I’m pretty sure there would need to be an argument made that this is a federal issue. This isn’t something like voting rights, which is potentially a constitutional issue.
Trust me when I say I am not a fan of SCOTUS, and I supported candidates who said they’d appoint additional justices (to a total of 13, for instance) to rebalance the courts. I just don’t think they can take every case, especially those like this one.
SCOTUS has specifically chosen to take appeals that did not need to be determined at the federal level, but did anyway in order to define things at a national level. In the aughts and 2010s, things involving law enforcement, and precinct interpretation of the fourth and fifth amendments to the Constitution of the United States often made an appeal to federal levels and were accepted, as were reproductive rights issues (specifically laws that obstructed abortion access).
That said, if we had a supreme court bench pool of one hundred SCOTUS judges, and each case was heard by a handful of them (six to nine is fine) selected by lottery, that would reduce a lot of the problems. It would be difficult to influence enough to steer the court regarding a specific issue, and even if one president appointed five federalist-society shills, it wouldn’t throw the balance of the court as much as McConnell’s and Leo’s shenanigans have. But that’s only good for the next new nation. This one we just have to acknowledge the federal court system is the most corrupt of the three branches of government. Few will lose sleep when they are put against the wall or convicted in the Hague, down to the last office clerk.
If you mean SCOTUS, I am not sure they have jurisdiction.
Not yet, but they can try to appeal to federal courts. The courts decide if there’s a matter worth considering at the federal level.
SCOTUS is more pro-corporation and anti-worker than it is anti-women, thanks to the Federalist Society shills.
I’m pretty sure there would need to be an argument made that this is a federal issue. This isn’t something like voting rights, which is potentially a constitutional issue.
Trust me when I say I am not a fan of SCOTUS, and I supported candidates who said they’d appoint additional justices (to a total of 13, for instance) to rebalance the courts. I just don’t think they can take every case, especially those like this one.
SCOTUS has specifically chosen to take appeals that did not need to be determined at the federal level, but did anyway in order to define things at a national level. In the aughts and 2010s, things involving law enforcement, and precinct interpretation of the fourth and fifth amendments to the Constitution of the United States often made an appeal to federal levels and were accepted, as were reproductive rights issues (specifically laws that obstructed abortion access).
That said, if we had a supreme court bench pool of one hundred SCOTUS judges, and each case was heard by a handful of them (six to nine is fine) selected by lottery, that would reduce a lot of the problems. It would be difficult to influence enough to steer the court regarding a specific issue, and even if one president appointed five federalist-society shills, it wouldn’t throw the balance of the court as much as McConnell’s and Leo’s shenanigans have. But that’s only good for the next new nation. This one we just have to acknowledge the federal court system is the most corrupt of the three branches of government. Few will lose sleep when they are put against the wall or convicted in the Hague, down to the last office clerk.
deleted by creator
Oh who knows if this court rules against it, can’t take it to the higher court?