If you lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court, and your expected side (in this case, progressives) is the one writing the opinion, you should have known you were going to lose, and you messed up letting it get to the point where it was even presented to the Supreme Court.
> If you lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court, and your expected side (in this case, progressives)
This is a pretty clear first amendment issue that shouldn’t divide among party lines. Party lines shouldn’t even be a thing in the SC, but unfortunately that ship has sailed. The law is clear about this so the “progressive” judges wrote their opinion about what the law says. That is more than can be said about some of the more conservative justices, who don’t really seem to care as much about what the law says rather than pushing personal/political/financial agendas.
What decisions would you recommend I read that demonstrate the conservative justices don’t care as much about the law rather than their political agenda? I make this claim all the time based on my instinct but always fall short when trying to demonstrate, what ruling led you to your conclusion?
> That is more than can be said about some of the more conservative justices, who don’t really seem to care as much about what the law says rather than pushing personal/political/financial agendas.
That can be said about justices on all parts of the political spectrum. For just a couple of examples of egregious decisions by liberal justices pushing their own agendas, see: Kelo v. New London, Wickard v. Filburn.
You say this case was a no brainer and only conservative judges would bodge something so obvious, but the fact of the matter is the Second Circuit royally fucked up this case in the ideologically predictable manner, which is the whole reason it went to the SCOTUS in the first place.
Sometimes it’s a political win to lose in court. For example, if your party is arguing for reform of the Supreme Court, it helps when the court fails to rule in your favor. Your base can interpret that as evidence that the court is broken and needs fixing.
Read the decision. All the court decided is the NRA has a basis to bring their suit (lower court dismissed the case). This now goes back to the lower court to be re-argued.
I'm under the impression that lopsided decisions are actually the more common outcome in cases before the supreme court. That it's the ideologically divided ones that are outliers, even if they garner most of the media attention. Is that incorrect?
Everything in the US, whether it should be or not, is divided at some level along ideological lines. It's awful. I hope we can find our way out of it while retaining a healthy, functioning democracy. And I don't think it's inaccurate to say that when the US suffers this way, it has an impact on the whole world. We can play a stabilizing role, but only when we are ourselves stable.
It may be rose colored glasses, but I don't remember it always being this way. Maybe it was right about the time Bork got nominated, but as I recall confirmation hearings used to be more of a rubber stamp. The president picked someone halfway decent, the Senate said sure that looks good, and there we go. But now it's completely ideological and the actual qualifications and judicial attitude of the nominee have practically no impact.
Doesn't help that some of the current justices believe strongly in originalism, which gives wide latitude towards interpreting what the founders must have been thinking.
And it really doesn't help that some of the justices are engaging in overtly partisan behavior in their off time. Used to be that the mere appearance of impropriety could sink your career, but that ship sailed a while ago.
This probably won't be popular, but the U.S. Supreme Court isn't really partisan either. A lot of its cases don't involve partisan issues in any case, but a majority of all the cases are decided 9-0, like this one.
The perception that the court is partisan comes from a lot of press attention on a very small number of 5-4 cases on controversial issues where the majority has clearly used motivated reasoning. That was the case in both Roe v. Wade and the case that overturned it, Dobbs, for example. On the current court some justices are particularly notable for doing this (in my opinion Alito on the right and Sotomayor on the left).
But even in 5-4 cases the justices don't always split the way you'd think. The Bostock County decision that made gays and transgender people a federally protected class against job discrimination was written by a conservative justice. That same justice, Gorsuch, as known as an advocate of Native American treaty rights. The late Justice Scalia was an advocate of defendants' rights under the Fourth Amendment. The judges aren't predictable voters in the way senators are.
Well, they should be impartial (and really compared to Congress or the White House they most definitely are), but they are appointed by the President (partisan) and approved (or not) by the Senate (partisan), so everyone knows which side they stand on. Not good, but it is how it is.
Maybe. But it can also be a good tactical case to set precendent against your opponents.
Having the NRA as one of the parties puts the conservative wing of the court in a bind. They don't really want to limit this (Republicans like to be authoritarian), but they don't want it used as a cudgel against the NRA, either.
So, the progressives get the first amendment issues reaffirmed, and the conservatives have to protect the NRA.
> and wanted to prevent civil servants saying negative things about the NRA
You should read some of the ruling, because that's absolutely not what happened. The civil servant can say anything she wants under her power as a private citizen. What she can't do is use the power of her office to impose her will on the industries she regulates, and that is what the Supreme Court said she did.
Probably, but it's hard to predict what kind of negotiations the judges do to come to specific outcomes. SCOTUS isn't an apolitical body despite how it would like to be viewed, both in terms of the idealogical bent of the court AND the horse trading that naturally happens because these are colleagues who have to work repeatedly over a long period of time.
Arguing about correct interpretation of the law with colleagues is absolutely not the same thing as "horse trading" and I doubt much of that goes on. There is usually a majority opinion and a minority opinion and sometimes 3 or more opinions. "horse trading" would be considered beneath the court by every justice and negotiating rather than arguing your case would be considered the pinnacle of unprofessionalism.
Hopefully this will mean that governments aren't allowed to request removal of twitter and facebook posts, like when the notoriously a-constitutional 9th circuit allowed California to remove twitter posts:
Here's hoping this gets applied liberally. End-running around the constitution by making private individuals or private enterprise do the things you can't do is such a bullshit loophole.
The headlines are "court sides with NRA!" which fits the ongoing "illegitimate court" narrative for progressives because the NRA is unpopular. (Partly owing to "ew! guns!" and partly owing to other, unrelated legal trouble growing out of NRA leaders embezzling + offering an illegal insurance product.) But... this was about whether a government official could threaten arbitrary regulatory action against a firm's customers/vendors/partners because of that firm's constitutionally-protected advocacy. (And whether that had in fact happened in this case. 9-0 it did.)
And if you're the kind of person who is set off by that and can't abide NRA having a win, I'd ask if you want your favorite progressive advocacy organization to be able to have a bank account and an insurance policy in Texas and Florida.
This was not a close call or earth-shattering case.
Exactly. People automatically associate NRA with the second amendment but in this case the court is just affirming a first amendment freedom. It says nothing about the court's actual attitude towards the second amendment.
I have such low expectations any more, that I pretty much expect the win to be spun in a way that does try using it as a vindication of the NRA in more than just first amendment when the news is spread of the win.
I don't care if it's speech around the second amendment, or around how male members of the Supreme Court conduct their deliberations while wearing pink tutus. It's protected speech.
This struck me as pretty obvious at the time. If the people have endowed the state with the authority to act on an issue, the state should act in an official manner. Otherwise, they should not act at all.
Readit News
1. The NRA sued this official for First Amendment rights violations.
2. It went up through the courts, but importantly, the NRA lost in the Second Circuit.
3. The NRA then appealed that loss to the Supreme Court.
This is a pretty clear first amendment issue that shouldn’t divide among party lines. Party lines shouldn’t even be a thing in the SC, but unfortunately that ship has sailed. The law is clear about this so the “progressive” judges wrote their opinion about what the law says. That is more than can be said about some of the more conservative justices, who don’t really seem to care as much about what the law says rather than pushing personal/political/financial agendas.
That can be said about justices on all parts of the political spectrum. For just a couple of examples of egregious decisions by liberal justices pushing their own agendas, see: Kelo v. New London, Wickard v. Filburn.
That's what OP is saying - someone wasted a ton of time and money on lawyers to receive a verdict that they should have known was coming.
When was it ever not corrupted with parties? Marbury v. Madison happened in 1803 so at most 15 years.
https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/freque...
But it's expected that they wrote the easier opinions first and the remaining 30+ cases will be more contentious.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/30/supreme-court-ot2022-at...
Even in a country like India with weaker rule of law, the courts and judges never take sides with political parties.
It may be rose colored glasses, but I don't remember it always being this way. Maybe it was right about the time Bork got nominated, but as I recall confirmation hearings used to be more of a rubber stamp. The president picked someone halfway decent, the Senate said sure that looks good, and there we go. But now it's completely ideological and the actual qualifications and judicial attitude of the nominee have practically no impact.
Doesn't help that some of the current justices believe strongly in originalism, which gives wide latitude towards interpreting what the founders must have been thinking.
And it really doesn't help that some of the justices are engaging in overtly partisan behavior in their off time. Used to be that the mere appearance of impropriety could sink your career, but that ship sailed a while ago.
The perception that the court is partisan comes from a lot of press attention on a very small number of 5-4 cases on controversial issues where the majority has clearly used motivated reasoning. That was the case in both Roe v. Wade and the case that overturned it, Dobbs, for example. On the current court some justices are particularly notable for doing this (in my opinion Alito on the right and Sotomayor on the left).
But even in 5-4 cases the justices don't always split the way you'd think. The Bostock County decision that made gays and transgender people a federally protected class against job discrimination was written by a conservative justice. That same justice, Gorsuch, as known as an advocate of Native American treaty rights. The late Justice Scalia was an advocate of defendants' rights under the Fourth Amendment. The judges aren't predictable voters in the way senators are.
Just because it's not explicitly stated doesn't mean it's not forced.
Dead Comment
Having the NRA as one of the parties puts the conservative wing of the court in a bind. They don't really want to limit this (Republicans like to be authoritarian), but they don't want it used as a cudgel against the NRA, either.
So, the progressives get the first amendment issues reaffirmed, and the conservatives have to protect the NRA.
Dead Comment
You should read some of the ruling, because that's absolutely not what happened. The civil servant can say anything she wants under her power as a private citizen. What she can't do is use the power of her office to impose her will on the industries she regulates, and that is what the Supreme Court said she did.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/13/no-first-amendment-viol...
How did the appeals court get it so wrong? Allegedly these are some of our best judicial minds that get elevated to the appeals courts, right?
The headlines are "court sides with NRA!" which fits the ongoing "illegitimate court" narrative for progressives because the NRA is unpopular. (Partly owing to "ew! guns!" and partly owing to other, unrelated legal trouble growing out of NRA leaders embezzling + offering an illegal insurance product.) But... this was about whether a government official could threaten arbitrary regulatory action against a firm's customers/vendors/partners because of that firm's constitutionally-protected advocacy. (And whether that had in fact happened in this case. 9-0 it did.)
And if you're the kind of person who is set off by that and can't abide NRA having a win, I'd ask if you want your favorite progressive advocacy organization to be able to have a bank account and an insurance policy in Texas and Florida.
This was not a close call or earth-shattering case.
I'm wondering how this will impact the former DoJ "Operation Choke Point" activities.
Deleted Comment