The Supreme Court Has Planned for a June So Awful It Will Be Impossible to Keep Up

[marmar]

(Slate) The Supreme Court is about to drown us in a deluge of explosive and massively consequential decisions involving some of the most controversial issues of the day. Right now, the justices are scrambling to complete blockbusters involving abortion, guns, homelessness, unions, social media, online disinformation, pollution, the administrative state—and, oh yes, hundreds of Jan. 6 prosecutions, including Donald Trump’s. Yet at the moment, there’s a logjam: The court, which likes to wrap up decisions by the end of June, is way behind schedule, releasing just a trickle of minor cases several weeks in a row. Even if it stretches into early July this year, SCOTUS has teed up a chaotic finale to the term. As soon as the current logjam breaks, the court will dump everything on us all at once.

This approach to judging—to ruling, really, in the monarchical sense—is both disgraceful and unnecessary. It’s disgraceful because regular people cannot possibly absorb the enormous amount of material that is poised to gush out of the court, as the justices surely know, much of it dressed up in legalese to obscure its meaning for nonlawyers. The overwhelming majority of Americans will have no hope of keeping up with the sweeping and complex decisions to come, even if those decisions have direct and negative impacts on their lives. And this inundation is unnecessary because the justices pick their own arbitrary deadline, then fail to manage the docket in a way that allows them to meet that deadline without cutting corners and overwhelming the news cycle with a glut of last-minute bombshells. The conservative supermajority has a checklist to clear, and it won’t temper its agenda to accommodate for a (gratuitously) tight timeline. Its smash-and-grab attitude toward the law requires aggressive, immediate intervention in cases that the court has no good reason to hear. And so this June, and maybe July, is shaping up to be an unprecedented season of ceaseless SCOTUS mayhem.

A glimpse at the term’s remaining cases shows what a nightmare we’re in for. The justices are preparing to hand down roughly 14 extraordinarily high-profile opinions, triple or quadruple the number of an ordinary term. A decade ago, June’s biggest decision was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, allowing corporations to limit contraceptive coverage for employees; this year, there are at least a half-dozen cases that stand to eclipse Hobby Lobby in terms of impact and controversy. (Maybe a lot more, depending on how far the supermajority swings right.) ................(more)

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/supreme-court-june-docket-disaster-alito-roberts.html

[jimfields33]

1. They need to stop accepting more lawsuits they can handle.

June has always been a month that biggies drop. Maybe accept three or four instead of 13 or whatever. Makes sense.

[Old Crank]

10. They have done less work than in teh past.

The court has accepted fewer cases than almost anytime in history.

[jimfields33]

17. And still not able to keep up. Sad.

[calimary]

51. Nice job if you can get it, 'eh?

It should NOT be a lifetime appointment u see ANY circumstances.

[GreenWave]

2. And not accept ludicrous give the convicted felon immunity ones.

[gab13by13]

3. I can't wait to see how they rule that

the attack on the Capitol did not obstruct an official proceeding of Congress. Just imagine the turmoil that decision will cause.

[Goodheart]

4. Anybody who is not in favor of expanding this court beyond these corrupt partisan activists is pretty obtuse.

Last edited Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:26 AM - Edit history (1)

The most frequent argument I hear is "well, the OTHER side will just expand it again when THEY get in power." That right there is allowing yourself to be bullied and slapped because somebody in the future might bully and slap you again.

Aside from the political majority aspect of the question, the biggest argument FOR expansion would be to fight the corruption that this limited number of "justices" so obviously encourages. Each of their market (i..e. bribe) values diminishes with each additional member on the bench.

[BComplex]

6. I wish we would have a house and senate with COURAGE to start impeaching the republican appointed justices for

their lies and obfuscation during their confirmations. And someone needs to immediately outlaw the Voting Rights Act, Dobbs and Citizens United rulings, and put the ethics requirements on the court.

[wnylib]

11. Outlaw the Voting Rights Act??

[BComplex]

20. oops! I meant put the voting rights act back to it's original form, not the way the court has

destroyed it with their subsequent rulings.

[Silent Type]

7. Guess I'm just obtuse, because I don't support packing the Court. I do support voting for Democrats

so that we can impeach the MFers.

[onecaliberal]

9. You keep telling yourself that until they take women's voting rights away. Then they have a permanent majority.

They will have already wholesale thrown old people on the streets by taking their social security away.

[Silent Type]

12. Packing the Court ain't gonna stop that, sorry. We lost the most important election in our lifetime by not showing

up at polls, costing us 3 Justices. Don't think we can rectify that by packing court. It's a pipe dream at best.

[onecaliberal]

13. Making the court representative of america is not packing the court. If they don't have the votes, it's stops

everything. I am tired of men telling me that I can't do anything about them making women second class incubators to be ruled by the soulless.

[Silent Type]

18. Hey, I understand the anger. But packing the Court is a pipe dream. If you somehow suceed, I'll celebrate.

[Goodheart]

22. I don't understand. You'll celebrate something you're opposed to?

Sorry, but you're not making any sense.

A pipe dream? I don't think so. All it would take is for Democrats to gain control of Congress and a President who is fed up with bullshit corrupt partisan activism.

[Silent Type]

23. Have a good day.

[slightlv]

58. We don' t have to "pack the courts"

we DO have to make it more representative of the United States. Obviously, with all the decisions they've entered so far that have people screaming, it is NOT representative!

In addition, it is so far out of whack with the number of circuits we have, we absolutely need to have more SCOTUS judges just for fair representation of each circuit. That's not packing the court. That's logical and practical. That was even mentioned by the Commission Biden set up at the beginning of his term. Just because he didn't want to touch the courts (the one thing I really DO ding him on), it doesn't make it null and void. It makes it a mistake and WRONG.

And don't give me the crap about more democrats. We NEVER have enough Democrats, it seems. That's always the answer whenever we bring up anything that needs to be changed. Any one of us who was screaming about the courts and what they were going to do to women and minorities years ago has heard the same damn refrain over and over and over again. We're just not listening to it anymore. I'm sorry if that seems harsh... but I'm a woman; my SS is less because of the fact in the work world I inhabited from the 70's through the early 2000's, women were paid thousands less per year for the exact same work the guy next to me was doing... and I was a hell of a lot better at it. I lived during the time when women did not have the right to a damned credit card in their name. My grandmother fought for the right to vote. If the damned Magat squeaky wheel gets noticed and acted upon, well, we ain't gonna shut up now. We are many. Hell, we might even be Legion, and the world can't do without us. Just try it.

[Silent Type]

59. Please let me know when someone in an official capacity proposes that. Until then, I'll continue skeptical.

Unfortunately, all the screaming did absolutely nothing. It didn't stop trump from being elected over someone highly qualified, or getting 3 Justices on the Court. We lost, and the likely reason -- when all is said and done about Comey, trump, etc. -- is people screaming and not voting for Clinton because they were mad their candidates got eliminated in the primaries.

As too your other issues, I likely agree with you, but packing the court or whatever won't change any of that.

[BComplex]

21. Umm...Hilary won the popular vote by a huge majority. It was just a few states where not enough people

showed up.

[Silent Type]

24. Unfortunately, we have the Electoral College. Popular vote doesn't elect our Prez. Doubt that is going to change either.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

32. It's not just the EC. It's the Senate.

I took civics just like you did, and I get the whole big state / small state thing, but now it's reached a ridiculous extreme.

Realistically, California, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Georgia should look at busting up into smaller states of about 1M people each. As it stands now, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Vermont, and Montana have way too much power.

[Silent Type]

34. Agree, but there is no chance of it changing within the next 4 decades or so.

[littlemissmartypants]

49. ...

[Prof. Toru Tanaka]

43. Which really stinks!

I cannot stand the EC; it is archaic and an anachronism. The fact that the highest office in our land can be won by a candidate that does not win the popular vote is ludicrous.

[Silent Type]

46. Totally agree. But, there is little chance it will change.

[Nasruddin]

25. Proudly obtuse

We need some real reform, not starting a grifter packing tit for tat war.

I would rather rehab the system from top to bottom but the constitutional issues will obviously make that very difficult.

A lot of problems are solved by a good term limits scheme. If possible, applied to the whole federal judiciary.
Perhaps, if judges cannot be removed from office except via the broken constitutional measures, they can be moved from post to post after a term. If they don't like it, they can quit.

Another possibility is to make the number of justices flexible, and give every presidential term (say) 2 positions they can add. It would be better yet if each presidential term got 1 free removal too. Senate obfuscation remains a problem.

I don't understand how to deal with the accountability problem without constitutional work. We have a corrupt court and a corrupted judicial system from top to bottom that can crime with near impunity (my guess is that the supreme court justices can do whatever they want and their team will close ranks and intervene if any of them are busted - as we are seeing hints of).

Congress can limit the scope of the supreme court but that will surely lead to a constitutional battle. But it should do this. Probably never would.

[Prof. Toru Tanaka]

44. I am all for term limits on the Supreme Court.

How about eight years? That is two presidential terms.

[OMGWTF]

29. We have nine justices because there were once nine circuit courts. There are now 12 circuit courts; ergo ...

[Bettie]

41. I think there should be enough justices that two or three

panels can hear cases (randomly chosen panels) to allow for the greater number of cases that a much larger population brings.

Plus, randomly chosen panels make it much harder to tailor an argument to a specific justice.

[Goodheart]

47. That's an advantage I hadn't even considered

If there were, say, 21 justices and 9 were chosen at random for each case.... that would be far less opportunity for corruption.

[DownriverDem]

5. Makes me so angry

at all the "but, but, but Hillary folks". I can't help but think of all the warnings we gave them when it came to the Fed Court judges & SC. I never hear of them now.

[et tu]

8. buy who and what

you can now for biden's second term
will bring a change to the sc. so get'em
while you still can trillionaires

[KS Toronado]

14. What do they have planned for the homeless?

Reeducation centers out of sight in the country where they can grow their own food?

[budkin]

37. Prison?

I wouldn't be shocked.

[Xolodno]

57. Some probably wouldn't mind it.

Best man at my wedding was terrible with money and every business he did afterwards. Wife eventually left him. He moved up to Oregon where his parents retired and decided to give it a go. Turns out he had a severe mental health issue and refused to acknowledge it. Ended up homeless and living in a tent. He eventually did something stupid and ended up in jail.

When he was about to be released, he asked if he could stay. He got three square meals a day, roof over his head, a bed away from the elements, entertainment, etc. Sad really, that he thinks this is the best for him after two failed marriages, bankruptcies, failed businesses, etc. Showed a lot of promise in life in his early years, but life was not kind to him. Top it off, lived in a well to do neighborhood, good schools, plenty of privilege, etc. Where as myself, I was the opposite.

[Bettie]

42. Prison or camps

no doubt...or maybe slave labor.

[KS Toronado]

48. Slave labor might be correct, they been saying "The South shall rise again"

[magicarpet]

54. Prisons and slave labor,...

... now that would be a major boost for the economy. Better than the .17cents an hour paid Chinese labor.
Free labor ain't nothing to sneeze at,.. just ask djt.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

15. There were some other decisions in 2014.

Key Supreme Court Decisions in 2014

[OnlinePoker]

16. In 1963, USSC decided on 377 cases. So far this year, 31

Have the cases got more complex or has the court got so politically entrenched they can't do the work?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases_decided_by_year

[TheKentuckian]

36. It takes longer to spin up decision whole cloth out of thin air

than it does to adjudicate based on actual law and precedent?

[Farmer-Rick]

19. Every single decision will help their master

Last edited Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)

The convicted felon. It will help him get elected.

The Supremes are on the path to hell. They got nothing to do with god. It's all about fascism and crushing the majority of Americans. They will make us bow at their feet.

[Arne]

28. I heard the recorded conversation with Alito's wife.

She clearly stated that she is completely
Coo Coo for Ko Ko puffs.

[MsLeopard]

26. It's time to just ignore them

Red states will make life horrible for their citizens because they can. And they’re deranged. Blue states can tell them to go fuck themselves and not enforce their Christian nationalist BS. In time we’ll probably something akin to underground railroads helping people flee red state fascism once they see it up close. I may be dreaming, but I just can’t see people living the hell they want for us without a fight.

[keep_left]

33. To some extent, that is already happening.

However, it can be argued that this will inflame secessionist movements in the US (although such movements have always existed).

It has been discussed here on a few occasions that should Trump be re-elected to another term, it is likely that nascent secessionist movements already underway in a few states will spread to many others. At that point, it is anyone's guess what the outcome would be. These secessionist tendencies can already be seen in at least two small but significant ways: cannabis legalization (states ignoring Federal drug laws and scheduling), and the state-by-state patchwork of legal abortion in the aftermath of the Supreme Court Dobbs decision.

https://democraticunderground.com/100219019557#post2

[Martin68]

27. The GOP strategy to take over the court was successful. And the court is wasting no time in

remaking our entire democracy into a theocratic totalitarian state. We are in trouble if we can't stop either the court's unconstitutional agenda or Donald Trump's illegitimate election.

[Hekate]

30. KnR

[Paper Roses]

31. Now for the long vacation. THis court id disgusting.

Leaving the American citizens with this mess is not excusable. We need to have time to digest the rulings and add our thoughts to the decisions.
What a biased and crooked court.
Yes, I'm mad as heck about this.
So biased in favor of the MAGA members.

[Bayard]

35. I think any justice who was installed by a convicted felon and traitor should be booted out

Then we fill those vacancies with good, ethical justices. No need to expand the court.

[TheKentuckian]

38. There is virtually no likelihood of ever having sufficient

Senators to remove them.

Meanwhile, expansion is possible with a WILLING simple majority.

Pursuit of a delusional pipedream constructed of the elusive element Unobtainium over a viable and straight path is just backdoor support for the existing conditions to be perpetrated.

67 to remove is not coming o'er any hill anywhere.

[returnee]

39. Two or three of them may wish to retire...

…and do as much damage as possible before leaving. We can also infer that the fascist powers that be will do whatever they can to get TSF Convict back into office.

[Oneironaut]

40. As per Susan Sarandon, this is just the Socialist revolution starting.

Giving us a heavily Conservative Supreme Court is actually a good thing, because, Socialism will come about somehow. Yay!

/s

[UTUSN]

45. K&R

[IbogaProject]

50. We have to alter the SC

The angles are, to expand, to change the scope of what they can do and finally I've seen a suggestion for another apellet level. A suggestion for expansion is go to 15 so no SC justice does more than one circuit. There would be 5 R and 5 D and those ten would nominate candidates for the 5 non aligned slots. And of course a code of ethics plus some kind of age or term limit. I don't like that limit idea but if well crafted I could warm up to it.

[pwb]

52. What the roque Justices can never plan on is Karma.

It has no religion and is usually just.

[Jakes Progress]

53. Logjam you say. Sounds like a good reason to add six or more justices to the court.

[Quanto Magnus]

55. They are corrupt...

the decisions that they come out with are going to be demonstrative of that corruption. They are waiting as long as they can, because they know how corrupt they are.... The bigger the delay the better it will be for them and their corrupt associates (aka the MAGAt party).

[elocs]

56. Every Democrat or person on the Left who didn't vote for Hillary in the battleground states in '16,

take a bow because this is all on your plate.
Here in Wisconsin in '16, Jill Stein of the Green Party received more votes than Trump's margin of victory here and those votes came from the Left, not Republicans. But then what could go wrong with voting for a 3rd party candidate? Well, we found out and the bad news is that there will be ones who do it again this year.

[Desert Dog]

60. Further Reason for Court Reform

They can't keep up and do their work in a timely manner. Why are they holding up decisions that have already been made? Millions in Gifts. Not near enough recusals. Political hack judges who do political events on the weekends.

Past time to write some rules for these clowns and give them some more help to get their work done.

Biden and the Senate should be warning these people in the press that if they don't clean it up - we will do it after the election.

I hope Biden wins and has the guts to rewrite the court rules. The political goons have gone so overboard that a comprehensive response is warranted. Biden should already be laying some ground work with minimal specifics. "Court Reform" - "Justice for All".. Maybe after the debates. People hate this court and hacks that inhabit it.

[Good Dog]

61. An encapsulated version of how and where SCOTUS is today; explained by Jamie Raskin

If you listen to this there is really nothing I need to say:

[SARose]

62. Nothing will change

Until folks like Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow are held to account.

Just why do these folks get to ignore a subpoena from the Senate?

Congress must address the issue of a handful of rich, white men corrupting our courts.

Congress must put some teeth into subpoenas.

In my opinion, nothing will change until the corruption is cleaned up.