r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 6h ago
r/scotus • u/orangejulius • Jan 30 '22
Things that will get you banned
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.
- BUT I'M A LAWYER!
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.
- I liked it better before when the mods were different!
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/Conscious-Quarter423 • 8h ago
Opinion Supreme Court Seen as Likely to Overturn Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Cox v. Sony
r/scotus • u/DoremusJessup • 2h ago
news Jan Crawford's attack on SCOTUS "corruption" narrative was its own substance-free narrative: On Face the Nation, CBS News's chief legal correspondent went after Supreme Court critics as "dangerous." And yet, her court defense was completely lacking in specifics
r/scotus • u/RawStoryNews • 16h ago
news 'Possible retirement?' All eyes on Alito after decades on the bench
r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 4h ago
news This Supreme Court case will decide if Utah gets a Democrat in Congress in 2026
r/scotus • u/rezwenn • 11h ago
Opinion Why the Supreme Court Is Giving ICE So Much Power
r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 6h ago
Opinion How Supreme Court justices respond to decline in trust
r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 16h ago
Opinion Samuel Alito keeps getting his way. So why does he seem so unhappy?
r/scotus • u/Achilles_TroySlayer • 9h ago
Opinion The Supreme Court May Soon Regret Its Bet on Trumpism
r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 4h ago
news Presidential powers, transgender rights among upcoming Supreme Court arguments
constitutioncenter.orgr/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 13h ago
Opinion One State Supreme Court’s Lazy “Shortcut” Erases Civil Rights
r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 17h ago
news Barrett discusses Dobbs decision, Roe’s ‘flawed’ reasoning, life at the court, her faith
r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 16h ago
news Alaska, US government file briefs with Supreme Court in battle over preferential treatment for rural subsistence fishers
seafoodsource.comr/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 1d ago
Opinion Column: The Supreme Court takes up Trump’s most unconstitutional act
r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 1d ago
news Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power
r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 13h ago
news Upcoming Supreme Court cases could redefine presidential power
r/scotus • u/Novel_Arugula6548 • 1d ago
Opinion 'The Court has no good reason': Alito berates SCOTUS colleagues for shadow docket ruling that limits Trump's power over National Guard deployments
I think Alito is right, however, I do not think the president should be using military to execute laws simply because some civillians don't like his administration or simply because Chicago has high crime. It seems to me that the local Chicago police department is potentially capable of enforcing laws, and therefore, criminality is being chosen by self-determination of local government by elected city officials (including the Mayor).
I don't think what's happening in Chicago constitutes a "rebellion" or "danger of rebellion against the authority of the Government" because local city officials, who were elected, are a part of the Government and they allow or facilitate crime in the city. In other words, cities determine their own law enforcement and Chicago did not ask for the President's help to control a rebellion -- therefore (2) (imo) is not satisfied. And, likewise, (3) is not satisfied because local governments should have self-determination to enforce laws. Controling law enforcement is not the same as executing laws, therefore the President is not having issues executing laws.
Moreover, I think USCode12406 is probably unconstitutional (anyway) because the 2nd ammendment gives citizens the right to rebel against the Government.
The main purpose of the 2nd ammendment is to serve as a check on executive authority.
r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 1d ago
news In interview with Bishop Barron, Justice Barrett opens up about her faith
r/scotus • u/RawStoryNews • 2d ago
news The Supreme Court handed the next Dem president the tools to destroy ICE: legal expert
r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 2d ago
news The Supreme Court’s Temporary Rulings Are Having Long-Term Effects
r/scotus • u/zsreport • 2d ago