The Supreme Court is returning to a new term to take up some familiar topics — guns and abortion — and concerns about ethics swirling around the justices.

The year also will have a heavy focus on social media and how free speech protections apply online. A big unknown is whether the court will be asked to weigh in on any aspect of the criminal cases against former President Donald Trump and others or efforts in some states to keep the Republican off the 2024 presidential ballot because of his role in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election that he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

Lower-profile but vitally important, several cases in the term that begins Monday ask the justices to constrict the power of regulatory agencies.

  • seaQueue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s not like they’re going to resign and there’s no mechanism to remove them so, uh, unless you’re advocating violence I don’t see how that’s going to work. I think we need to pack the court up to around 17 justices and get back to the business of government instead of playing activist on guns, civil rights, corporate power and abortion.

      • seaQueue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Right, but that mechanism presupposes functional government and about half of the government doesn’t give a shit about governing, or anything other than seizing power at the moment, so that’s not going to happen.

      • logicbomb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m unsure what the standard is for removing Supreme Court Justices, but failing to recuse yourself from cases where you have a considerable appearance of conflict of interests should be one of them. For example, say, you took a large gift from somebody who would later be affected by one of your decisions, Clarence.

        Also, there should be some automatic impeachment and removal for justices who lied under oath during their confirmation hearings. I think there is video evidence of most of the conservative justices saying that they considered Roe to be precedent, which means that they wouldn’t overturn it. That was clearly a lie.

        If I lied during my job interview about something important, I would expect to be fired. And they should, too.

    • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m disabled, so not me personally, but frankly when it comes to conservatives that have devoted their lives to causing as many other people to suffer as possible, yeah, I’m advocating violence.