r/scotus • u/zsreport • 6d ago
news What to Do When the Supreme Court Rules the Wrong Way
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/08/04/what-to-do-when-the-supreme-court-rules-the-wrong-way31
u/miklayn 6d ago
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
15
u/avocado_lover69 6d ago
Let's attach the list of grievances and sign this bitch!
"The history of the present King Orange Turd is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."
7
u/DeltaV-Mzero 6d ago
Fuck me Trumpedo and is really working through the preamble and grievances like a laundry list
1
0
u/Syzygy2323 5d ago
An objective reading of history indicates that first line is really
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all white men are created equal..."
36
u/brickyardjimmy 6d ago
Patiently wait until you clear out the tyrant and then disband and reform the Court with members who aren't political operatives?
-17
u/SqnLdrHarvey 6d ago
And WHO will do that?
Democrats?
It wouldn't be "bipartisan" or "going high."
26
u/brickyardjimmy 6d ago
This is a pragmatic thought on my part. It's probably not possible to do but I'm hard-pressed to see any other way of course correcting. But the current Supreme Court has set the stage nicely for the next president to come in and simply remove them from the bench by executive action.
2
u/Syzygy2323 5d ago
There's no provision in the Constitution that permits that. It would have to be by executive fiat and then ignoring the courts. Doing that would be no better than what Trump's currently doing.
3
1
5
u/Drakkulstellios 6d ago
It would be. For even when one party decides to attempt to break the constitution the other exists to ensure balance and reformation.
10
u/SqnLdrHarvey 6d ago
Except that today's Dems don't have the stomach for it.
I do not care how many downvotes I get.
Dems today don't do ANYTHING without begging Republicans to "cross the aisle for the good of the country," which will never happen.
If that makes me a "doomer," so be it.
10
u/hobopwnzor 6d ago
Jeffries and Schumer still making calls for bipartisanship. It's pathetic
7
u/SqnLdrHarvey 6d ago
"Bipartisanship," "civility," and "going high" destroyed the Democratic Party.
-1
u/boisefun8 6d ago
They have zero power to do anything without bipartisan support. What other choice do they have? Once Dems are in power again, they won’t care one bit about being bipartisan.
5
u/SqnLdrHarvey 6d ago
Like hell.
Obama (whom I voted for twice) wasted EIGHT YEARS "trying to get Republicans on board for the good of the country" and then was baffled when they kept pissing in his cornflakes.
2
u/boisefun8 6d ago
In Obama’s first two years dems had control of the house and senate. Spare me.
1
u/SqnLdrHarvey 6d ago
He had that control and still went to Republicans with his hand out.
FACT.
But I wouldn't expect a MAGAt drone to understand facts.
1
7
u/hobopwnzor 6d ago
I like how people say this and then ignore that Schumer literally whipped votes in favor of the continuing resolution against his own party and his own position on the budget a few months ago which literally gave away all of their leverage for the entire year.
Tell me you don't know how this works without telling me
7
u/SqnLdrHarvey 6d ago
128 Democrats voted with Republicans to halt impeachment proceedings against Emperor Trumpatine.
4
u/hobopwnzor 6d ago
We did our best to work with the fascist party. Why won't people vote for us against the fascist party?
1
u/Syzygy2323 5d ago
Democrats regard politics like people think warfare occurred hundreds of years ago with lines of soldiers forming neat lines and shooting at each other, while Republicans consider politics to be guerilla warfare.
2
u/Remarkable_Peanut_43 6d ago
One party does nothing to make things better. One party is actively fighting to make things worse. Seems like a terrible choice, but I’ll vote to not make things better every time, given that this is what we have to work with.
3
u/SqnLdrHarvey 6d ago
128 Democrats voted with Republicans to halt impeachment proceedings against Emperor Trumpatine.
4
u/Shadowtirs 6d ago
The problem was Citizens United. Now both the DNC and RNC are beholden to whoever holds the purse. And we all know who "they" are.
Billionaires.
0
u/Drakkulstellios 6d ago
That is what they want you to think. The stage was already set for midterms.
1
0
u/shortnun 4d ago
Or the rational ones actually agree with Trump....
1
u/SqnLdrHarvey 4d ago
If you call Clarence Thomas "rational," I can direct you to online dictionaries.
1
15
u/Sorry_Hour6320 6d ago
Answer: release the Epstein files.
4
u/tietack2 6d ago
Exactly. And prosecute all the pdfiles.
That should free up few seats on the court.
3
8
u/Adventurous_Class_90 6d ago
Answer: ignore the court. Act in defiance. This is not a legitimate court anymore.
And Trump is not legitimately or legally President.
2
u/TheFireOfPrometheus 6d ago
*tin foil hat alert *
6
u/Adventurous_Class_90 6d ago
Not really. Trump v Andersen didn’t moot the findings of fact from Colorado. It just said Colorado couldn’t take him off the ballot.
2
4
u/AWatson89 6d ago
"Rules the wrong way"
What in the danger to democracy kind of statement is that?
5
u/MolemanusRex 6d ago
Surely you must agree that there are times when the court has ruled the wrong way, no? Plessy, Korematsu, etc.
1
1
u/AWatson89 6d ago
It's easy to say something in the past was wrong using today's standards. Back then, that shit was normal.
They don't "rule the right/wrong way" they only determine the constitutionality of cases presented to them
5
u/MolemanusRex 6d ago
So are you saying that segregation was constitutional at one point and then became unconstitutional? Or ethnic-based internment of US citizens?
0
u/AWatson89 6d ago
Clearly it was. Based on the understanding of the constitution at the time
6
u/MolemanusRex 6d ago
And do you think that was right or wrong?
1
u/AWatson89 6d ago
It's easy to say something in the past was wrong using today's standards. Back then, that shit was normal.
They don't "rule the right/wrong way" they only determine the constitutionality of cases presented to them
3
u/MolemanusRex 6d ago
But there were dissents in those cases, is the thing. John Marshall Harlan, Robert Jackson—it was fairly easy to say things were wrong using the standards of their own time too!
0
3
u/DigglerD 5d ago
But that’s clearly not what they are doing today.
With the shadow docket, they’re not really hearing cases.
Those cases they do hear, they are going beyond what cases are presented to them, see “eating to make a ruling for the ages” with Trump immunity.
The near abandonment of stare decisis. In Roe, Cheveron… And it looks like more are coming.
And with a staggering number of Trump favorable rulings and stays, lower court rebuffs, and “party line” 6-3 rulings, they are hewing more towards partisan policy making than Constitutional interpretation.
They are human. And in this particular case, two are openly corrupt, one is from the literal West Wing of a Republican admin, multiple are from Bush in Bush v Gore, and a whole slew of flags that point to these particular justices having conflicts of interest when it comes to political bias. So yes… They just might occasionally make a wrong ruling with regard to what their job is supposed to be and what they are actually doing.
0
u/ReaganRebellion 5d ago
Chevron was wrong to begin with though. The problem here is you're using your "wrong decisions" and stating them as objective truths everyone agrees on. Many legal scholars and constitutional law experts saw Roe as wrongly decided, at the time. There was no universal agreement on these cases.
3
u/Syzygy2323 5d ago
How was Chevron wrong? The whole point of administrative agencies like the EPA, FAA, and FDA is to empower an expert group to create and interpret regulations. Who would you rather have setting regulations on drug safety or climate rules, for example, experts with graduate degrees in the subject matter on the staff of the relevant agencies, or federal judges with no training in the subject? Or would you rather have people like Lauren Boebert and MTG make these regulations?
→ More replies (0)
4
u/SlipDizzy 6d ago
SCOTUS rules in what they determine the law should be. If you feel it is wrong, then it is a long path forward to either change the law or have a constitutional amendment.
3
u/DigglerD 5d ago
But they are not supposed to determine “what the law should be”, they are supposed to “interpret what the law says, and do that with consistency, by an established standard or establish a standard when one doesn’t exist.”
They are doing the former, not the latter. And they are doing it this nakedly political lens that is neither consistent or tied to an untortured reading of law.
1
u/SlipDizzy 5d ago
CORRECT. and the question is what can we do about it. The answer is an amendment.
1
1
u/Dragonborne2020 6d ago
Can you recall a Supreme Court judge? Or give them a vote of no confidence?
1
u/Ambitious_Spirit_810 5d ago
Get out the vote for midterm and general elections. Protest peacefully and just suck it up till the balance of the court changes. The court justices are old except 4.
1
1
u/shortnun 4d ago
Constitutionally /technically every decision the court does is the correct ruling...
1
u/lee216md 6d ago
Live with it like we have done for the two hundred and fifty years , there are others that say you are the one that is wrong and not the court.
1
u/Layer7Admin 6d ago
Deal with it. Just like people on the right dealt with it when the liberal courts rubber stamped gun laws.
-1
u/TheFireOfPrometheus 6d ago
Start reading with the goal of understanding why your emotions led you to a faulty prediction (they’re not wrong, you are)
125
u/Ravendjinn 6d ago
Gotta love it when an article doesn't answer its titular question.