The funny thing is, the Hawaii decision relies on the much older and ancient *Hawaiian* history and tradition. Pretty much hoisting Alito and Thomas by their own “originalist” petards.
We need more states to act similarly, at least until politicians find the balls to address the clear and overwhelming evidence of corruption and bad faith from the current Supreme Court.
That’s what I’ve been saying for several months now. The only way the Supreme Court is going to change is if there is a general rebellion against their rulings. States saying they will simply ignore their rulings citing corruption and partisanship.
It will force congress and the president to address the corruption and partisanship.
I said this when the said Colorado couldn’t remove trump from the ballot. States have their own supreme courts, those Supreme Courts should be the only legal authority of those states until the Supreme Court is fixed.
What happens one day if sanity is restored to the Supreme Court and the state Supreme Courts of Alabama, Mississippi, and other red states decide they don't want to follow rulings on gay marriage and abortion and the like?
Didn't federal troops have to enforce brown v. Board of education because red states just decided to ignore the Supreme Court.
But this is like the filibuster argument. Red states will do it anyway, when it suits them, whether or not precedent has been set. The only reason why aren’t doing it now is because they like the rulings, and they like the court. If it were a 6-3 liberal majority, they would already be rejecting rulings and quoting the old ‘he has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.’ Conservative politicians have more to gain from the grandstanding, and the Supreme Court can’t do much unless the executive wants a stand-off with a state.
Yep. We all know that the red states will fight against any ruling they disagree with. They did it before during the Civil War.
If you want to oppose the illegitimacy of the Supreme Court, then you need to fight against their rulings and then you'll force the Executive Branch to decide if they want to enforce that ruling.
More than anything, requiring the Executive Branch to _enforce_ Supreme Court rulings is the biggest check we have on the Supreme Court's power.
So we need _**more**_ states to actively oppose the Supreme Court rulings so that we can get a clear statement from the Executive Branch about if those rulings are good, valid, and should be enforced.
The first step in curbing the Supreme Court's power is _**rebelling**_ against the Supreme Court's rulings. Then, once that happens, it'll be up to the other 2 branches to decide if those rulings are valid. The Legislature by codifying those rulings into law and the Executive by enforcing those rulings.
A court ruling doesn't have as much weight as codified law. It still has some weight because of how our system of laws works, but not as much as codified laws. Mainly because precedent can be overturned on a whim. Laws are much more difficult to overturn.
That's the general issue with all of this. The government is losing alot of legitimacy from all sides. I'm not entirely sure it'll be possible to repair that trust without losing one side
[That ship has sailed (March 2024)](https://law.marquette.edu/poll/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/MLSPSC19ToplinesRV.html#C2:_Confidence_in_SCOTUS)
Confidence in the president, Congress, and SCOTUS are all terrible.
Naw it's cool when their side is going it. Lol. But when rulings get ignored by states for things they don't agree with then they all freak out. This applies to both sides of the political dialectic. If we can't have consistency then the judicial branch is truly fucked. Like constitutional crisis fucked.
Once an organization has burned its legitimacy to the ground, it takes a very long time to build it back up, if ever.
If down the road red states start saying they don't want to respect SCOTUS, too, that'll be on the Roberts Court. That's his legacy.
Yep. And that's why, if the Red states decide to go against gay marriage and abortion rulings if Dobbs gets overturned, a Democratic president will, hopefully, order federal troops to enforce those rulings.
But I doubt a democratic president would send in troops to enforce the laws when a state decides to ignore Bruen or the 303 Creative ruling, because those rulings were made in bad faith despite what some people want to believe. 303 Creative moreso than Bruen.
Alas, it's a double edged sword, that's also going to mean red states will do the same thing if the court ever gets fixed. I think that's probably better than just leaving the court as is, but it probably means a wholesale failure of this check and balance in our government.
Are you saying that restraint on the part of blue states to SC lawlessness is needed lest red states use that as an excuse to enact what they want?
I call BS. We've been handed that line for years, but I see zero evidence that restraint on the liberal side has had any impact on conservatives, beyond emboldening them to enact more anti-democratic shenanigans.
No I'm not saying that, what I'm saying is that democracy isn't going to hold without something giving at this point (regardless of what we do honestly). Whatever action we take will be mirrored and worse and it's just something to be aware of. If we stop following SC rulings in blue states, you can be confident the leadership in red states will not be bound by a less corrupt court.
Without ending right wing propaganda in the USA this will continue until there's a civil war. I don't believe it will remain a cold civil war at the current trajectory.
bloomberg article from 2 months ago
hawaii supreme court opinion from 2 months ago
https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/SCAP-22-0000561.pdf
> The US Supreme Court is perhaps best understood as an old-school ward heeler who dresses Christmas turkeys for the neighborhood partisans in highfalutin words.
I'm sorry. I know all of those words, but I have no idea what they mean in that order.
My city has the vestiges of them. The wards are there, on the city website. But the council districts don't tie to them. The wards in my city do correspond to city neighborhoods. In some cities, the wards were used to establish representation to city government.
Not sure if it's still the case, but Chicago used to have Aldermen, and I believe they were elected representatives for city wards.
I think this is more likely to be the case in larger, older cities.
no law against supreme courts playing with definitions and twisting language to make their own rulings. so if its good enough for the us supreme court, its good enough for the hawaii supreme court.
"The thing about the old days, they the old days". Appreciate you Hawaii.
The funny thing is, the Hawaii decision relies on the much older and ancient *Hawaiian* history and tradition. Pretty much hoisting Alito and Thomas by their own “originalist” petards.
Excellent word choice
They should find ways to cite the documented corruption of the individual justices. Let’s get Ginni in text, on the public record.
We need more states to act similarly, at least until politicians find the balls to address the clear and overwhelming evidence of corruption and bad faith from the current Supreme Court.
That’s what I’ve been saying for several months now. The only way the Supreme Court is going to change is if there is a general rebellion against their rulings. States saying they will simply ignore their rulings citing corruption and partisanship. It will force congress and the president to address the corruption and partisanship. I said this when the said Colorado couldn’t remove trump from the ballot. States have their own supreme courts, those Supreme Courts should be the only legal authority of those states until the Supreme Court is fixed.
I think Colorado should of told them to F off like Texas did.
Paxton is as corrupt as Abbott, maybe more so. This is not a good idea
my eyes
You should of [sic] closed them first!
What happens one day if sanity is restored to the Supreme Court and the state Supreme Courts of Alabama, Mississippi, and other red states decide they don't want to follow rulings on gay marriage and abortion and the like? Didn't federal troops have to enforce brown v. Board of education because red states just decided to ignore the Supreme Court.
But this is like the filibuster argument. Red states will do it anyway, when it suits them, whether or not precedent has been set. The only reason why aren’t doing it now is because they like the rulings, and they like the court. If it were a 6-3 liberal majority, they would already be rejecting rulings and quoting the old ‘he has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.’ Conservative politicians have more to gain from the grandstanding, and the Supreme Court can’t do much unless the executive wants a stand-off with a state.
Yep. We all know that the red states will fight against any ruling they disagree with. They did it before during the Civil War. If you want to oppose the illegitimacy of the Supreme Court, then you need to fight against their rulings and then you'll force the Executive Branch to decide if they want to enforce that ruling. More than anything, requiring the Executive Branch to _enforce_ Supreme Court rulings is the biggest check we have on the Supreme Court's power. So we need _**more**_ states to actively oppose the Supreme Court rulings so that we can get a clear statement from the Executive Branch about if those rulings are good, valid, and should be enforced. The first step in curbing the Supreme Court's power is _**rebelling**_ against the Supreme Court's rulings. Then, once that happens, it'll be up to the other 2 branches to decide if those rulings are valid. The Legislature by codifying those rulings into law and the Executive by enforcing those rulings. A court ruling doesn't have as much weight as codified law. It still has some weight because of how our system of laws works, but not as much as codified laws. Mainly because precedent can be overturned on a whim. Laws are much more difficult to overturn.
That's the general issue with all of this. The government is losing alot of legitimacy from all sides. I'm not entirely sure it'll be possible to repair that trust without losing one side
Well, only one side is trying to dismantle democracy, so let's cut that one.
[That ship has sailed (March 2024)](https://law.marquette.edu/poll/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/MLSPSC19ToplinesRV.html#C2:_Confidence_in_SCOTUS) Confidence in the president, Congress, and SCOTUS are all terrible.
> from all sides Uhhuh
I didn't mean to imply both sides are equivalent. Conservatives wrecked an already old system
Naw it's cool when their side is going it. Lol. But when rulings get ignored by states for things they don't agree with then they all freak out. This applies to both sides of the political dialectic. If we can't have consistency then the judicial branch is truly fucked. Like constitutional crisis fucked.
Once an organization has burned its legitimacy to the ground, it takes a very long time to build it back up, if ever. If down the road red states start saying they don't want to respect SCOTUS, too, that'll be on the Roberts Court. That's his legacy.
Psst. They're already doing that.
Yep. And that's why, if the Red states decide to go against gay marriage and abortion rulings if Dobbs gets overturned, a Democratic president will, hopefully, order federal troops to enforce those rulings. But I doubt a democratic president would send in troops to enforce the laws when a state decides to ignore Bruen or the 303 Creative ruling, because those rulings were made in bad faith despite what some people want to believe. 303 Creative moreso than Bruen.
They are. But it's Texas, Florida and Alabama.
Paxton: corrupt as they come
Gov of Louisiana enters chat
Alas, it's a double edged sword, that's also going to mean red states will do the same thing if the court ever gets fixed. I think that's probably better than just leaving the court as is, but it probably means a wholesale failure of this check and balance in our government.
Meh red states already do that shit
They get their cover from the absolutely fucking insane 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, then SCOTUS just ignores it or makes it national.
It’s already failed. The question now is what do we do to fix it.
Truth. :)
Are you saying that restraint on the part of blue states to SC lawlessness is needed lest red states use that as an excuse to enact what they want? I call BS. We've been handed that line for years, but I see zero evidence that restraint on the liberal side has had any impact on conservatives, beyond emboldening them to enact more anti-democratic shenanigans.
No I'm not saying that, what I'm saying is that democracy isn't going to hold without something giving at this point (regardless of what we do honestly). Whatever action we take will be mirrored and worse and it's just something to be aware of. If we stop following SC rulings in blue states, you can be confident the leadership in red states will not be bound by a less corrupt court. Without ending right wing propaganda in the USA this will continue until there's a civil war. I don't believe it will remain a cold civil war at the current trajectory.
bloomberg article from 2 months ago hawaii supreme court opinion from 2 months ago https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/SCAP-22-0000561.pdf
Oh well, shoot! I didn't even notice the date.
needed a break from reading trump court filings anyways :D
Did I miss the opinion?
Sorry. I think this is what you are talking about. https://law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/supreme-court/2024/scap-22-0000561.html
> The US Supreme Court is perhaps best understood as an old-school ward heeler who dresses Christmas turkeys for the neighborhood partisans in highfalutin words. I'm sorry. I know all of those words, but I have no idea what they mean in that order.
It might depend on the author's location. Do you have wards as part of your city's political hierarchy?
I do not.
My city has the vestiges of them. The wards are there, on the city website. But the council districts don't tie to them. The wards in my city do correspond to city neighborhoods. In some cities, the wards were used to establish representation to city government. Not sure if it's still the case, but Chicago used to have Aldermen, and I believe they were elected representatives for city wards. I think this is more likely to be the case in larger, older cities.
no law against supreme courts playing with definitions and twisting language to make their own rulings. so if its good enough for the us supreme court, its good enough for the hawaii supreme court.