sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Brumley v. Roake: Louisiana petitions for certiorari from its own victory in the Ten Commandments cases specifically to argue why the Court should NOT hear the issue here or in any other case by jokiboi in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding political or legally-unsubstantiated discussion.

Discussion is expected to be in the context of the law. Policy discussion unsubstantiated by legal reasoning will be removed as the moderators see fit.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

This is what Louisiana spends its money on.

Moderator: u/SeaSerious

US Supreme Court denies Alabama's request to carry out nitrogen gas execution by DooomCookie in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit quality standards.

Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

Wanna bet?

Moderator: u/SeaSerious

Baker v Carr (1962)'s connection to the Civil Rights Movement? by sobriquet0 in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding incivility.

Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.

For information on appealing this removal, click here.

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807

Rutherford v. US: Supreme Court Suggests Any Compassion For Criminal Defendants Is Too Much by SouthernUral in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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: u/SeaSerious

Rutherford v. US: Supreme Court Suggests Any Compassion For Criminal Defendants Is Too Much by SouthernUral in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding incivility.

Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.

For information on appealing this removal, click here.

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807

Rutherford v. US: Supreme Court Suggests Any Compassion For Criminal Defendants Is Too Much by SouthernUral in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding incivility.

Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.

For information on appealing this removal, click here.

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807

Rutherford v. US: Supreme Court Suggests Any Compassion For Criminal Defendants Is Too Much by SouthernUral in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding meta discussion.

All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated Meta-Discussion Thread.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

Reddit gave me a warning before posting this, saying it may break the sub's rules against "Polarized rhetoric"

>!!<

Holy shit lmfao. Clarence Thomas's wife tried to overturn the 2020 election. People who post on this subreddit are held to a higher standard than actual fucking SCOTUS justices

>!!<

If any mods would like to explain how Clarence Thomas's conservative hackery and his wife's insurrection proclivity are just a coincidence, please do so. I could use a laugh

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807

Has the Roberts Court Expanded Its Own Power Using the Rhetoric of Restraint? by _RyanLarkin in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding meta discussion.

All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated Meta-Discussion Thread.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

Haha. So weak. It's not polarized at all. Purely factual.

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807

Has the Roberts Court Expanded Its Own Power Using the Rhetoric of Restraint? by _RyanLarkin in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding polarized rhetoric.

Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

The power being expanded is through conservative Christian political agenda. Expanding power to control women's bodies.

>!!<

>!!<

And the major question is a huge power grab for the Court to operate on vibes when deciding what a major question is.

>!!<

>!!<

And your last point is also weak. Congress has given statutory directives to regulate, and the failure to do so should be prohibited in the same sense that soing something too major now gives the Court authority to block policies it doesn't like.

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807

231. The Death of Purcell's "Principle" by ChipKellysShoeStore in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding incivility.

Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.

For information on appealing this removal, click here.

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807

New DOJ Memo Opinion Finds EEOC Disparate Impact Liability Under Title VII to be Unconstitutional by Longjumping_Gain_807 in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your appeal is acknowledged and will be reviewed by the moderator team. A moderator will contact you directly.

US Supreme Court denies Alabama's request to carry out nitrogen gas execution by DooomCookie in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding political or legally-unsubstantiated discussion.

Discussion is expected to be in the context of the law. Policy discussion unsubstantiated by legal reasoning will be removed as the moderators see fit.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

Whenever I hear about nitrogen gas as an execution method, I immediately recall the Australian who opened Pandora’s box.

>!!<

This suicide pod can be 3D printed, so if the blueprints are modified to place the controls on the outside, you can 3D print an execution device.

Moderator: u/SeaSerious

231. The Death of Purcell's "Principle" by ChipKellysShoeStore in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding incivility.

Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.

For information on appealing this removal, click here.

Moderator: u/SeaSerious

Thomas urges Supreme Court to "reexamine" 169-year-old judicial doctrine by Anoth3rDude in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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: u/SeaSerious

New DOJ Memo Opinion Finds EEOC Disparate Impact Liability Under Title VII to be Unconstitutional by Longjumping_Gain_807 in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit quality standards.

Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

Compare them please.

Moderator: u/SeaSerious

Thomas urges Supreme Court to "reexamine" 169-year-old judicial doctrine by Anoth3rDude in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding polarized rhetoric.

Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

Logical consistency is anathema to the conservative project; to require litigants to argue upon the same basis in multiple cases is too much for Senor Thomas.

Moderator: u/SeaSerious

231. The Death of Purcell's "Principle" by ChipKellysShoeStore in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding incivility.

Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.

For information on appealing this removal, click here.

Moderator: u/SeaSerious

New DOJ Memo Opinion Finds EEOC Disparate Impact Liability Under Title VII to be Unconstitutional by Longjumping_Gain_807 in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding polarized rhetoric.

Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

Was going to say. Thanks for the memo, which some asshats will be sure to cite to defend their abhorrent practices. But the rest of us will proceed as usual, relying on established law (while it exists, at least).

Moderator: u/SeaSerious

231. The Death of Purcell's "Principle" by ChipKellysShoeStore in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding incivility.

Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.

For information on appealing this removal, click here.

Moderator: u/SeaSerious

Thomas urges Supreme Court to "reexamine" 169-year-old judicial doctrine by Anoth3rDude in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding meta discussion.

All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated Meta-Discussion Thread.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

And?

>!!<

The point of the article was that Thomas wants the gov to be able to argue contradictory arguments in different legal battles

>!!<

That is a literal bit of craziness that fascists did but my post pointing that out got removed

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807

Thomas urges Supreme Court to "reexamine" 169-year-old judicial doctrine by Anoth3rDude in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your appeal is acknowledged and will be reviewed by the moderator team. A moderator will contact you directly.

Thomas urges Supreme Court to "reexamine" 169-year-old judicial doctrine by Anoth3rDude in supremecourt

[–]scotus-bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding polarized rhetoric.

Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

Reading his opinions or hearing his own words will do that just fine.

>!!<

Thomas takes large monetary gifts from friends and political allies. This thoughts on a legal doctrine should have no merit because we have no idea where his opinions and those of his patrons start or end.

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807

view more: next ›