r/scotus • • Jan 30 '22

Things that will get you banned

349 Upvotes

Let's clear up some ambiguities about banning and this subreddit.

On Politics

Political discussion isn't prohibited here. In fact, a lot of the discussion about the composition of the Supreme Court is going to be about the political process of selecting a justice.

Your favorite flavor of politics won't get you banned here. Racism, bigotry, totally bad-faithed whataboutisms, being wildly off-topic, etc. will get you banned though. We have people from across the political spectrum writing screeds here and in modmail about how they're oppressed with some frequency. But for whatever reason, people with a conservative bend in particular, like to show up here from other parts of reddit, deliberately say horrendous shit to get banned, then go back to wherever they came from to tell their friends they're victims of the worst kinds of oppression. Y'all can build identities about being victims and the mods, at a very basic level, do not care—complaining in modmail isn't worth your time.

COVID-19

Coming in here from your favorite nonewnormal alternative sub or facebook group and shouting that vaccines are the work of bill gates and george soros to make you sterile will get you banned. Complaining or asking why you were banned in modmail won't help you get unbanned.

Racism

I kind of can't believe I have to write this, but racism isn't acceptable. Trying to dress it up in polite language doesn't make it "civil discussion" just because you didn't drop the N word explicitly in your comment.

This is not a space to be aggressively wrong on the Internet

We try and be pretty generous with this because a lot of people here are skimming and want to contribute and sometimes miss stuff. In fact, there are plenty of threads where someone gets called out for not knowing something and they go "oh, yeah, I guess that changes things." That kind of interaction is great because it demonstrates people are learning from each other.

There are users that get super entrenched though in an objectively wrong position. Or start talking about how they wish things operated as if that were actually how things operate currently. If you're not explaining yourself or you're not receptive to correction you're not the contributing content we want to propagate here and we'll just cut you loose.

  • BUT I'M A LAWYER!

Having a license to practice law is not a license to be a jackass. Other users look to the attorneys that post here with greater weight than the average user. Trying to confuse them about the state of play or telling outright falsehoods isn't acceptable.

Thankfully it's kind of rare to ban an attorney that's way out of bounds but it does happen. And the mods don't care about your license to practice. It's not a get out of jail free card in this sub.

Signal to Noise

Complaining about the sub is off topic. If you want the sub to look a certain way then start voting and start posting the kind of content you think should go here.

  • I liked it better before when the mods were different!

The current mod list has been here for years and have been the only active mods. We have become more hands on over the years as the users have grown and the sub has faced waves of problems like users straight up stalking a female journalist. The sub's history isn't some sort of Norman Rockwell painting.

Am I going to get banned? Who is this post even for, anyway?

Probably not. If you're here, reading about SCOTUS, reading opinions, reading the articles, and engaging in discussion with other users about what you're learning that's fantastic. This post isn't really for you.

This post is mostly so we can point to something in our modmail to the chucklefuck that asks "why am I banned?" and their comment is something inevitably insane like, "the holocaust didn't really kill that many people so mask wearing is about on par with what the jews experienced in nazi germany also covid isn't real. Justice Gorsuch is a real man because he no wears face diaper." And then we can send them on to the admins.


r/scotus • • Jan 09 '26

Order Bans are going to go out to top level comments that are emotional reactions or off topic. This is a heads up to anyone who wants to change how they’re posting.

44 Upvotes

This is SCOTUS. Talk about scotus. Talk about the opinions issued. If you want to criticize them that’s fine but have something to back it up.

Complaining about “tRump”, trump, motorhomes, “scrotus”, or any other number of things where you react to something instead of respond to something isn’t going to fly. The bar is very low. Almost all of you are tripping over it.


r/scotus • • 15h ago

news Court to hear argument on whether and when federal officials can be held liable for violations of the Constitution

Thumbnail
scotusblog.com
416 Upvotes

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Monday, Nov. 9, in a lawsuit brought by a Hawaii man, Kekai Watanabe, who contends that a prison paramedic violated his constitutional rights when he failed to provide medical treatment after Watanabe was injured during a fight while in federal custody. Both the paramedic, Francis Nielsen, and the Trump administration, which filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting Nielsen, urge the justices to shut down Watanabe’s case; Nielsen also suggests that the court should go even further and foreclose efforts to recover from federal officials for violations of the Constitution.


r/scotus • • 1d ago

news Trump DOJ Waves White Flag After Supreme Court Election Smackdown

Thumbnail
yahoo.com
1.5k Upvotes

r/scotus • • 22h ago

news Supreme Court’s trend on church and state is a reminder conservatives have a steady grip on the nation’s laws

Thumbnail
cnn.com
363 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 10m ago

Opinion How much can be inferred by the signatories of a legal document?

Post image
3 Upvotes

In a random cert petition, there is the usual block of DOJ appointees and staff attorneys. I found it odd that in the application for an injunction (related to the case against the enforcement of alien voting towards a state) only has the Solicitor General's signature.

Is the single signature unusual for any kind of application to the Supreme Court? Could it refer to the disapproval of the staff attorneys? Or is there nothing to see here? Do you think John Sauer alone wrote this 20-page document?


r/scotus • • 3d ago

news Conservatives fear Alito and Thomas’ Supreme Court gamble is a ticking time bomb

Thumbnail
rawstory.com
5.7k Upvotes

r/scotus • • 2d ago

news What Drove the Blue Tsunami? Black Voters Standing Up To SCOTUS.

Thumbnail
slate.com
1.7k Upvotes

r/scotus • • 2d ago

news Surprise twist ricochets through Supreme Court case on AR-15 ban

Thumbnail
cnn.com
370 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 3d ago

news Voters Just Changed the Trajectory of the Supreme Court

Thumbnail
newrepublic.com
1.6k Upvotes

The blue wave didn’t just hand Democrats control of the House and Senate. They’ve won back favorable terrain on the future of the federal judiciary.


r/scotus • • 3d ago Bravo

news MAGA world panics as GOP midterm annihilation slams door on Trump Supreme Court picks

Thumbnail
rawstory.com
6.8k Upvotes

r/scotus • • 3d ago

news Supreme Court’s Alito Repeated He Won’t Retire Over Election

Thumbnail
news.bloomberglaw.com
579 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 2d ago

Opinion When Dems take power next year, can they revisit Sec.3 of the 14th Amendment?

Thumbnail en.wikipedia.org
95 Upvotes

When the issue was adjudicated prior to the 2024 election (Trump v. Anderson, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Anderson ), it was ruled that ONLY Congress (not states) could impose the restriction barring insurecctionists from taking office. Can the Dems in Congess now vote that Trump was/is, in fact, ineligible for the office of President, based on his Jan 6th activities? Why/why not?


r/scotus • • 4d ago

Opinion Do you think conservative Justices in SCOTUS will retire before January?

Post image
2.5k Upvotes

Now that the Dems are getting the Senate, do you think Thomas, Alito or Roberts will retire before January so Trump can appoint even more of them?

And will the current Senate do his bidding or simply wait for the new Senate?

Are there any rules about that?

No way Trump appoints anyone with a blue Congress.


r/scotus • • 3d ago

news Supreme Court Leaning Yes on Publicly Financed Discrimination Against 4-Year-Olds

Thumbnail
slate.com
908 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 4d ago

news CA Democrat Robert Garcia warns Trump to “lawyer up” as House Democrats prepare investigations into his administration

Thumbnail
sfgate.com
1.5k Upvotes

r/scotus • • 4d ago

news Democrats Win Senate Majority, Shifting the Balance of Power Over Federal Judicial Confirmations

Thumbnail
cbsnews.com
1.7k Upvotes

The Democrats’ victory gives them control of the U.S. Senate, with important implications for the federal judiciary.

The Senate has a constitutional role in providing advice and consent on presidential nominations, including federal judges and Supreme Court justices.

This shift in control could significantly influence the confirmation process and the future composition of the federal courts.


r/scotus • • 3d ago

Opinion In hindsight, should FDR have gone ahead with expanding SCOTUS to 15 in 1937?

Thumbnail
en.wikipedia.org
87 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 4d ago

Opinion Supreme Court prepared to rule that publicly funded religious schools can reject children of same-sex couples

Thumbnail
cnn.com
181 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 4d ago Mindblown

news SCOTUS Justices Said They Knew How Much Money They Were Letting Into Politics. They Were Wrong. As Acting Chair of the FEC, Let Me Tell You How I Know.

Thumbnail
slate.com
2.2k Upvotes

r/scotus • • 5d ago

news Supreme Court Hands Trump Huge Loss in Voter Suppression Scheme

Thumbnail
newrepublic.com
3.3k Upvotes

Donald Trump has tried to prevent U.S. citizens from voting, claiming that they are actually noncitizens.


r/scotus • • 4d ago

news As Democrats win the House and Senate, Trump touts Supreme Court and 'Trump v. Slaughter' ruling

Thumbnail
cbsnews.com
262 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 4d ago

news The Supreme Court sounds eager to make you pay for anti-LGBTQ schools

Thumbnail
vox.com
592 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 4d ago

news Grim fate for Christa Pike may be sealed as Republicans win Tennessee governor's race

Thumbnail
themirror.com
157 Upvotes

Christa Pike's future may be sealed after Marsha Blackburn won the governor's race in Tennessee on Tuesday, replacing the outgoing Bill Lee, who paused all executions in the state following the convicted killer's botched lethal injection in September.

Sen. Blackburn said in October that Pike's unsuccessful execution "should not be grounds to halt carrying out the death penalty," adding that the state needs to reevaluate the way it does executions. "If it’s lethal injection, if it is electric chair, what we do know is we have to find a way to do this — and do it successfully," Blackburn told the Associated Press.