Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)


(77,419 posts)
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 09:24 AM Jun 11

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

(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)


62 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
They need to stop accepting more lawsuits they can handle. jimfields33 Jun 11 #1
They have done less work than in teh past. Old Crank Jun 11 #10
And still not able to keep up. Sad. jimfields33 Jun 11 #17
Nice job if you can get it, 'eh? calimary Jun 11 #51
And not accept ludicrous give the convicted felon immunity ones. GreenWave Jun 11 #2
I can't wait to see how they rule that gab13by13 Jun 11 #3
Anybody who is not in favor of expanding this court beyond these corrupt partisan activists is pretty obtuse. Goodheart Jun 11 #4
I wish we would have a house and senate with COURAGE to start impeaching the republican appointed justices for BComplex Jun 11 #6
Outlaw the Voting Rights Act?? wnylib Jun 11 #11
oops! I meant put the voting rights act back to it's original form, not the way the court has BComplex Jun 11 #20
Guess I'm just obtuse, because I don't support packing the Court. I do support voting for Democrats Silent Type Jun 11 #7
You keep telling yourself that until they take women's voting rights away. Then they have a permanent majority. onecaliberal Jun 11 #9
Packing the Court ain't gonna stop that, sorry. We lost the most important election in our lifetime by not showing Silent Type Jun 11 #12
Making the court representative of america is not packing the court. If they don't have the votes, it's stops onecaliberal Jun 11 #13
Hey, I understand the anger. But packing the Court is a pipe dream. If you somehow suceed, I'll celebrate. Silent Type Jun 11 #18
I don't understand. You'll celebrate something you're opposed to? Goodheart Jun 11 #22
Have a good day. Silent Type Jun 11 #23
We don' t have to "pack the courts" slightlv Jun 11 #58
Please let me know when someone in an official capacity proposes that. Until then, I'll continue skeptical. Silent Type Jun 11 #59
Umm...Hilary won the popular vote by a huge majority. It was just a few states where not enough people BComplex Jun 11 #21
Unfortunately, we have the Electoral College. Popular vote doesn't elect our Prez. Doubt that is going to change either. Silent Type Jun 11 #24
It's not just the EC. It's the Senate. Algernon Moncrieff Jun 11 #32
Agree, but there is no chance of it changing within the next 4 decades or so. Silent Type Jun 11 #34
... littlemissmartypants Jun 11 #49
Which really stinks! Prof. Toru Tanaka Jun 11 #43
Totally agree. But, there is little chance it will change. Silent Type Jun 11 #46
Proudly obtuse Nasruddin Jun 11 #25
I am all for term limits on the Supreme Court. Prof. Toru Tanaka Jun 11 #44
We have nine justices because there were once nine circuit courts. There are now 12 circuit courts; ergo ... OMGWTF Jun 11 #29
I think there should be enough justices that two or three Bettie Jun 11 #41
That's an advantage I hadn't even considered Goodheart Jun 11 #47
Makes me so angry DownriverDem Jun 11 #5
buy who and what et tu Jun 11 #8
What do they have planned for the homeless? KS Toronado Jun 11 #14
Prison? budkin Jun 11 #37
Some probably wouldn't mind it. Xolodno Jun 11 #57
Prison or camps Bettie Jun 11 #42
Slave labor might be correct, they been saying "The South shall rise again" KS Toronado Jun 11 #48
Prisons and slave labor,... magicarpet Jun 11 #54
There were some other decisions in 2014. mahatmakanejeeves Jun 11 #15
In 1963, USSC decided on 377 cases. So far this year, 31 OnlinePoker Jun 11 #16
It takes longer to spin up decision whole cloth out of thin air TheKentuckian Jun 11 #36
Every single decision will help their master Farmer-Rick Jun 11 #19
I heard the recorded conversation with Alito's wife. Arne Jun 11 #28
It's time to just ignore them MsLeopard Jun 11 #26
To some extent, that is already happening. keep_left Jun 11 #33
The GOP strategy to take over the court was successful. And the court is wasting no time in Martin68 Jun 11 #27
KnR Hekate Jun 11 #30
Now for the long vacation. THis court id disgusting. Paper Roses Jun 11 #31
I think any justice who was installed by a convicted felon and traitor should be booted out Bayard Jun 11 #35
There is virtually no likelihood of ever having sufficient TheKentuckian Jun 11 #38
Two or three of them may wish to retire... returnee Jun 11 #39
As per Susan Sarandon, this is just the Socialist revolution starting. Oneironaut Jun 11 #40
K&R UTUSN Jun 11 #45
We have to alter the SC IbogaProject Jun 11 #50
What the roque Justices can never plan on is Karma. pwb Jun 11 #52
Logjam you say. Sounds like a good reason to add six or more justices to the court. Jakes Progress Jun 11 #53
They are corrupt... Quanto Magnus Jun 11 #55
Every Democrat or person on the Left who didn't vote for Hillary in the battleground states in '16, elocs Jun 11 #56
Further Reason for Court Reform Desert Dog Jun 11 #60
An encapsulated version of how and where SCOTUS is today; explained by Jamie Raskin Good Dog Jun 12 #61
Nothing will change SARose Jun 12 #62
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Supreme Court Has Pla...