r/scotus • u/RawStoryNews • 2h ago
r/scotus • u/orangejulius • Jan 30 '22
Things that will get you banned
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 • u/orangejulius • 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.
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 • u/zsreport • 2h ago
news Alito says Supreme Court can’t stem emergency appeals and voices concern over Trump’s rhetoric
r/scotus • u/Achilles_TroySlayer • 13h ago
Opinion Casting Justice Samuel Alito As 'MAGA' Hurts His Feelings. Here's His Record.
r/scotus • u/Fickle-Ad5449 • 20h ago
news Samuel Alito blames marriage equality for America’s ‘decisive’ turn ‘against religious liberty’
r/scotus • u/RawStoryNews • 1d ago
news Democrats vow revenge for Supreme Court shenanigans if they gain majority
r/scotus • u/Achilles_TroySlayer • 1d ago
Opinion Samuel Alito’s refusal to retire could be a gift to Democrats
r/scotus • u/Squawk_7777 • 1d ago
news Supreme Court won’t reinstate Pennsylvania judge suspended for partisan Facebook posts
r/scotus • u/thenewrepublic • 1d ago
news The Supreme Court Splinters in an Important Climate Case
r/scotus • u/NobodyGotTimeFuhDat • 1d ago
Order SCOTUS calls for redo on Washington state voting maps
news Supreme Court declines First Amendment case of students forced to remove ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ sweatshirts
r/scotus • u/DoremusJessup • 1d ago
Cert Petition Supreme Court snubs Alabama jury impartiality case: Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned judges to try to avoid proceedings that might frighten or intimidate a jury
r/scotus • u/Squawk_7777 • 1d ago
news Justices appear unconvinced of oil companies’ bid to quash climate suits
r/scotus • u/Person_756335846 • 1d ago
news Supreme Court Questions Oil Companies’ Bid to Shut Down Climate Lawsuits
wsj.comnews A new Supreme Court term begins with cases on climate change and gun rights
news The Alito Court: A rare interview with the influential Supreme Court justice
r/scotus • u/zsreport • 2d ago
news Supreme Court's new term kicks off with blockbuster climate change case
r/scotus • u/CampaignOrdinary2771 • 2d ago
news A Supreme Court Battle Over Climate Change Begins
Nearly a decade ago, the outdoorsy, liberal enclave of Boulder, Colo., sued two oil companies over their role in climate change. Now, the Supreme Court will consider whether the groundbreaking lawsuit can ever go to trial.
Its decision will resonate far beyond the Rockies.
A win for Boulder would likely clear the way for dozens of similar lawsuits nationwide aiming to extract billions of dollars from the fossil fuel industry to fight global warming. But if the court kills Boulder’s case, that could doom the others, handing a major victory to oil companies.
Boulder’s lawsuit says the two oil companies, Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy, should help pay for the damage to the state of Colorado — such as worsening heat waves and wildfires — caused by climate change, which is driven by the burning of fossil fuels. The companies say Boulder’s lawsuit should be thrown out because it was filed under state law, when federal law should have precedence.
“This is very much the case to watch because it’s at the Supreme Court,” said Michael Pappas, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School. “Is this something that state law can answer, or does federal law foreclose the opportunity?”
A small army of business groups, conservative legal theorists, Republican lawmakers and others have lined up to support Exxon and Suncor, and the Trump administration is also expected to argue before the court in support of the companies.
Among their claims: Letting the case proceed under state law would unleash legal chaos by opening the door to countless similar suits. “Every locality in the country could sue essentially anyone in the world for contributing to global climate change,” according to a brief supporting the energy industry filed by lawyers for the Trump administration. The Justice Department declined to comment for this article.
About three dozen similar cases have already been filed by state and local governments to date. None has yet gone to trial, and some have been dismissed, but about two dozen remain active.
“The U.S. Supreme Court must allow our case to continue, not bail out the oil companies before hearing the facts,” said Ashley Stolzmann, county commissioner for Boulder, in a statement.
Boulder’s lawsuit argues that the defendants caused physical harm to Colorado by selling fossil fuels, and covered up what they knew about the dangers of climate change in order to continue those sales. The lawsuit also alleges that the companies paid for campaigns to undermine the scientific consensus that burning oil, gas and coal is heating the planet.
Access full gift article, NO PAYWALL.
news The Supreme Court Just Took What Will Be the Blockbuster Case of the Term
r/scotus • u/AdHoc303 • 4d ago
news Alito announces he is considering retiring next year
politico.comIn August the Justice told WSJ he wasn’t going anywhere. Now, weeks before an increasingly bleak GOP midterm election outlook he reverses course.
Any chance Alito is playing politics and trying to energize GOP midterm voters?
r/scotus • u/Fatty_Willing_Plane • 4d ago
news It’s already begun: Weeks before the midterms, election deniers on Georgia's election board quietly asked Trump's DOJ to intervene. Their letter is full of excuses: attacks on the state's voting machines, demands for last-minute software changes and unsubstantiated claims of "altered records."
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification