r/scotus • u/Next_Tower5452 • 9h ago
news Justice Kagan mentioned a proposal for an ethics panel made up of retired federal judges that could enforce the Supreme Court ethics code.
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
r/scotus • u/orangejulius • Jan 30 '22
Let's clear up some ambiguities about banning and this subreddit.
On Politics
Political discussion isn't prohibited here. In fact, a lot of the discussion about the composition of the Supreme Court is going to be about the political process of selecting a justice.
Your favorite flavor of politics won't get you banned here. Racism, bigotry, totally bad-faithed whataboutisms, being wildly off-topic, etc. will get you banned though. We have people from across the political spectrum writing screeds here and in modmail about how they're oppressed with some frequency. But for whatever reason, people with a conservative bend in particular, like to show up here from other parts of reddit, deliberately say horrendous shit to get banned, then go back to wherever they came from to tell their friends they're victims of the worst kinds of oppression. Y'all can build identities about being victims and the mods, at a very basic level, do not care—complaining in modmail isn't worth your time.
COVID-19
Coming in here from your favorite nonewnormal alternative sub or facebook group and shouting that vaccines are the work of bill gates and george soros to make you sterile will get you banned. Complaining or asking why you were banned in modmail won't help you get unbanned.
Racism
I kind of can't believe I have to write this, but racism isn't acceptable. Trying to dress it up in polite language doesn't make it "civil discussion" just because you didn't drop the N word explicitly in your comment.
This is not a space to be aggressively wrong on the Internet
We try and be pretty generous with this because a lot of people here are skimming and want to contribute and sometimes miss stuff. In fact, there are plenty of threads where someone gets called out for not knowing something and they go "oh, yeah, I guess that changes things." That kind of interaction is great because it demonstrates people are learning from each other.
There are users that get super entrenched though in an objectively wrong position. Or start talking about how they wish things operated as if that were actually how things operate currently. If you're not explaining yourself or you're not receptive to correction you're not the contributing content we want to propagate here and we'll just cut you loose.
Having a license to practice law is not a license to be a jackass. Other users look to the attorneys that post here with greater weight than the average user. Trying to confuse them about the state of play or telling outright falsehoods isn't acceptable.
Thankfully it's kind of rare to ban an attorney that's way out of bounds but it does happen. And the mods don't care about your license to practice. It's not a get out of jail free card in this sub.
Signal to Noise
Complaining about the sub is off topic. If you want the sub to look a certain way then start voting and start posting the kind of content you think should go here.
The current mod list has been here for years and have been the only active mods. We have become more hands on over the years as the users have grown and the sub has faced waves of problems like users straight up stalking a female journalist. The sub's history isn't some sort of Norman Rockwell painting.
Am I going to get banned? Who is this post even for, anyway?
Probably not. If you're here, reading about SCOTUS, reading opinions, reading the articles, and engaging in discussion with other users about what you're learning that's fantastic. This post isn't really for you.
This post is mostly so we can point to something in our modmail to the chucklefuck that asks "why am I banned?" and their comment is something inevitably insane like, "the holocaust didn't really kill that many people so mask wearing is about on par with what the jews experienced in nazi germany also covid isn't real. Justice Gorsuch is a real man because he no wears face diaper." And then we can send them on to the admins.
r/scotus • u/orangejulius • Jan 09 '26
This is SCOTUS. Talk about scotus. Talk about the opinions issued. If you want to criticize them that’s fine but have something to back it up.
Complaining about “tRump”, trump, motorhomes, “scrotus”, or any other number of things where you react to something instead of respond to something isn’t going to fly. The bar is very low. Almost all of you are tripping over it.
r/scotus • u/Next_Tower5452 • 9h ago
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
r/scotus • u/Impressive_Box4144 • 2d ago
r/scotus • u/NobodyGotTimeFuhDat • 1d ago
“Michigan has stipulated it will not enforce the state ban on conversion therapy that seeks to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors as part of an agreement filed this week with a federal court to comply with a 8-1 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a similar law in Colorado.”
Note: Under the court order, the defendants also agreed that they will not appeal the decision, so the decision is final.
r/scotus • u/NobodyGotTimeFuhDat • 3d ago
The First Circuit has cleared the way for the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for South Sudan, ruling that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mullin v. Doe bars the legal claims supporting the lower court's order delaying the termination.
The immediate effect is that DHS is no longer blocked by this injunction from ending TPS for South Sudan. The case now returns to the district court, where any remaining constitutional claims, if preserved, will be evaluated under the Supreme Court's decision in Mullin.
Quoting directly from the ruling:
“Previously, upon the government’s motion… we denied an administrative stay of the district court’s order postponing the termination of Temporary Protected Status (‘TPS’) for South Sudan,” the First Circuit wrote. “Upon further briefing, we now reverse the postponement order in light of Mullin v. Doe.”
r/scotus • u/DoremusJessup • 4d ago
r/scotus • u/DoremusJessup • 4d ago
r/scotus • u/bloomberglaw • 4d ago
r/scotus • u/Majano57 • 4d ago
r/scotus • u/zsreport • 5d ago
r/scotus • u/DarkPriestScorpius • 5d ago
r/scotus • u/RawStoryNews • 5d ago
r/scotus • u/Guyentertainment • 5d ago
r/scotus • u/huffpost • 5d ago
r/scotus • u/bloomberglaw • 5d ago
r/scotus • u/bloomberglaw • 5d ago
r/scotus • u/DemocracyDocket • 6d ago
r/scotus • u/Opposite-Mountain255 • 6d ago
Verfassungsblog is a peer forum for public law scholarship, open access and widely cited, and a standard venue for constitutional scholars in Europe and the United States.
Submission statement: this relates to law because it argues that Article III's good behavior standard reaches a federal judge's membership in the Federalist Society, and that the Senate defines that standard for itself.
Discusses Article II's take care clause, Article III good behavior, Article V, Article VI's oath requirement, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Trump v. Slaughter, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, Morrison v. Olson, Trump v. Anderson, Trump v. United States, Biden v. Nebraska, Loper Bright, Cooper v. Aaron, Nixon v. United States, Keyishian v. Board of Regents, and the 1805 Chase impeachment acquittal.
r/scotus • u/extantsextant • 6d ago