Supreme Court Watch

@spiritman Welcome to the forum!  So glad you dropped in and hope you stay.  I think you will find our community a nice home for your ideas and for support and information including visions. 

I don't think we have any visions about the future of the court. But perhaps one will arise in the future. As the issue of the courts heats up, more of us are likely to start weighing in.

I have "read" Breyer and I see he feels hugely uncomfortable with the dilemma facing him, as does his wife, who I actually knew briefly back in the day when we both worked for a think tank. For those who read the cards, I got the Hanged Man for Breyer when I asked what he was thinking, and also for his wife.  Clearly he doesn't plan to step down soon, since he has picked his clerks for next year.

Although I see he's still feeling conflicted by the pressure upon him, you don't make it to the Supreme Court so that you can fire yourself in case the country elects a Republican Senate majority and you die.  Those are two big If's. 

He's in good health. He's a philosopher king, as in the tradition of Plato who believed people should be ruled by ancient sages, and he's one of the few philosopher kings left on the court.  He loves his job and his vitality is excellent.  Ginsburg had dealt with two forms of cancer and still had valid reasons for not stepping down in 2008. 

I adore Stephen Breyer, and want him to stay on the court because he is such an amazing judge and decent human being, at a time when decency is sorely needed.

Check out this interview. It's got some interesting quotes, especially towards the end:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/q-a-justice-stephen-breyer/

My money is on Roberts, Alito or Thomas leaving before Breyer, despite the fact that they're all younger than he is. I hope this ends up being the case.

Posted by: @lynnventura

My money is on Roberts, Alito or Thomas leaving before Breyer, despite the fact that they're all younger than he is. I hope this ends up being the case.

With a wife like his -- she is a radiant open-hearted being -- he should live a long time. My cards showed him as youthful, robust, brimming with energy.

Good morning everyone, I am also new to this site, I am from Australia and basically a happy person but no psychic etc abilities to aid in predictions. I can add a different perspective I guess if thats Ok.

Regarding Supreme Court judges in Australia, it is similar in a lot of ways, they are appointed by the Governor-General and can only be removed by him on an address from both houses of Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the grounds of proved misbehavior or incapacity.

The main difference and if it could be bought into the American Supreme Court it might help to change things is that they must retire on attaining the age of 70 years.  

For those who may not know The Governor-General is the Queens representative and is our Head of State. He is appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, usually for a term of 5 years.

Kind Regards to all

@matildagirl Thanks for posting and again, welcome to our community!  It is always helpful to learn what other countries are doing. The US has much it could do better.  

One problem with forcing them to retire at 70 is that then presidents will start appointing really young people to the court just so they can keep their party in power. That has already been happening with some of the conservative judges who in my opinion are not highly qualified but are young and will last a long time.  Some of the best judges have been in their 80's.  These people should be sages and sages take time to form. I would not want a mandatory retirement for Supreme Court judges. 

Hi Jeanne, originally they were appointed for life but in 1976 a Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional Legal Affairs asked for the retirement age to be 70. A referendum was held in 1977 on this and it was the third most popular constitutional amendment since Federation with 80% of voters in support.  As we have compulsory voting that would be roughly 80% of the voting population in Australia. 

a. The idea behind the change was to maintain vigorous and dynamic courts, which require the input of new and younger judges who will bring to the bench new ideas and fresh social attitudes.

b. The relatively high average age of federal judges does, to some extent, limit opportunity for able legal practitioners to serve on the bench while at the peak of their professional abilities and before suffering the limitations of declining health.

So their thoughts were on a different path to yours.  In our States the retirement ages vary, 65 for Magistrates and 70 to 75 for judges.

@lynnventura Thanks for sharing the link to the article about Justice Breyer (quite insightful). I hope you are correct about Alito, Roberts or Thomas retiring before him (before the midterms next year). Though if I recall reading some of the predictions here for the midterms next year (the energy can always change of course) - the GOP will struggle overall going forward because of the nightmare of the previous administration so my concern may be much ado about nothing.

I also find it interesting that the court in this most recent term ended up being more of a 3-3-3 composition instead of the 6-3 majority all of the time that was hoped for by the GOP. Not saying that Justices Barrett or Kavanaugh (who were more inclined to side with the more progressive wing of the court) will become what the GOP didn't enjoy about Justice Souter, but one can hope.

I did a card reading last year and felt that President Biden would get to nominate two justices to the Court by the end of his term (could very well have been wishful thinking since I don't read cards often) but I look forward to seeing what others here predict as the battle heats up. 

Hi everyone,. It's been a while since I've been on.  Two things: first, I want express thanks to @LauraF for the information on protest waaay back pre 2018 midterms (yeah, it's been that long).

The second thing is this - I have read that the SCOTUS has agreed to hear a case brought by the coal companies challenging the U.S. Congress's right to regulate or oversee the EPA.  I don't get a good vibe from it as the decision I believe they will give will allow a massive setback for all things environmental. 

I'd like to know what you all see happening with this. 

Is this part of our great transition (as in is this expected)?  I have been depressed the last two days after reading about it..

Can this (and other SCOTUS related predictions) be added to the next RTF?

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1454166118415978505

Would Congress just ignore the SCOTUS ruling?  I know Republicans don't like judicial oversight, so could we be playing into that in deligitimizing the Supreme Court (allowing autocracy either way) by setting precidence and ignoring them?  It scares me.  We, our kids and grand kids deserve MUCH better than that.  Thanks for reading my rant :/

@rick I received clear long-term visions years back before the battle for democracy escalated to where it is today. The battle continues through much of 2020, and culminates around 2028 with two progressive women in the White House.  I received these visions from spirit. I did not arrive at them via analysis. They were simply given to me without my asking, while on a silent retreat.  

I could be wrong in the timing. But I'm certain we are moving towards a more beautiful world. It's how life evolves.  Life-force always rises up and has the last word. Hate and fear can fight against life, but then life returns and rises again. Life is fueled by love. The Right wing is fueled by fear. Love will prevail because love fuels life.

If you ever doubt this truth, then go forest bathing and ask the trees what lies ahead. 

To your question about SCOTUS: If the Supreme Court allows states to supersede the Feds' rules, and that includes SCOTUS rules, then consider that this override could cut against those Right wing companies and that Right wing court. That's why the gun lobby filed an amicus brief in the SCOTUS case against Texas. They are concerned that if SCOTUS upholds the Texas abortion ban, then blue states can ban guns and deputize citizens to enforce it. 

Here's an article about it. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/texas-abortion-sb8-supreme-court-kavanaugh-roberts-barrett.html

States' rights over the Federal government's rules can work in both directions and although Alito, Thomas, and  Gorsuch did not seem perturbed by this future, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts made it clear they were not comfortable with elevating states above the Feds. 

Here's yesterday's Slate story about the Texas abortion ban and the state's attempt to override federal authority.

@jeanne-mayell , you are spot-on in your analysis.

As a legal insider (attorney), I feel pretty confident that the Supreme Court will ultimately throw the Texas abortion law out.  They will drag their feet in doing so, of course (the six conservative judges will try to prolong it in order to "save" as many babies as possible, or so they say).  But ultimately, they will overturn the law.

The answer is simple.  If they don't, then they lose their power.  After all, if all the states could pass such laws in order to avoid legal review from the Supreme Court, then all the states would do it.

Which would be great for red states in their ultimate quest to bring women down into a semi-slavery status by making them have babies and then keep them in a sense of poverty while the fathers get off without responsibility.  And for the really sinister Republicans, it creates a new generation of poor, starving children for them to exploit and abuse (sorry, but there is a reason why victims of forced labor and the sex trade are often from the poorest classes).

But....then blue states can do the same thing, such as curtail guns.  And God forbid that anyone take away their right to own an assault rifle.

So, the Supreme Court will ultimately overturn the law, if only so that they continue to maintain their power over the country.  So ultimately their greed will win out.

@jeanne-mayell, @allyn

Thank you both!  This helps a lot!  ...And it makes sense.  As a lurker who has been here for a while, Jeanne, you are one of the most on point.  But to everyone here, what many of you receive from spirit here gives me hope. 

Yesterday's oral arguments on the vaccine mandate challenge have left me bummed out. The right wing justices are just plain bonkers. Gorsuch won't wear a mask and claimed hundreds out thousands of people die every year from the flu (not true). Poor Sotomayor, who is 65 and has diabetes, had to participate via video because Gorsuch wouldn't near an effing mask. Some of the comments and questions just sounded like listening to Hannity or Tucker Carlson. It was depressing, but also terrifying, inasmuch as this is how it's going to be for as long as the right wing has a stranglehold on the court. They are going to legislate from the bench and basically prevent the federal government from doing things it needs to do, unless of course it involves something they want to gov't to do, like ban muslims from entering the US or force women to bear children against their will. 

Last year I posted that I thought Breyer would outlast some of the other justices, but now I'm feeling like he will announce his retirement after this term is over. I think he (and Kagan and Sotomayor) realize how extreme the court has gotten, and how divided. I don't think he wants to risk making it any more unbalanced. I think Biden will choose Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace him. None of this is a major prediction. I think a lot of people are thinking the same thing.

However, I still do feel some of the other justices leaving, for reasons other than retirement. I feel that Thomas and/or Alito will leave, but I don't know if this is just wishful thinking on my part of because I loathe those two, or something else. Anyone else getting a read on this?

@lynnventura, I similarly feel that Breyer will retire when the term is over and Judge Jackson will be the nominee and that he'd only get 1 or 2 Republicans to vote her on the court. There is a prediction from @Bluebelle for a vacancy in February and one by @Deetoo for a fight over it in March, so Breyer's announcement could happen sooner. I also feel that Biden would have more than one justice he'd appoint before the 2024 election (it felt like he'd nominate another woman). I am unsure whether it's Alito or Thomas who would retire.

As far as the mandates go from the oral arguments yesterday, the general consensus among legal experts is that the court will uphold the healthcare mandate, but not the workplace one. I do feel that there is a conservative justice (not Chief Justice Roberts) who keeps vacillating between upholding both mandates or going along with their conservative colleagues, so I am uncertain on how things will ultimately shake out. Is anyone else getting a sense of how this will go?

@spiritman @lynnventura.  Ever since I heard the line of questioning from the conservatives justices, I have a sense of dread about this upcoming Supreme Court decision on vaccine mandates.  Sigh. It boggles the mind that the Supreme Court might weigh in with a decision making it more difficult to end the pandemic.  As to whether another justice may depart the court in addition to Breyer, well, that resonates with me.  Clarence Thomas’ wife Ginni was a vocal supporter of the infamous Stop the Steal rally that led to the insurrection, but it remains to be seen if she actually funded that effort.  As for Brett Kavanaugh, well, who paid off Kavanaugh’s $1.2 million mortgage and massive credit card debt before his confirmation?  And did he perjure himself during confirmation hearings with the Senate Judiciary Committee?  

Last year I dreamed about walking in a large public garden where there was a massive stone bench (a bench scaled for giants).  The seat of this massive bench was starting to tip forward and the foundation in front appeared to be sinking into the earth.  It was lopsided.  People walked past this massive bench and no one paid much attention to it, indicating to me that it had been there a long time.  However, as the granddaughter and great granddaughter of stonemasons, I kept looking at the bench, trying to figure out what was wrong with it and how it should be fixed.  

My feeling is that this was a premonition dream about our lopsided Supreme Court and the structural changes that need to be made in order to preserve the integrity of the institution and our nation.  

My intuitive sense is that there will be a number of Supreme Court decisions that will not reflect the will of the majority of Americans and this will cause a backlash against the Supreme Court.  This change in public opinion about the Supreme Court will lead to public support for structural changes.

@bluebelle  So interesting. "Bench" is how lawyers (and others) refer to where the judge sits. Like, "is the judge on the bench yet?" A massive bench would definitely make sense because Scotus is the most massive of all the courts. The stone part, to me, says that it is an integral part of our society, strong and hard to break. 

I too feel that they will issue several really bad decisions, because at this point they are very much like the extremist elements of the GOP; they're feeling powerful, without humility or the need to compromise. How much damage they do before they're reigned in really concerns me. The right wing is cultivating lawsuits they can take to Scotus in order to effectively secure changes in the law they can't get legislatively. Sure, dems have done this in the past as well, but mainly to expand rights, not to eliminate them. The current majority is all to willing to hear such cases and make drastic changes. It's all part of the plan. They are all Federalist Society babies, and this was the plan all along. This is the culmination of 40+ years of work, and they aren't going to waste time. They know majorities don't last but rulings often do, for generations even. They're all participants in what's been a legal conspiracy to move the country rightward, by judicial fiat.

Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Roberts are extreme in the descending order in which I've listed them. They are rigid ideologues who believe the federal gov't should not be able to do much of anything, without understanding that you can't have a coherent country without the ability to have laws that apply to everyone. Their "kick it back to the states" philosophy (when it suits them) is no way to govern a country. I really fear what's coming, but I agree that the more hubris they display the easier it will be to build public support to reign them in.

@lynnventura @bluebelle I threw some cards on the future of the Supreme Court. I got what appeared to be three more years of rigid, consolidated conservative power, then a shift in 2025. The 2025 card was a three of cups, abundance, which could mean that either they expand the number of justices, or they change the term rules limiting the time a justice can serve.  

@jeanne-mayell Thanks, Jeanne.  It’s going to be tough watching this far right leaning court make decisions that affect our country.  

@bluebelle Only the Congress can expand the Supreme Court. While there hasn't been enough will among Democrats to do it, that could change in three years of rolling back our democracy 80 years.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is currently hospitalized and receiving intravenous antibiotics for an infection.  He has been in the hospital since Friday and is improving.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/justice-clarence-thomas-hospitalized-infection-supreme-court/story?id=83567565