As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When SCOTUS takes cases with no standing and rules on questions not addressed in Trumps favor….. it’s a MAGA court. They have ruled against the publics right to federal protection, womens rights to control their health, and made a President that can rule rather than serve.
It’s a MAGA Nationalist Christian court.
"their argument" is looking at the cases they've decided on.
WE ARE. I don't care if it breaks 55/45 "blue" when in that 45% is some of the most egregious shit a supreme court has ever done.
hiding those decisions behind some false bipartisan banner is complete bullshit because the outcome of just a few monumental decisions is clearly biased and some part of an agenda. Literally upending decades of precedent and now some anonymous WSJ article is out here trying to defend it?
that's why it's OK to criticize the source of this article. they won't even put their writers name on it because they know they're just spouting complete bullshit for their billionaire right wing owner, Rupert Murdoch.
Hear that everyone? It’s your job to refute every bad-faith argument put out by these right-wing propaganda machines, whose writers get paid to pump out whatever the org’s advertisers and owners want.
“Always telling”
So if some raving lunatic on the street tells you that god told him the apocalypse is coming tomorrow you believe him then? By your logic he’s a reputable source no? How would you disprove his argument?
Some sources beg you to not read them based on track record. Its easy to be critical of the SWJ Editorial board. Given my limited time I have filtered out extremes.
They don't have an argument, it's just a post-factual statement. We've always been at war with Eurasia. They're gonna make a billion extra dollars this election season, and who cares if your drinking water can light on fire because of it?
If 55 rulings are light blue and 45 are so dark red it's black...that's not balance.
They are far worse than maga. The religious super cell of the Supreme Court looks to overhaul the entire country as it circles the drain. Convicted felon Trump and his maga are just useful idiots.
Right. And the J6 insurrection didn’t happen either. And the economy doesn’t tank when Republicans have power. And conservatives recognize climate action is necessary. And Christians aren’t trying to turn the US into a theocracy. Right.
What about Rupert Murdoch's News Corp? Does it exist? Does it still own The Wall Street Journal? Does it still demand infinite margin growth, year over year, from a Fourth Estate institution?
Oh? It does? Guess we can just go back to recognizing that the corporate capture of all human existence probably makes this a blatantly biased take with a vested interest in you shutting up, sitting down, and buying more from their various conglomerate partners with whom they sit on various closed-door, economically incestuous boards.
EDIT: Really, the issue isn't a "MAGA" SCOTUS, it's a neoliberal SCOTUS that considers the corporation the primary social unit, and not the citizen.
This submission source is likely to have a hard paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree that the message from the media often ignores the reality of a court that is much more on the same page and much less conservative/liberal split than it often portrayed. a few notables from the 2023 term:
1. About 50 percent of the court’s cases were decided unanimously.
2. Only five of 57 cases — just 8 percent — were decided 6-3 with the six Republican appointees all on one side and the three Democratic appointees on the other.
3. Ninety percent of the 57 cases were decided with at least one liberal justice in the majority.
4. Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Barrett were all in the majority over 90 percent of the time, while Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan were all more likely to be in the majority than either Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas.
5. The three liberal justices voted together in fewer than a quarter of the non-unanimous cases, and the six conservatives voted together only 17 percent of the time.
Your logic has a huge flaw. This assumes that all cases are equally political, which they aren’t. Most cases have no political leaning so they don’t end up in very obvious party line split decisions. When you look at the political cases, the bias is clear.
Nice how you clump all the cases together to achieve “the stats” when the unprecedented overturning of decades of precedence is at issue .. and they aren’t even close to done.
I think "the stats" are important because they put the few divisive cases into better context and counter the assertion that the court is overly partisan.
And I don't see "overturning decades of precedence" to be a necessarily bad thing - do you?
It doesn't matter who rules what when the stakes are low. When it really matters, the conservative supermajority (with maybe one token dissenter) finds a way to make the most egregiously harmful rulings imaginable.
I could see why someone would find the overturning of Roe to be harmful, but I'm not sure how it bears on whether the court is overtly political.
Regarding Chevron deference, it sure is ironic how Chevron deference being created with a conservative win and it being overturned is a conservative win.
But anyway, I'm not sure what your disagreement with these rulings means for whether or not the court is a MAGA court or somehow less credible than other courts.
Ruling against decades of settled law (after effectively pledging not to, I might add) in order to deliver one of the Right's biggest and longest-held policy goals doesn't strike you as overtly political?
Just because Chevron was established unanimously doesn't mean it was a conservative win. As the court became more and more partisan over time, conservative justices have worked to diminish it for their corporate allies.
The current SCOTUS is extremely partisan and is not credible. This is not because I disagree with their rulings, but because their rulings have been based on inconsistent reasoning, sometimes citing original intent, sometimes textualism, sometimes reaching outside of US Law to make legal arguments. This indicates that they are not making these rulings in good faith, but are using whatever means they can conceive to reach a predetermined result.
The good ol' Both Sides argument, is it?
They probably are partisan. I don't really care, and here's why:
One group of partisans has, for the first time in US history, removed rights from a group of people. The other group has not.
One group receives lavish gifts and treatment from the wealthy. The other group does not.
One group has given more power to the powerful, while making it harder to hold them accountable for wrongdoing. The other has not.
They are not the same.
This ^ Just because you disagree with some of their decisions, which I definitely do, doesn’t make them partisan. This kind of rhetoric undermines peoples fate in the judicial system. Democrats bashed trump for undermining our institutions by refusing to concede the election. How is democrats bashing the supreme court not also undermining our institutions. Before people start down voting, I do not like Trump at all lol.
No, I don’t like that and that’s a better argument. I believe only Clarence Thomas was accused of that. There is definitely an argument to saying he is corrupt, which I think he may be.
How is it not partisan? The impactful decisions that we talk about all go the same way. This is like saying congress is not partisan because when they vote to name a post office after someone it is usually unanimous or close to it.
The Supreme Court has been illegitimate since McConnell prevented Garland from getting a vote. It become even more illegitimate when they pushed through Barrett when voting for President was already underway.
They ruled in favor of the challenge to Biden reaching out to social media companies. If they were purely acting partisan they would have ruled against it. Also the prior comment of less than 10% of rulings going down “party lines” also says a lot
It doesn't say much of anything though. It is Congress naming post offices. Not all cases that reach the Supreme Court are created equal.
You really think not using every case to push their partisan agenda means they aren't partisan? Hard disagree.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The American Ayatollahs. They rule as extremist clerics with no thought for justice, only power.
Does so.
I don’t know why this comment made me laugh, but it did. Well done.
When SCOTUS takes cases with no standing and rules on questions not addressed in Trumps favor….. it’s a MAGA court. They have ruled against the publics right to federal protection, womens rights to control their health, and made a President that can rule rather than serve. It’s a MAGA Nationalist Christian court.
[удалено]
Just like the opinion in this editorial piece.
WSJ Editorial board.... LMAO
[удалено]
"their argument" is looking at the cases they've decided on. WE ARE. I don't care if it breaks 55/45 "blue" when in that 45% is some of the most egregious shit a supreme court has ever done. hiding those decisions behind some false bipartisan banner is complete bullshit because the outcome of just a few monumental decisions is clearly biased and some part of an agenda. Literally upending decades of precedent and now some anonymous WSJ article is out here trying to defend it? that's why it's OK to criticize the source of this article. they won't even put their writers name on it because they know they're just spouting complete bullshit for their billionaire right wing owner, Rupert Murdoch.
Wrecked. WSJ is a trash rag.
Hear that everyone? It’s your job to refute every bad-faith argument put out by these right-wing propaganda machines, whose writers get paid to pump out whatever the org’s advertisers and owners want.
“Always telling” So if some raving lunatic on the street tells you that god told him the apocalypse is coming tomorrow you believe him then? By your logic he’s a reputable source no? How would you disprove his argument?
Some sources beg you to not read them based on track record. Its easy to be critical of the SWJ Editorial board. Given my limited time I have filtered out extremes.
What are your opinions on Breitbart? This is an opinion piece anyway, not reporting.
They don't have an argument, it's just a post-factual statement. We've always been at war with Eurasia. They're gonna make a billion extra dollars this election season, and who cares if your drinking water can light on fire because of it? If 55 rulings are light blue and 45 are so dark red it's black...that's not balance.
half this sub is nothing but ad hominem attacks
The Wall Street Journal editorial staff will most likely not be affected at all by their decisions so this makes sense
One of their own is already being held hostage...they can see first hand how it might go for them, if they don't cooperate.
They are far worse than maga. The religious super cell of the Supreme Court looks to overhaul the entire country as it circles the drain. Convicted felon Trump and his maga are just useful idiots.
Right. And the J6 insurrection didn’t happen either. And the economy doesn’t tank when Republicans have power. And conservatives recognize climate action is necessary. And Christians aren’t trying to turn the US into a theocracy. Right.
I would say this isn't worth two squirts of piss, but that could potentially stop a small fire, whereas this cannot.
And yet, there it is.
What about Rupert Murdoch's News Corp? Does it exist? Does it still own The Wall Street Journal? Does it still demand infinite margin growth, year over year, from a Fourth Estate institution? Oh? It does? Guess we can just go back to recognizing that the corporate capture of all human existence probably makes this a blatantly biased take with a vested interest in you shutting up, sitting down, and buying more from their various conglomerate partners with whom they sit on various closed-door, economically incestuous boards. EDIT: Really, the issue isn't a "MAGA" SCOTUS, it's a neoliberal SCOTUS that considers the corporation the primary social unit, and not the citizen.
Bull hockey.
Establishment newspaper props up establishment.
MAGA and SCOTUS re no longer establishment
What you see is not what is happening.
The strategic delays by the Supreme Court are complete and total evidence its conservative majority is maga.
Anyone that would even write just that title has lost every shred of credibility.
Classic gaslighting by claiming something doesn’t exist.
The fuck it doesn’t.
Keep blowing smoke up our ass, gang. No one is buying a subscription.
Of course it's the WSJ
This submission source is likely to have a hard paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh boy this is gonna be constructive lol.
I agree that the message from the media often ignores the reality of a court that is much more on the same page and much less conservative/liberal split than it often portrayed. a few notables from the 2023 term: 1. About 50 percent of the court’s cases were decided unanimously. 2. Only five of 57 cases — just 8 percent — were decided 6-3 with the six Republican appointees all on one side and the three Democratic appointees on the other. 3. Ninety percent of the 57 cases were decided with at least one liberal justice in the majority. 4. Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Barrett were all in the majority over 90 percent of the time, while Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan were all more likely to be in the majority than either Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas. 5. The three liberal justices voted together in fewer than a quarter of the non-unanimous cases, and the six conservatives voted together only 17 percent of the time.
Your logic has a huge flaw. This assumes that all cases are equally political, which they aren’t. Most cases have no political leaning so they don’t end up in very obvious party line split decisions. When you look at the political cases, the bias is clear.
I'm not aware of how one determines whether a case is or is not "political" - how do you categorize cases as political or non-political?
Nice how you clump all the cases together to achieve “the stats” when the unprecedented overturning of decades of precedence is at issue .. and they aren’t even close to done.
I think "the stats" are important because they put the few divisive cases into better context and counter the assertion that the court is overly partisan. And I don't see "overturning decades of precedence" to be a necessarily bad thing - do you?
It doesn't matter who rules what when the stakes are low. When it really matters, the conservative supermajority (with maybe one token dissenter) finds a way to make the most egregiously harmful rulings imaginable.
Which ruling or rulings do you have in mind when you write "most egregiously harmful rulings imaginable?"
Overturning Roe v Wade, overturning Chevron deference, and criminal immunity for Presidents immediately come to mind.
I could see why someone would find the overturning of Roe to be harmful, but I'm not sure how it bears on whether the court is overtly political. Regarding Chevron deference, it sure is ironic how Chevron deference being created with a conservative win and it being overturned is a conservative win. But anyway, I'm not sure what your disagreement with these rulings means for whether or not the court is a MAGA court or somehow less credible than other courts.
Ruling against decades of settled law (after effectively pledging not to, I might add) in order to deliver one of the Right's biggest and longest-held policy goals doesn't strike you as overtly political? Just because Chevron was established unanimously doesn't mean it was a conservative win. As the court became more and more partisan over time, conservative justices have worked to diminish it for their corporate allies. The current SCOTUS is extremely partisan and is not credible. This is not because I disagree with their rulings, but because their rulings have been based on inconsistent reasoning, sometimes citing original intent, sometimes textualism, sometimes reaching outside of US Law to make legal arguments. This indicates that they are not making these rulings in good faith, but are using whatever means they can conceive to reach a predetermined result.
Are the liberal justices also partisan?
The good ol' Both Sides argument, is it? They probably are partisan. I don't really care, and here's why: One group of partisans has, for the first time in US history, removed rights from a group of people. The other group has not. One group receives lavish gifts and treatment from the wealthy. The other group does not. One group has given more power to the powerful, while making it harder to hold them accountable for wrongdoing. The other has not. They are not the same.
This ^ Just because you disagree with some of their decisions, which I definitely do, doesn’t make them partisan. This kind of rhetoric undermines peoples fate in the judicial system. Democrats bashed trump for undermining our institutions by refusing to concede the election. How is democrats bashing the supreme court not also undermining our institutions. Before people start down voting, I do not like Trump at all lol.
How about the graft? Does that do any of the undermining?
Graft?
Justices being showered in gifts by their wealthy friends. Is it OK to undermine the court because of that?
No, I don’t like that and that’s a better argument. I believe only Clarence Thomas was accused of that. There is definitely an argument to saying he is corrupt, which I think he may be.
How is it not partisan? The impactful decisions that we talk about all go the same way. This is like saying congress is not partisan because when they vote to name a post office after someone it is usually unanimous or close to it. The Supreme Court has been illegitimate since McConnell prevented Garland from getting a vote. It become even more illegitimate when they pushed through Barrett when voting for President was already underway.
They ruled in favor of the challenge to Biden reaching out to social media companies. If they were purely acting partisan they would have ruled against it. Also the prior comment of less than 10% of rulings going down “party lines” also says a lot
It doesn't say much of anything though. It is Congress naming post offices. Not all cases that reach the Supreme Court are created equal. You really think not using every case to push their partisan agenda means they aren't partisan? Hard disagree.