Supreme Court meets to discuss adding new cases to blockbuster term
Source: CNN
(CNN)Supreme Court justices, on the verge of a new term, will meet behind closed doors on Monday to discuss petitions that have accumulated over the summer and decide which cases should be added to the court's docket.
The private conference comes a week before the new term is set to begin when the justices will take the bench in person for the first time to hear arguments in over a year. The nine justices find themselves under the political spotlight after they allowed on a 5-4 vote a controversial Texas abortion law to go into effect.
Since that decision, several justices have given public remarks attempting to bolster the court's institutional legitimacy and arguing that they view cases according to their judicial philosophy and not from any political affiliation. But recent polls show the public -- particularly Democrats -- are souring on the court.
Already, the term -- set to start October 4 -- will be a blockbuster one as the justices will hear a significant Second Amendment case concerning a New York conceal carry law in November, followed by a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade in December.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/27/politics/scotus-new-cases-blockbuster-term/index.html
BradAllison
(1,879 posts)Just pull a sheet over the whole thing
Javaman
(62,517 posts)BlueJac
(7,838 posts)Screw these partisan hacks
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)With age comes wisdom, and I think it would be a mistake to choose and arbitrary number that someone considers to be "too old" to serve effectively. And if that were the case, then it would only encourage the appointment of exceedingly young (and inexperienced) judges.
There are a lot of interesting ideas out there. My favorite is to increase the number of judges to 13.
rpannier
(24,329 posts)I have to admit, it is something Ted Cruz proposed
RainCaster
(10,866 posts)Right now, they are allowed to accept gifts from anyone, including parties that might be seen by the court. Speaking engagements are also allowed. Use of private jets, fancy hotels & resorts, so many things that the House & Senate are not allowed to accept.
BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)The Roberts partisan kangaroo court is no longer serving Americas interests. Increase the number of judges and rotate them on a case by case basis.
SallyHemmings
(1,821 posts)Time to add to the court.
We are well past the time for playing by the rules.
Turtles just shoves them up our collective backsides.
Texin
(2,594 posts)defending the filibuster?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)My son fears that Obergefell v. Hodges is in danger of being overturned... or weakened to the point where it becomes "optional" for anyone who wants to claim a deeply-held religious belief.
He's a new father of two, so I can understand his anxiety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
mountain grammy
(26,619 posts)with
Who knows what we'll be when the religious fanatics on the SC are finished with us.
DallasNE
(7,402 posts)"several justices have given public remarks attempting to bolster the court's institutional legitimacy and arguing that they view cases according to their judicial philosophy and not from any political affiliation.".
Roberts has lost control of the court. Cases should not be based on judicial philosophy anyway. They should be based on the law and Constitution, not what they mold the Constitution into. That should be the only judicial philosophy - their mission statement. And it is a clear repudiation of Stare Decisis.
Javaman
(62,517 posts)We are already experiencing the future of this nation. Proto-fascism
This is whats coming nationally.
I fear the 2022 elections.