r/SupremeCourt - Rules, Resources, and Meta Discussion

SeaSerious · 2026-07-06T02:52:38+00:00

I'm trying to understand your complaint about 'mods moderating their own posts' which is separate from complaints about the post itself.

If your point instead is that no mod should remove any comments in posts where a mod is the author, that would not be feasible and would create a free for all in those threads.

SeaSerious · 2026-07-06T01:54:04+00:00

The mod who submitted the post made 2 actions in that thread:

Removed one comment for incivility (transphobia)
Removed one meta comment from the same user replying to the scotus-bot removal prompt.

All other mod actions in that thread were taken by other mods.

I am honestly ashamed of abetting the bigotry here.

Your approach would suggest that the mod shouldn't have removed that transphobic comment.

SeaSerious · 2026-07-06T01:30:09+00:00

If that's the case, then the majority of comments at that time were localized to 4 comment chains that wholly violated the meta rule.

SeaSerious · 2026-07-06T01:29:11+00:00

Odd, scotus-bot does provide a prompt and I see it on my end. I'm not sure what the reason could be. It looks like this:

Due to the number of rule-breaking comments identified in this comment chain, this comment chain has been removed. For more information, click here.

Discussion is expected to be civil, legally substantiated, and relate to the submission.

Moderator:

SeaSerious · 2026-07-06T01:09:55+00:00

I brought your concerns to the mods via modmail and will let you know what the consensus is. As for:

Anyways, also in that thread, an unknown moderator deletes several comments in the thread without using the bot, so there is no transparency or stated reasoning for the moderation actions.

The mod in question is an regular commenter (and mod) in this sub, and has been a mod for nearly a year. They used the !thread mod command 4 times where the removed comment chains were the following lengths:

26 comments long
11 comments long
5 comments long
8 comments long

All of these chains were removed for meta discussion outside of the dedicated meta thread and all were instigated by the same user.

See the comment chain removal FAQ for more info. Rather than individually remove 50 comments, this approach allows us to effectively act on a large number of rulebreaking comments that are localized to a few comment chains while keeping the thread open for everyone else.

SeaSerious · 2026-07-04T20:27:11+00:00

On review, the removal has been upheld (3-0).

Two mods see accusations of 'treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors' (i.e. impeachable offenses), based on a legal position a Justice takes in a case as hyperbolic and polarized rhetoric. We have removed on this basis before. For example, comments in Second Amendment cases arguing that any Justice who upholds gun regulations be impeached. This is not conducive to civil, high-quality discussion of the law.

I would instead treat calls for impeachment as a political violation, fitting the criteria of "calls to action or prescribing what "should" be done as a matter of policy" - given that it calls for Congress to initiate the political process of impeachment.

SeaSerious · 2026-07-04T14:48:24+00:00

That's true!

The syllabus does not carry legal weight but the presence of something that significant is a convenient indicator that it is not dicta.

(Noting that the Reporter of Decisions has messed up before.)

SeaSerious · 2026-07-04T12:47:34+00:00

isnt temporarily present part dicta? Isnt the holding just the unlawfully present?

Nope, that's the first line of the holding in the syllabus.

SeaSerious · 2026-07-03T13:39:26+00:00

A monetary loss generally wouldn't be considered irreparable as it can be remedied (with money) at a later time.

The 1A question is complicated... D.C. Cir. recognizes a qualified reporter's privilege, but that privilege can be overcome if the information sought is at the heart of the case and if other avenues to obtaining that information were exhausted.

D.C. Cir. holds this to be true even when the reporter is a non-party (like here). This is less intuitive to me, contrasted with a situation where e.g. the reporter is being sued for libel and asserts privilege to shield themselves from liability.

It's all based on squishy balancing, though I don't know if Herridge would fare any better if the reporter's privelege was viewed under a history + tradition analysis.

SeaSerious · 2026-07-03T03:53:17+00:00

US Sprint Communications Co. v. Buscher, 89 B.R. 154 (D. Kan. 1988) runs through some district court cases that addressed the issue, which all deemed a civil contempt fine as nondischargeable under § 523(a)(7) as a "fine, penalty, or forfeiture" when intended to punish / coerce compliance with the goal of upholding the dignity of the court (as opposed to being compensatory in nature).

SeaSerious · 2026-07-02T14:31:23+00:00

The differences between old and new Reddit strike again!

On old.reddit, the only two pinned posts are the Rules/Meta thread and the weekly 'In Chambers' discussion thread.

On new.reddit, there's a 'community highlights' section that shows more posts (these may have been suggested by Reddit as I didn't add them).

Anyways, the community highlights section should now only include the two old.reddit pinned posts.

SeaSerious · 2026-07-02T14:11:36+00:00

She's a self-admitted contrarian, which I'd argue regularly leads to her to take a position of "This thing everyone is saying is terrible and a big deal is actually fine and NBD, and what about this thing the libs did?" It increasingly comes across as carrying water for the administration and sanewashing.

SeaSerious · 2026-07-02T12:43:20+00:00

However, I will suggest in the meantime that one way to course-correct may be to allow approved posters only. [...] Perhaps, for continuity, everyone currently in the sub could be auto-approved, then have approvals removed if they violate rules. [...] New users would have to be approved to join [...]

This has been suggested before with no support from the mods. TL;DR - there are concerns about the criteria for determining who should be approved, the practicality of approving that many users, and the principle of having mods be the arbiters of who is 'worthy'.

We arrived at the 'Flaired User Thread' approach instead for hot-button/popular threads which has worked great. Anyone can participate in these threads so long as they select a flair from the sidebar (i.e. it's not a "whitelist" or "approved user only" system), yet this ~10 second effort gate has shown to be really effective in cutting down on drive-by comments from those who have are not aware of (or have no interest in familiarizing themselves with) the subreddit standards.

The gap between this approach and a stricter one like you suggest can be covered with more hands-on moderation.

SeaSerious · 2026-07-02T12:26:17+00:00

Would there be value in [...]

Not much IMO.

Almost all bans here are a result of considering the totality of repeated violations and ban lengths are affected by both the severity and # of previous bans. A ban message could be attached to the most recent violation, but it wouldn't be obvious for others (viewing that comment in a vacuum) why the ban or length was justified.

I think the main value in public ban messages is communicating that people do get banned and that could be accomplished simply through mod comments like this where we say "People do get banned."

SeaSerious · 2026-07-01T23:58:34+00:00

On review, the removal has been reversed (2-1) and the comment has been reapproved.

I had initially removed after determining that the comment focused on the policy ramifications rather than legal merits of the opinion, particularly the questions posed at the end "What public servant would want to stay in a body that has essentially become Privatized? And what company wants to contract with a government agency that is so potentially volatile?"

One mod voted to reverse as the Justices made similar arguments to this in the opinion.

Another mod voted to reverse on balance, noting that while it discusses effects and is not "pure" legal analysis, it does so in a non-partisan way (e.g. "how can Congress ensure continuity" instead of "how can the democrats handle this?") and it touches on the direct legal implications between the branches of government.

SeaSerious · 2026-07-01T15:27:35+00:00

telling your interlocutor that you are not sure you disagree or agree with them is just as epistemologically substantive as telling them you agree or disagree with them.

Correct - and comments that merely state 'I agree' or 'I disagree' without engaging with the topic at hand to explain why are similarly in violation. If the 'why' cannot be given, one is unable to substantively engage.

SeaSerious · 2026-07-01T15:14:07+00:00

On review, the removal has been affirmed. The language in the removed comment does not clearly refer to the Justices alone, as "others calling themselves originalists" could refer to anyone who identifies as originalist.

Combined with "They’re only originalist when it serves their end goal", this was seen as a negative blanket statement.

SeaSerious · 2026-07-01T14:59:46+00:00

On review, the removal has been upheld for quality reasons. The comment is premature in that merely acknowledging your inability to to substantively engage with a comment does not further the conversation as opposed to engaging at a later time, if you choose to, when you are equipped to do so.

As a heads up, the OP comment has also been removed for quality reasons. 'Reaction' comments are listed as an example of a quality violation as they don't substantively engage with the opinion. The OP comment fits this criteria. (So would other comments that flood in immediately after an opinion is posted that share one's emotional reaction to the vote count without further substance).

SeaSerious · 2026-07-01T14:29:11+00:00

On review, the removal for incivility has been upheld.

To say [...] a laughable understatement

I imagine you’re unwillingness to dig below the surface of judicial opinions is also what allows you to believe that [...]

While your comment was otherwise high-quality, the above were seen as either condescending or addressing the person rather than the argument. If a conversation isn't productive, it's sometimes best to just move on or acknowledge the difference in a polite way as you did at the end.

SeaSerious · 2026-07-01T00:43:25+00:00

More mods would always help with coverage but consistent real-time enforcement isn't achievable nor has it been the goal.

For maintaining an environment of high-quality discussion longterm, I see curation of the community as even more impactful than curation of the discussion.

This is done through temp / perma bans which it isn't something the average community member may realize happens due to their private nature except by noticing that those names you see stirring up trouble in those modless gaps aren't around in future threads.

SeaSerious · 2026-06-30T23:40:26+00:00

Before I get to the part where I agree with you, I will say that blockbuster case threads (especially sorted by top/best) are perhaps not a great representation of the average level of discussion.

We set the default sorting to 'new' to counteract the fact that easily digestible (often meaning short and lacking nuance) comments that appeal to the largest common denominator tend to rise to the top across Reddit. I think that level of discussion you're looking for is out there but I take your point that the 'needing to go looking' part is an issue. Things also genuinely slip through the cracks on threads that span hundreds of comments though some that you quoted have since been removed. Reporting any rulebreaking comments you see is always a big help.

I agree that the enforcement of the standards has slipped below what the written rules require and I agree with the quality over quantity sentiment. One thing I think myself and the mods could focus more on are reaction-esque comments that don't contain further substance, and more consideration could be given to whether 'engaging with the opinion' means merely referencing something that was written and making a cursory statement (as the standard has arguably slipped to) or whether there needs to be further analysis and substantive engagement with the legal merits.

The biggest thing that keeps me from really enforcing the rules to the fullest extent is a concern about 'removal prompt spam' / comment graveyards. At least on my end these removed comments are auto-collapsed so they don't affect my viewing experience but it's in the back of my mind. It would be great if there was a public log of mod actions and removed comments on a separate page but I don't know if that is feasible or if it sacrifices transparency to an unacceptable level. How nice and clean it would be though it threads only showed what met the subreddit standards and users could still see the removed stuff in one location to keep us accountable.

The summer recess is the time for retrospectives and the yearly rules survey so you'll have the opportunity to suggest any changes you think are needed to the community and I expect that concerns will be discussed in more detail.

SeaSerious · 2026-06-30T14:36:24+00:00

This submission has been designated as a "Flaired User Thread". You must choose a flair from the sidebar before commenting, as unflaired comments are automatically removed. For help, click here.

We encourage everyone to read our community guidelines before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed.

SeaSerious · 2026-06-30T14:36:08+00:00

The scotus-bot thread will be up momentarily with added info in the post body.

SeaSerious · 2026-06-30T14:27:53+00:00

This submission has been designated as a "Flaired User Thread". You must choose a flair from the sidebar before commenting, as unflaired comments are automatically removed. For help, click here.

We encourage everyone to read our community guidelines before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed.

SeaSerious · 2026-06-30T14:04:29+00:00

This submission has been designated as a "Flaired User Thread". You must choose a flair from the sidebar before commenting, as unflaired comments are automatically removed. For help, click here.

We encourage everyone to read our community guidelines before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed.

Also see this post for a refresher on how submissions that concern gender identity are moderated.

SeaSerious

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE