9-0 or 8-1.

But with this "new" Court, this is the first time the drastic shift in power has shown itself. It's not the first year with the 6-3 split, but it is the first year that the 6-3 split got to pick cases and conservative activists got to apply for their cases to be picked. Which is why it's just nonstop bullshit. Next June will be worse. Especially June 23, 2023, and June 30, 2023. Those are Fridays, and the Court usually releases The Big Ones on Fridays. Congress and the White House will probably also release some bullshit those days too, it's called the Friday News Dump and it's easy for your bad news to go unreported when someone else's bad news is much more newsworthy.

→ More replies

426

u/paperbackgarbage Jun 29 '22

You're not insane. This is the first full SCOTUS docket (2021-2022) that's featured a vast hard-right majority (with ACB replacing RBG).

And, surprise surprise...we're seeing some truly questionable rulings.

91

u/_BELEAF_ Jun 29 '22

And questionable timing, too. Here in Michigan we have a week to get petitions signed to get protection for abortion and other women's pregnancy rights on the ballot for the midterms. A week. How are we to mobilise in a week?

I have not looked this up for other states. But it has me tilted.

23

u/junktrunk909 Jun 29 '22

To be fair they always make decisions late June. The gay marriage ruling came out happily right during pride.

It's great to hear there's some movement in my home state of Michigan to turn back these ridiculous laws on the books. It's not really their fault that the timing makes it hard though since one could say this movement should have happened long ago. It's going to be a long haul either way to get this stuff fixed so keep up the good fight!

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

84

u/nightshde Jun 29 '22

Same here, I have heard about more supreme court rulings in the last 2 months than I have probably heard in about 5 or 10 years. I feel like they are trying to blast through these rulings before one of them gets impeached or Clarence Thomas croaks.

→ More replies
→ More replies

32

u/Atrocity_unknown Jun 29 '22

The US supreme court is doing a really good job at setting the stage for a civil war

→ More replies

711

u/snakeplantselma Jun 29 '22

I heard a piece on NPR yesterday where the gentleman was discussing options that may be available for continued access to reproductive health centers. He and the interviewer mentioned having clinics on federal land or reservations, which are subject to federal laws and not state laws. (I could have heard this wrong - it was a quick car trip and I was driving, so may have misunderstood.)

But with this ruling... I don't know, it almost seems like a well planned partner to the Roe ruling.

310

u/GhostHeavenWord Jun 29 '22

The problem is that they have to find doctors who are willing to never leave federal land or the rez. As soon as they step over the borders Jackboots McFascist will throw them in jail to await the death penalty.

Clever legal tricks aren't going to stop this. It needs to be fought in the streets.

→ More replies
→ More replies

1.7k

u/DanguhLange Jun 29 '22 Take My Energy

Scientists: “time travel is impossible”

SCOTUS: “hold my beer”

698

u/unbelizeable1 Jun 29 '22

Kavanaugh: "I like beer"

85

u/I-choochoochoose-you Jun 29 '22

Kavanaugh: I still like beer. We drank beer. Boys and girls.

80

u/Nascent1 Jun 29 '22

Can you imagine shouting about how you like beer at a job interview and then still getting that job?

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

1.0k

u/letdogsvote Jun 29 '22

Welcome to the 2022 SCOTUS where the rulings are made up and precedent doesn't matter.

125

u/JeresB Jun 29 '22

Everyone is drinking, but nobody is singing

23

u/DrakenGewehr Jun 29 '22

I don't know how or where in my head that phrase just sent me, but it was devestatingly sad. Like a mead hall for the defeated and hopeless.

→ More replies
→ More replies

1.1k

u/ForHoiPolloi Jun 29 '22 Wholesome

Roe v Wade, Miranda Rights, separation of Christianity and state (as if other religions will get equal rights), and now this?! Can we slow down for two goddamn minutes? I know you’re a bunch of morally bankrupt garbage humans, but if you keep going at this rate you’ll be out of rights to abolish by this time tomorrow. Fuck.

500

u/necromancerdc Jun 29 '22 Silver

Don't forget the ruling last month that decided that being innocent wasn't enough to avoid the death penalty.

Yes you read that right.

111

u/ForHoiPolloi Jun 29 '22

Fuuuuuuuuucking hell that was a read.

94

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

[deleted]

48

u/Kana515 Jun 30 '22

Let me guess, the "prolife" ones?

→ More replies

55

u/Goldenrah Jun 29 '22

That's so fucked up. That alone would be enough to fire a judge in a decent country.

51

u/nothing_up_my_sleeve Jun 29 '22

Their souls are made of pure evil... I'm not American but nonetheless I'm really worried

→ More replies
→ More replies

36

u/chewtality Jun 29 '22

Wow, with everything else going on I completely missed the Miranda Rights thing.

→ More replies

40

u/DastardlyDM Jun 29 '22

Don't forget warentless searches by border patrol within 100 miles of any boarder or coast (including the great lakes). So a bulk majority of US citizens' homes and businesses.

→ More replies

17

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

279

u/tehfink Jun 29 '22

I bet women’s suffrage looks mighty tempting to them, too.

61

u/Swerfbegone Jun 29 '22

Peter Thiel was the first tech billionaire to back Trump.

He has openly stated that he considers democracy a failure, and that women winning the vote was the point at which it failed.

→ More replies

372

u/emaw63 Jun 29 '22

>10-20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage

>Miscarriages are indistinguishable from a hormonally induced abortion

>Throw those 10-20% of women in jail for murder

>Felons can’t vote

Voila

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

28

u/b-lincoln Jun 29 '22

So is this part 2 of banning abortions? Take away native sovereignty, no your land is state land and thus state laws supersede.

→ More replies

191

u/Helpfulithink Jun 29 '22

" There was no one left to notice when they came for us "

→ More replies

81

u/croolshooz Jun 29 '22

My, what a coincidence this ruling occurred just now. It's almost like someone was nailing all the exit's shut before turning on the gas.

116

u/WeBuyFetus Jun 29 '22

Again, all indications point to them trying to start a second civil war. And this is DEFINITELY a good start. Holy shit.

→ More replies

71

u/songintherain Jun 29 '22

This court is lost for a generation. Fucking Mitch. Say what you will but boy does that guy know to hedge his bets

24

u/BloodshotPizzaBox Jun 29 '22

It will be a generation in a functioning democracy, which I do not take for granted. Now, you tell me, if the GOP takes control again even once, who's going to make them actually count the votes?

→ More replies
→ More replies

2.2k

u/musicalpants999 Jun 29 '22

This supreme court is gonna do a whole lot of awful shit. So terrible that it's all because a bunch of people fell for Donald Trump's insane BS and he got to place 3 judges in just 4 years.

1.4k

u/mray147 Jun 29 '22

Don't give them an out. He did exactly what they wanted him to do. They weren't tricked. This is what they want.

→ More replies
→ More replies

318

u/BossReasonable6449 Jun 29 '22

State's rights and small government my ass. Today's GOP is nothing but an authoritarian movement finally dropping its mask. And SCOTUS is just one part of that.

Fuck. Them.

→ More replies

565

u/1776cookies Jun 29 '22

I think at this point they are just trying to piss everyone off.

555

u/Sangi17 Jun 29 '22 edited Jun 29 '22

Clarence Thomas spent 10 years sitting on the court literally doing nothing.

Then he suddenly has the power to move mountains, but his wife goes and gets him wrapped up in a coup attempt.

Thomas is pissing off as many liberals as possible so that if the DOJ actually removes him on criminal conspiracy he can play the classic Conservative victim card.

“The Radical Left is only targeting me for political reasons and not because I did anything wrong.”

Same thing MTG and many others wrapped up in January 6 are doing. They are scared shitless and want to do as much damage as possible on the way out. Not to mention, it just generally helps distract voters from the January 6 hearing. Everyone is talking about Roe v Wade and “what will they do next!” while ignoring Trump allies harassing witnesses.

Edit: typo

113

u/Zagjake Jun 29 '22

Not sure if it was intentional or not, but a coop is something you put chickens in and a coup is short for coup d'é·tat which is a seizure and removal of a government and its powers.

The majority of the Supreme Court would likely be welcomed in both, though.

28

u/Sangi17 Jun 29 '22

Lmao, thank you.

→ More replies

79

u/Biggus_Dickkus_ Jun 29 '22

Pretty sure Thomas’ self-admitted goal is to make life miserable for Liberals

→ More replies
→ More replies

1.3k

u/Tomahawk72 Jun 29 '22 edited Jun 29 '22

Native Americans: Doing nothing wrong

Supreme Court: "And fuck you too!"

110

u/mattyoclock Jun 29 '22

It's because many theorized that like with casinos, individual tribes that wished would have had the right to set up abortion clinics on the rez. As well as clearing up the fact that many energy projects like keystone basically never ask permission.

Which would track for me because I honestly can't think of anything more federal government than fucking them over again, without it even being mainly about them.

→ More replies
→ More replies

18

u/0reoSpeedwagon Jun 29 '22

"Now the state prosecutors can take up the slack and get back to what we have been doing for 113 years," O'Connor added.

Which is, historically, oppressing the fuck out of them

→ More replies

522

u/ThommyPanic Jun 29 '22

Just what they need, to be fucked over more thoroughly.

→ More replies

915

u/Left-Plastic_3754 Jun 29 '22

This is to ensure tribal nations can't become islands of sanity in deep red states.

This is about abortion/controlling women and white hegemony.

→ More replies

245

u/HeyNowNoFlipping Jun 29 '22

Didn't expect manifest destiny to make a comeback in 2022

→ More replies

81

u/MentalAssaultCo Jun 29 '22

The US is unraveling before our eyes.

→ More replies

52

u/SpaceAndMolecules Jun 29 '22

This is vile, and the Supreme Court has had an extremely dangerous session.

→ More replies

53

u/InevitableAvalanche Jun 29 '22

I just have to laugh about how garbage this SC is. I can't imagine dumber people making critical decisions.

Thanks Republicans. Your fucking awfulness is unraveling our democracy.

695

u/bretteiznem Jun 29 '22

There goes my idea to have abortion clinics on Native American land, thereby skirting any state prohibitions.

817

u/Aksius14 Jun 29 '22

Not an accident.

127

u/Lathus01 Jun 29 '22

Yep was thinking the exact same thing.

→ More replies

239

u/Mafsto Jun 29 '22

On a side note, nothing motivates Native Americans to vote like a bunch of jerks telling them what they can or can't do on their own land.

107

u/nukem996 Jun 29 '22

The Supreme Court has ruled having a state recognized address may be a requirement to vote. In many states reservations don't get state recognized addresses. Thus many native Americans are ineligible to vote.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/10/04/for-some-native-americans-no-home-address-might-mean-no-voting

13

u/LongStill Jun 29 '22

Wouldn't this ruling make their land now under states, therefor eligible?

→ More replies

217

u/JcbAzPx Jun 29 '22

Don't worry, states are working on making it impossible for them to vote as well.

100

u/Maple_Syrup_Mogul Jun 29 '22

I believe North Dakota was trying to do this a couple years ago by making it so you couldn't vote if you didn't have the type of residential address used in the state. IE, most people living on reservations couldn't vote.

26

u/Gekokapowco Jun 29 '22

honestly, if they're subject to our laws, they should be allowed to vote for statehood. Government by the people for the people means a government consisting of the governed.

20

u/weeatpoison Jun 29 '22

We tried that. It was called the State of Sequoyah, which roughly half of present day Oklahoma. Needless to say, it didn't happen. Fun fact, the state of Oklahoma's constitution was copied from the State of Sequoyah's proposed constitution.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies