Because there were not enough justices for a quorum—the court needs at least six and only Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson remained—the court affirmed the judgment of a lower court to dismiss the lawsuit.
Clever. Appearing to do the right thing at face value coincides nicely with getting the case against you dropped. It's likely impossible to sue a majority of the Supreme Court if they don't care to be sued.
Also sounds like a good justification for Biden to increase the number of Justices.
Statement could go like this:
"There are not enough sitting justices to adjudicate important issues before the court as demonstrated by the recent actions of honorable recusals. Therefore I calling for the addition of new seats on the court to supplement the body so it can carry out its important work as a check on Legislative and Executive branches of our government, just as the framers intended. We will begin confirmation hearings for new justices next week"
Nothing will fundamentally change.
Joe Biden to donors during the election campaign
It's one of the few promises Biden will make that he actually intends to follow through with if he wins, but he won't, not with how much people are struggling economically.
To be fair it was my main reason for voting for him. I wanted government to go back to boring and the clown show to be over. I assume a lot of people felt the same way I did. Was kinda hoping he could fix at least one major problem as well, still waiting for that to happen
I voted for him too, in full knowledge he wouldn't do anything he promised.
I thought that, maybe, a cultural win against fascism might stem the tide, but I was wrong. Biden is just as useless as every other Democrat we've elected since LBJ.
Also sounds like a good justification for Biden to increase the number of Justices.
Biden has had ample reason to seat additional justices, particularly in the wake of the ACB nomination. But he's far too friendly with the US Senate to try such a thing.
If you want someone willing to break ranks on this question, you're ultimately going to need to wait for a governor. If DeSantis had a shot in hell of being president and taking a Senate majority in the process, I could see him trying to pack the court out of spite after losing a few court cases. If a guy like Sanders was a governor and not a Senate buddy-buddy with Schumer and Graham, maybe he would have tried it (but even then I wouldn't bet on it). I could absolutely see Trump pulling this shit if someone whispered it into his ear at the right moment, but he'd fumble the bag without McConnell sheepdogging the candidate through.
If a lower court ruled against them, they wouldn't excuse themselves and rule in their own favor.
And claim nothing hypocritical about it.
If a lower court ruled against them, they wouldn’t excuse themselves and rule in their own favor.
Or they would and they'd let the other three justices do the dirty work for them.
Either way, you'd need a particularly career-advancement-adverse lower court judge to even consider advancing this to the SCOTUS on favorable terms.
This is a tactic Oregon representatives use quite often. So we voted on a bill stating that if you miss 10 or more sessions you're in eligible to run for office again.
They're already trying to weasel out of it by claiming that the language of the law means they still get to serve one more term.
It's a frivolous troll lawsuit and this is a clickbait article
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is an inventor of “Tele-Sex or Tele-Mining on Jupiter and other planets of the Solar System,” and appears to assert a claim for copyright infringement and constitutional violations.
In his brief, Plaintiff makes fantastical allegations, stating, for example, that “Defendants are dangerous liars, criminals, traitors and co-conspirators.” Dkt. 18 at 31. He further states that Supreme Court Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett “deserve the death penalty or at least to be disbenched from the U.S. Supreme Court.” Dkt. 18 at 40.
Thank you. The plaintiff is mentally ill and was never going to have this case heard in any courtroom, much less the Supreme Court.
It's likely impossible to sue a majority of the Supreme Court if they don't care to be sued.
Only as long as you have the majority. If this had been a case against the liberal minority, they would not have been able to do the same.
Not even a majority.
They need six for quorum. And there's 9 total.
So any four justices can do this. And it's not a coincidence they didn't pull this out of their sleeves until there was only 3 non conservative justices.
Conservatives can make their own quorum, and they don't expect to lose that majority for a very long time even worst case scenario.
The whole system is broken. One party exploits it and one tries to ignore it's broken.
One party exploits it and one tries to ignore it's broken.
Why are you "both sides"-ing this? One party is exploiting the flaws of the system...full stop. The system is flawed, one side doesn't want it to work, and the other doesn't have the numbers to change the system.
Why did you reply twice immediately to my comments? Do you want to have this conversation twice?
And your last comment before that was half a week ago, also to me? About the same topic?
Is that just a coincidence? Because it's a weird look, and seems pretty unlikely to be a coincidence.
Did you just sign back on, see my last reply from then, and you clicked my name and started replying to my most recent comments?
That's the only way this makes sense to me. I'm just curious what's going on here.
Edit:
Guess it's like trying to find out how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop...
I'll never know
Why do you redirect the conversation rather than answering the question directly and specifically both here and in their other reply to you?
Do you have an agenda to both sides every comment critical of conservatives?
That's the only way this makes sense to me. I'm just curious what's going on here.
Edit: I don’t have a stake in this but you don’t actually answer the question, instead you attack the other user. You both need to actually read and understand what’s going on in this case, the whole thing is frivolous and clickbait you both swallowed.
Why do you redirect the conversation rather than answering the question directly and specifically both here and in their other reply to you?
Because 4 days ago I replied and they didn't answer...
And their other reply in this thread (saying the same thing) I already answered.
Just getting really weird vibes from that account and giving them a chance to explain before I block them
I don't want this conversation twice. Just asking a follow up question to your comment. Since this response has no substance, I'll assume your other response is better and engage there.
The lower court's decision was upheld. A lower court that didn't have the issue of defendants being asked to preside over their own case.
Sure, but do you think if the lower court decided that the case could move forward, the justices would've sat out? I doubt it.
This case was not ever going to move forward. It's was always a frivolous case brought by a mentally ill plaintiff that just hasn't hit bottom yet.
Do you have an example of them doing that? Or are you simply lampooning them despite them making the best decision available.
Not a fan of them, but I am inclined to agree with you on this one. Appearance of corruption for sitting out and letting the decision default, or much stronger appearance of corruption by sitting for it.
Unless sitting for arguments and abstaining from submitting or signing on to an opinion is an option… but even then, sitting for the arguments of a case you’re a defendant of is a bad, bad look, comes with no guarantee that you actually will abstain from opinion, and might not even be a valid way around quorum rules.
If the best decision available was to sit out on the ruling, then why'd they agree to hear the case in the first place? Now it's been ruled on and can't be revisited.
Clever. Appearing to do the right thing at face value coincides nicely with getting the case against you dropped. It's likely impossible to sue a majority of the Supreme Court if they don't care to be sued.
Also sounds like a good justification for Biden to increase the number of Justices.
Statement could go like this:
"There are not enough sitting justices to adjudicate important issues before the court as demonstrated by the recent actions of honorable recusals. Therefore I calling for the addition of new seats on the court to supplement the body so it can carry out its important work as a check on Legislative and Executive branches of our government, just as the framers intended. We will begin confirmation hearings for new justices next week"
Joe Biden to donors during the election campaign
It's one of the few promises Biden will make that he actually intends to follow through with if he wins, but he won't, not with how much people are struggling economically.
To be fair it was my main reason for voting for him. I wanted government to go back to boring and the clown show to be over. I assume a lot of people felt the same way I did. Was kinda hoping he could fix at least one major problem as well, still waiting for that to happen
I voted for him too, in full knowledge he wouldn't do anything he promised.
I thought that, maybe, a cultural win against fascism might stem the tide, but I was wrong. Biden is just as useless as every other Democrat we've elected since LBJ.
Biden has had ample reason to seat additional justices, particularly in the wake of the ACB nomination. But he's far too friendly with the US Senate to try such a thing.
If you want someone willing to break ranks on this question, you're ultimately going to need to wait for a governor. If DeSantis had a shot in hell of being president and taking a Senate majority in the process, I could see him trying to pack the court out of spite after losing a few court cases. If a guy like Sanders was a governor and not a Senate buddy-buddy with Schumer and Graham, maybe he would have tried it (but even then I wouldn't bet on it). I could absolutely see Trump pulling this shit if someone whispered it into his ear at the right moment, but he'd fumble the bag without McConnell sheepdogging the candidate through.
If a lower court ruled against them, they wouldn't excuse themselves and rule in their own favor.
And claim nothing hypocritical about it.
Or they would and they'd let the other three justices do the dirty work for them.
Either way, you'd need a particularly career-advancement-adverse lower court judge to even consider advancing this to the SCOTUS on favorable terms.
This is a tactic Oregon representatives use quite often. So we voted on a bill stating that if you miss 10 or more sessions you're in eligible to run for office again.
They're already trying to weasel out of it by claiming that the language of the law means they still get to serve one more term.
It's a frivolous troll lawsuit and this is a clickbait article
https://casetext.com/case/mactruong-v-abbott
Thank you. The plaintiff is mentally ill and was never going to have this case heard in any courtroom, much less the Supreme Court.
Only as long as you have the majority. If this had been a case against the liberal minority, they would not have been able to do the same.
Not even a majority.
They need six for quorum. And there's 9 total.
So any four justices can do this. And it's not a coincidence they didn't pull this out of their sleeves until there was only 3 non conservative justices.
Conservatives can make their own quorum, and they don't expect to lose that majority for a very long time even worst case scenario.
The whole system is broken. One party exploits it and one tries to ignore it's broken.
Why are you "both sides"-ing this? One party is exploiting the flaws of the system...full stop. The system is flawed, one side doesn't want it to work, and the other doesn't have the numbers to change the system.
Why did you reply twice immediately to my comments? Do you want to have this conversation twice?
And your last comment before that was half a week ago, also to me? About the same topic?
Is that just a coincidence? Because it's a weird look, and seems pretty unlikely to be a coincidence.
Did you just sign back on, see my last reply from then, and you clicked my name and started replying to my most recent comments?
That's the only way this makes sense to me. I'm just curious what's going on here.
Edit:
Guess it's like trying to find out how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop...
I'll never know
Why do you redirect the conversation rather than answering the question directly and specifically both here and in their other reply to you?
Do you have an agenda to both sides every comment critical of conservatives?
That's the only way this makes sense to me. I'm just curious what's going on here.
Edit: I don’t have a stake in this but you don’t actually answer the question, instead you attack the other user. You both need to actually read and understand what’s going on in this case, the whole thing is frivolous and clickbait you both swallowed.
Because 4 days ago I replied and they didn't answer...
And their other reply in this thread (saying the same thing) I already answered.
Just getting really weird vibes from that account and giving them a chance to explain before I block them
I don't want this conversation twice. Just asking a follow up question to your comment. Since this response has no substance, I'll assume your other response is better and engage there.
The lower court's decision was upheld. A lower court that didn't have the issue of defendants being asked to preside over their own case.
Sure, but do you think if the lower court decided that the case could move forward, the justices would've sat out? I doubt it.
This case was not ever going to move forward. It's was always a frivolous case brought by a mentally ill plaintiff that just hasn't hit bottom yet.
Do you have an example of them doing that? Or are you simply lampooning them despite them making the best decision available.
Thomas providing cover for his wife.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-ginni-thomas-texts-1327064/
Not a fan of them, but I am inclined to agree with you on this one. Appearance of corruption for sitting out and letting the decision default, or much stronger appearance of corruption by sitting for it.
Unless sitting for arguments and abstaining from submitting or signing on to an opinion is an option… but even then, sitting for the arguments of a case you’re a defendant of is a bad, bad look, comes with no guarantee that you actually will abstain from opinion, and might not even be a valid way around quorum rules.
If the best decision available was to sit out on the ruling, then why'd they agree to hear the case in the first place? Now it's been ruled on and can't be revisited.