I think it is kind of a footnote. Many things this administration has done are illegal and struck down by the first lawsuit but later let stand by a friendly Supreme Court.

▲

justinator 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

And should be added, let stand by the Supreme Court without given a reasoning on why it stands. Just all shadow dockets.

Corruption by another name. The canary is already dead.

▲

twothreeone 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

How is a president winning the election and then packing the SC corruption? It's not like people didn't have a choice, they did vote for the guy. Twice!

	▲	LPisGood 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It’s legal corruption, but it’s still corruption. Just like gerrymandering it’s legal in America, but if it were happening in some Third World country the local news would have no qualms about calling it partisan corruption.
	▲	justinator 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Wow, I didn't say either of those things are corruption, but it's telling you have changed the target of the subject I was talking about, in an attempt to manipulate the subject. Would you like to try again?

▲

fastball 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Can you give an example?

▲

justinator 4 days ago | parent [-]

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/emergency/emergency-do...

▲

fastball 3 days ago | parent [-]

I am aware of the shadow docket, I was looking for a specific example that you believe deserved more explanation than was given for an expedited stay.

▲

justinator 3 days ago | parent [-]

Please my friend, get involved and do your own research. I'm not an AI prompt.

▲

fastball 3 days ago | parent [-]

None of those seem out of line to me, that is why I ask.

▲

justinator 3 days ago | parent [-]

Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo seemed severely out of line to me.

What would be out of line for you?

▲

fastball 3 days ago | parent [-]

"You can't profile people" is actually a ridiculous constraint to put on law enforcement and a massive overreach by the lower court. I don't think SCOTUS needs to explain why that is the case in detail.

▲

justinator 2 days ago | parent [-]

That's a pretty easy pov to have as white-passing, middled-aged man in tech who doesn't live in the States.

But regardless, WHY did the Supreme Court overrule the lower court? We don't know? Why don't we know? That's highly unusual.

	▲	fastball 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		If someone was murdered and the cops had some reason to believe the perp was white and spoke English natively, I'd have zero issues with being pulled in for questioning on nothing but the fact that I match those features (even though I have no priors or anything else that would otherwise indicate me a good suspect). The order was stayed because the lower court made a massive overreach they have no business making. There are many lower courts, there is only one SCOTUS. SCOTUS does not have the bandwidth to hear all the cases on the merits docket if lower courts keep overreaching. Your options are either this or somehow forcing SCOTUS to process the merits cases much faster, which people would also complain about ("justice can't be rushed!"). But of course the complaints only ever come when the decision is one you disagree with. When things are expedited in your favor, people tend to have no problem with that.

▲

softwaredoug 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's true on administrative state issues (Trump being allowed to fire people in the exec. branch). It's not clear this is a 100% guarantee for everything beyond that. (Maybe a 65% guarantee).