The public expresses deep anger and frustration towards recent Supreme Court decisions, perceiving them as biased and damaging to marginalized communities and civil rights. There is a prominent sentiment of betrayal towards political leaders and fears of loss of rights and protections. Many see the Court as influenced by political agendas rather than justice, leading to concerns about enforceability and accountability.

Supreme Court

Political Leaders

Welcome to r/SupremeCourt. This subreddit is for serious, high-quality discussion about the Supreme Court.

We encourage everyone to [read our community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed.

Meta discussion regarding r/SupremeCourt must be directed to our [dedicated meta thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/1egr45w/rsupremecourt_rules_resources_and_meta_discussion/).


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

District of Columbia v Heller. 

It is the only Supreme Court ruling in all of the Court's history that discards so much as a word or bit of punctuation from the constitution, and it threw away 13 consecutive words in order to give Antonin Scalia the chance to invent the personal right to keep and bear arms. 

As recently as the early seventies people laughed at the very idea of what Heller then decided to rule into law. 

Yes a bunch of people are going to get angry and claim that obviously that's what they meant all along, making no allowance for the fact that they included those 13 words. 

But there were plenty of arguments that disprove this position with fairly obviousl basis. You just need to be emotionally motivated to to ignore them in order to make the argument that the constitution was creating an individual right. 

We know that the concerns of the founders had to do with article 1 section 8 clause 12 which granted the federal government the exclusive right to arm the militia. We know from the attached minutes of the state of Virginia's ratifying convention for the US Constitution that they were quite worried that the federal government would use the exclusivity of the federal government's right to arm the militia to potentially disarm states to punish them for various perceived misdeeds. 

We also know from the surrounding clauses that the little gun clubs people have organized to call militias in order to justify their gun ownership, which they were doing in the seventies and before because back in those days everybody knew it was not an individual right so that's why they formed these militias, are not actually legal militias. 

To be a militia under the Constitution is not simply to be a member of the society. Militias have their officers appointed over them and are disciplined (meaning organized) by the several states. 

And indeed if you just paste the second amendment on the end of the text I have linked to, which is the actual minutes of the actual speech given by George Mason  (I always confuse George Madison and George Mason) you can see that it works as a perfect conclusion to that speech for all the reasons enumerated therein.

So tradition, understanding, and contemporary writings of the time all uniformly indicate that the second amendment was never intended to allow randos to have guns. 

And No, I am not anti-gun ownership. I just do not believe it is an explicitly enumerated right within the Constitution nor that said some right that shall not be infringed. We infringe it all the time. 

I will believe the argument that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed for normal people when I see the people holding that position opening gun shops within the walls of prisons to make sure that the people residing there-in as convicts can maintain this absolute right. I will believe the Supreme Court believes in that absolute right when they take down the metal detectors in their lobby of the Supreme Court house. 

And for those of you playing along wondering why it says "the people", well under certain legal phrasings the people means the people collectively. Meaning the government. That's why we have cases listed as The People Versus John doe. 

One needs only look at the adjacent amendments to know that the framers knew about ideas like "no person" and would have easily and clearly written that no person shall be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms if they meant it to be an individual right.

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s27.html

BitOBear

_Citizens United_.

The entire basis of the ruling is flawed and doesn't take the actual facts of what exactly Citizens United did into account.

During the 2004 presidential campaign the organization filed a claim that _advertisements_ for a docudrama film criticizing the Bush administration's response to the 9/11 attacks were a violation of BCRA. The docu**drama** was produced by an actual film studio and not by a political activist group. Key word being _drama_, as in dramatized and partially fictionalized.

When their complaint was denied, Citizens United _**deliberately**_ violated the law. They weren't an entertainment company or a film studio and were penalized for producing a similar work to the Michael Moore film they filed a claim about.

As a result, Citizens United tried to become a bona fide commercial film maker before the 2008 elections by producing several _documentory_ films, as in films that supposedly document the "truth" of events. Not docu**dramas**, but legit documentories.

During the 2008 election, Citizens United attempted to run three advertisements to promote their **political documentory** "Hillary: The Movie" and to air the movie on DirectTV, not in theaters but direct to TV. The FEC said their plan was a violation of the BCRA.

The logical leaps that SCOTUS had to jump through to go from: "Citizens United, which has a history of snubbing the FEC and wasn't even a bona fide commercial filmmaker, enacted a _**second**_ plan to deliberately snub the FEC and violate the BCRA" to "The BCRA is a law that violates the First Amendment" is an insane leap in logic.

The people in charge of Citizens United were petulant manchildren who pitched a fit and repeatedly broke the law deliberately. Irregardless of if the BCRA was a bad one or not, Citizens United were the absolute worst people to bring this case to court.

The leaps in logic that SCOTUS had to go through to even _consider_ that Citizens United were in the right for deliberately snubbing the FEC is insane.

primalmaximus

Presidential immunity from criminal charges. Calling the President assassinating political opponents an "official act" and not prosecutable.

macktruck6666

Wickard v. Fillburn. It’s predicated on a series of events that are incredibly unlikely to happen (ie enough people will grow wheat for their own personal consumption that the interstate market will be substantially affected).

smallitalianman

Clearly, it's *Buck v. Bell*.  

I mean, why ***three*** generations of imbeciles?  Why not two or four?  There's zero logic to that at all.  Plus there's that tiny little conflict with substantive due process and some of the modern cases -- but I'm sticking with the arbitrary choice of "*three* generations."

HuisClosDeLEnfer

All the ones based on substantive due process.

Head--receiver

Dobbs, Marbury v Madison for the use of the doctrine of Christian discovery, the reasoning of Heller based on “history and tradition” but every other right gets the “literalism and original understanding” treatment, Ashcroft v. Iqbal for essentially requiring a defendant to in effect provide classified documents as part of the pleading stage versus accessing declassified versions in discovery simply to reduce case loads, Korematsu because the idea that Americans should be held in camps on the basis of their ethnicity and race in the absence of individual probable cause to believe they are agents of a foreign power or potential combatants is insane and smacks of police state bullshit, and I am sure there are a few others.

Bobsmith38594

*DeShaney v. Winnebago County*

While in line with the stain upon the American legal system that is the qualified immunity doctrine, it is utterly ridiculous that a Social Services worker can be more liable for accidentally dropping a child in their care than knowingly returning them to a domestic abuser (who in this case beat them into a coma)

Justice Black was so heartbroken by the case he literally just came out and said “Poor Joshua!”

dwaynetheaaakjohnson

The whole legislating from the bench qualified impunity thing.

ericbythebay

The Insular Cases

Geldudig v Aiello

Dobbs

BRayne88

bouldereng

I think the entire incorporation doctrine is bad law but nobody agrees with me, so whatever...

lezoons

Johnson v McIntosh (“good” meaning “still in effect”)

AlaskaRecluse

[deleted]

*Jones v. United States*, 362 U.S. 257 (1960), which allowed police to obtain warrants based on hearsay from informants.

Ignored all precedent, never made a textual analysis of the 4th Amendment, and said the ruling was controlled by prior informant cases about warrantless arrests, which aren’t controlled by the 4th Amendment and thus raised an entirely different issue altogether.

For some of the pre-civil-war cases, I don't actually know if they were ever specifically overruled.

Like Dred Scot.  Has there ever actually been a court case since then, saying that black men living in the north and who died prior to the civil war really were citizens after all?  Maybe it came up to settle a will or inheritance or something?

Or Priggs vs Pennsylvania.  Has that 'slave bounty hunters can't be stopped by local law enforcement'  rule ever actually been overturned?  Was there any instance where it came up, after the 13th amendment was enacted?

Technically, passing a new constitutional amendment isn't quite the same thing as overruling an old SCOTUS case.  it just creates new rules going forward.

Krennson

*Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid*. Ok, sure, I *guess* you can make the case for 'taking' of the right to exclude warranting compensation a la *Loretto*, but there's no framework for actual compensation, so the only remedy provided by the court for the 'Taking' of an intangible right is a permanent injunction, which makes absolutely no sense in the context of the text of Fifth Amendment, nor the whole rest of the Takings framework. It just completely blocks government regulatory action instead of requiring compensation.

Ion_bound

How do you distinguish between good law and bad logic?

edit: Maybe I should rephrase my question:

How can you have good law with bad logic?  What makes good law?

skeptical-speculator

[San Antonio v Rodriguez has to the winner. White’s dissent is a asskicking.](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-1332)

Highway49

*United States v. Cruikshank*: Like, it just straight up said that the 14th didn't bind private actors or state governments. Even though the amendment explicitly says "No State...".

*Ogden v. Saunders*: How do you read "No State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts" and then decide that a state can pass a law that affects contracts, as long as those contracts are made in the future?

*Buck v. Bell*: How has this not been mentioned yet? Would any remaining bits of it still stand up under scrutiny today though? Who knows?

*Gonzales v. Raich:* Just...I really don't get the logic. The Commerce Clause should allow Congress to prevent any interstate commerce related to cannabis. But a state, conducting entirely intrastate commerce of said drug, in no way violates interstate commerce. Congress should not be able to regulate commerce contained entirely within a state. Even if you maintained *Wickard*, the logic still doesn't work because in this case one state's commerce still doesn't affect any others'.

SwimmingThroughHoney

Wicker v Filburn 1942.  A farmer can't grow wheat for his own consumption.  Crazy.

UncleBeer

&gt;  which from that create problems!

The answer is Bruen. Ignoring the outcome of the case, Bruen was based on very inconsistent/arbitrary analagous reasoning. In announcing the new test for the 2nd amendment, Bruen offered no practical guidance to lower courts on how to apply the test. The result has been a huge mess across all federal circuits in the 2nd amendment field. There are only one or two cases I can think of which caused a similar level of mess and confusion in the federal courts as Bruen has.

pluraljuror

Kelo v. City of New London

The concept that the government can take private homes to give to a private company for the “public use” of comprehensive redevelopment. Cannot comprehend how redevelopment by a corporation fits into a public use but the court did.

Bonus Trump v United States

smile_drinkPepsi

Obergfell v. Hodges.

The Court should have relied primarily in the Equal Protection Clause rather than the Due Process Clause.

84JPG

*Myers v. United States* isn’t just bad, it's absolutely absurd. The Court twisted itself into knots to claim that Congress can't impose *any* limits on removal, even though the Constitution says literally nothing about how removals should work. The far more logical conclusion would have been that if an officer is appointed with Senate approval, they should be removed the same way: by the same mechanism that created the appointment. Instead, the Court read silence as license and handed the president an invented unilateral power. Even worse, it ignored the Take Care Clause, which actually points in the *opposite* direction: the president's job is to faithfully execute the laws, which includes respecting Congress's power to structure executive offices and set procedures for how they’re staffed or vacated. Myers flips that on its head and rewrites the Constitution to match a theory that never got ratified.

Such a baffling ruling by the Taft court, and bonkers that anyone today just believes that's what the founders intended.

miss_shivers

Shelby v. Holder, Trump v. Anderson, and Trump v. US.

cstar1996

Slaughterhouse Cases.

And it's not even close.

No other decision wipes out an entire clause of the Constitution (privileges &amp; immunities clause).....

Dave_A480

If I had to pick *only* one, it would be Pierson v. Ray. The rationale is completely made up, has led to the development of even more made up doctrines to insulate the government from accountability, which exacerbates the negative impacts from other horrible court decisions. 

Other notable contenders:
Shelby County (a VERY close second),
Trump v. U.S.,
Kelo,
Slaughterhouse Cases,
Insular Cases,
Terry v. Ohio,
California v. Acevedo,
Bush v. Gore,
Zelman v. Simmons

CommissionBitter452

Wickard v Filburn. They just decided to ignore 130 years of what "interstate commerce" meant in law to instead apply modern economic definitions to very tenuously create massive sections of the current government. Made even worse by it was a case not even about buying something, but rather not buying something so by plain reading there was no commerce involved, interstate or otherwise

Lamballama

I've always been very skeptical of _Bolling v. Sharpe_ and the whole reverse-incorporation thing it had going on even if I'm sympathetic to the point of the case. It was a different time...

I think the Federal Arbitration Act's interpretation has some clunkers, or at least the combination of two cases does. The FAA at 9 USC 2 says: "A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction ... shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract."

In _Allied-Bruce Terminix v. Dobson_ (1995) the Court construed this as extending to the furthest extent of Congress' commerce clause authority, because it governs any contract "involving commerce." This is so even if the meaning of interstate commerce had expanded since 1925, when the statute was enacted. Therefore, if Congress could itself regulate the activity underlying the contract under the commerce clause, then the FAA applies.

Then there's _Circuit City Stores v. Adams_ (2001). There, the Court considered another portion of the FAA, 9 USC 1, which was enacted contemporaneously with 9 USC 2 and excepts from the FAA "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." In that case, the Court considered that last phrase 'other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.' Unlike in _Dobson_, the Court in _Adams_ determined that Congress was not acting to the full extent of its commerce clause authority when it referenced 'foreign or interstate commerce' but instead was specifically referring to workers in the transportation industry. It's certainly plausible to read this as a list of worker-types, but it's also plausible to read the 1925 Congress as referring to a list of its authorities - Congress can specifically exercise authority over admiralty matters, as well as interstate and foreign commerce matters (with the railroads being the first huge interstate commerce industry regulated by Congress, and significantly more important in 1925).

The exact nine justices who decided _Dobson_ decided _Adams_, though the line-up was different. _Dobson_ was a Breyer decision, with dissents from Scalia and Thomas on non-merits grounds. _Adams_ was a 5-4 by Kennedy, with a conservative-liberal perfect split. That the same court decided both cases is just puzzling to me. If the two rulings were more consistent (whichever way that consistency goes) we'd probably have a much smaller arbitration docket every term, because the FAA would just apply to less things.

Also there's the original sin of the FAA: _Southland Corp. v. Keating_ (1984), where the Court held that the FAA applies in suits in state court, not just suits in federal court. Justice Thomas has argued for the overruling of that decision for now over 30 years, so I won't say much except to note his dissent in _Dobson_ above, where he persuasively explains why the FAA is a procedural statute and so only applies in federal court. (Or, even if it applies in state court, why specific performance is not a required remedy for a violation.)

jokiboi

*Trump v. United States*. Roberts obviously ruled the way he did because he wanted the decision of what happened to Trump to be left up to the democratic process. He did so with barely any real legal justification and explicitly chose to barely define official acts so it would drag out in the lower courts. I’m not one to say it was apocalyptic levels of bad, but it was certainly a mockery of the rule of law because Roberts wanted to fellate his own “institutionalist” inclinations.

I hold similar distaste for *Anderson* and how it jumped from striking down state enforced disqualification to ruling disqualification entirely non-justiciable. Two cases that make a mockery of conservative jurisprudence and affirm some of the worst caricatures of originalists.

Burrito_Fucker15

Ashbtw19937

Dangerous-Budget-337

RolandDeepson

I'll be contentious and say Brown v Board. 

Its good law, and was the correct outcome, but the way it got there left a lot to be desired. 

The Court never did anything to actually repudiate the doctrine of seperate but equal. They just used the same test that the previous court established in Plessy and re-did the fact finding part of the case. On top of that, the result was explicitly extremely narrow, only applying to seperate but equal as applied to the educational system.

ROSRS

Marbury. The court just invented judicial review. /s

Sad-Shake-6050

Hans v Louisiana gave me fits when I studied it in federal courts.

Edsgnat

Not sure if the worst, but Downes v. Bidwell and further Insular cases were certainly cases.

It is one of the cases that has Americans (please don't correct me over semantics if I am wrong, that isn't the point) not having several issues in their personal life.

Overlord_Of_Puns

&amp;nbsp;

&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;✨🍯 **[JOIN THE FAUXHIVE](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/)** 
&amp;nbsp;

&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
🐝 **[APPLY TO BEE A MOD](https://forms.gle/q6pahnN4SbJTfatL9)**    
                       
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
🌺 **[MAKE REDDIT PINK AGAIN](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/wiki/index/pink/)**    
            
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
🐦‍🔥 **[JOIN OUR FIRESIDE CHATS](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/?f=flair_name%3A%22FREE-FOR-ALL%22)**

&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
☘️ **[ENTER OUR POP CULTURE BINGO](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1h62mch/2025_pop_culture_predictions_bingo)**      
&amp;nbsp;

rfauxmoi

I honestly don’t know how we’re going to make it out of the next 4 years.

Lontology

I’m so glad my very happy marriage of 12 years is seen as something that can so easily be tossed aside by some religious freak that looks like she’s never been happy in her entire life.

I mean, anyone surprised by that was either wilfully ignorant or blind to what's going on. Even Justice Thomas gleefully talked about overturning that and Loving v. Virginia. This is on tract from Project 2025 and exactly what everyone told everybody else was gonna be the logical result of overturning Roe v. Wade

Morialkar

Cue my fucking heart sinking like a stone

Icy_Patience7557

We barely had nation-wide marriage equality for a decade. I am so fucking sad, man.

madatron96

Wait, I thought the US cared so much about LGBTQ rights that they justified a genocide in Gaza because of it? /s
Man, this world is going to shit. My heart is with the LGBTQ community.

Vivid_Frame3294

Wonder where all those people who said this wouldn't happen are.

Love to all of you Americans this will affect.  I'm so sorry.

redelectro7

Fuck this administration fuck the people who voted for this shit I’ll never forgive them. Remember this when the trials start who backed this administration too

https://preview.redd.it/x6ug6pc3ufif1.jpeg?width=480&amp;format=pjpg&amp;auto=webp&amp;s=ff5829748e002ca6d54edacd195e5fd977a3a9ea

Okay so we heading to Gilead

Lazy_Ad4370

Wow. Right on track, according to Project 2025. 

This tracker [https://www.project2025.observer/en](https://www.project2025.observer/en) shows the Trump administration is already almost half way through Project 2025 agenda.

west2night

I remember where I was when this was passed. What a dark day it is for America.

indicatprincess

It hasn’t even been a year since he took office.

whiskersRwe32

I don’t understand why Bob and Tim who live down the street getting married because they love each other is any of anyone business..

Spiritual-Permit-307

The article says it’s from that same goofy ass lady who refused to bake a cake for a LGBTQ couple a few years ago. She’s STILL at it. This is scary and after roe v wade was overturned people still loved to say liberals or the left are overreacting when we said same sex marriage and civil rights would be next.  Everyone that voted for this administration can go to hell

crystal_clear24

ddalk2

Who. The. Fuck. Is. Gay. Marriage. Harming.

The kind of people who are against Marriage equality are generally the ones who "joke" that they're trapped with their wife/husband forever and that they're miserable.

If you think Marriage is effectively misery, wouldn't you want us gays to also be miserable?

No one is forcing you to join the ceremony, in fact we encourage you to keep your hate as far away from us as possible.

TheCaffeineWriter

Overturning this is just pure evil. No one would benefit!

velnovel

If the Southern Baptist Convention can do this, they should be paying fucking taxes. This is abhorrent and rooted in hate, and the people behind it get to operate as a “charity”. Disgraceful.

butiamthechosenone

[https://www.justjared.com/2025/08/11/supreme-court-asked-to-overturn-landmark-same-sex-marriage-decision-for-first-time-since-2015/](https://www.justjared.com/2025/08/11/supreme-court-asked-to-overturn-landmark-same-sex-marriage-decision-for-first-time-since-2015/)

Enough-Positive8435

https://preview.redd.it/slxi0ns20gif1.png?width=1180&amp;format=png&amp;auto=webp&amp;s=0d20751da4992a309bc8cd4cdd0d2483f2cc294f

And then you have these idiots…

skos18

ovalplace123

OUtSEL

I literally started to read this and stopped breathing... This is so awful...

MediumDish4035

They probably won’t grant Cert and even if they did the questions in the brief give no pathway to explicitly overturning Obergefell. The dumb bitch cites unrelated case precedent to make the most godawful arguments too. I’m not saying it will never happen but this is the worst vehicle for them to do it with.

throwawaycountvon

For anyone interested here’s an [article from 2022 about states with trigger laws](https://www.lgbtmap.org/news/Marriage-Report-March-2022) and what happens when Obergefell falls. It’s extremely bleak.

Iwoulddiefcftbatk

![gif](giphy|ggHmCDJXx4om4hNWbM|downsized)

I hate it here. I don't understand how this is even allowed.

Bidetpanties

We all knew this would happen. Unfortunately, lots of politicians wanted this to happen or tolerated it happening to get something else they wanted.

DrFranFine

Delicious-Freedom-56

lobsterp0t

OrdinaryExample9618

"How can i hurt other people with things that don't affect me at all", part 3,472,143

mekke10

The more this goes on, the more the only language they understand is violence.

BladeRunner_Deckard

riverwatcher69

I can’t believe anyone gives a fucking shit who gets a cake. I’m going to lose my mind.

ohyoshimi

I will never fucking forgive the people who voted for that prick.

montilyetsss

So what's going to happen if it is overturned? Everyone thats been married will have their marriage automatically nullified?

Rinmine014

i hope all the gay republicans who voted for trump are happy now!! you did it!! you saved america!!!

toasterbath__

In his opinion on Dodds Clarence Thomas wrote specifically about Obergefell, Lawrence (decriminalized homosexuality) and Griswold (right to privacy). Of course he left off Loving because that would affect him and his marriage. 

He spelled it all out. They just need the cases. The decision is made.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/clarence-thomas-roe-griswold-lawrence-obergefell.html

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/24/roe-wade-clarence-thomas-contraception-same-sex-marriage/

Afwife1992

Well why stop there? 

Nobody over 40 should be allowed to get married either. Your best days are over. What’s the point?

Nobody fat or ugly should be allowed to get married. Nobody wants to see that. Nobody wants to watch people like you celebrate or be happy. You’re supposed to go home and hide. 

Interracial marriages are nothing but sexual fetishes that we should not be celebrating. Next thing you know people are going to want to get married to goats or cows or pigs. 

So as mean-spirited as those examples are? That is what being gay is like, and hearing what people think of our relationships and the legitimacy of our community. You think hearing this for decades has made our community a healthy one where marriages are flourishing? 

Here’s a news flash: hardly any gay people are even meeting *at all* - like even to date. 

Marriage? For probably 80% of us, that’s never going to happen. 

This community is far too damaged by the rhetoric from straight society over the years. That doesn’t just go away with the snap of a finger and all of a sudden we can legally get married! 

Where are we supposed to meet each other? How do you start dating in middle age when you’ve never even met someone before? 

This is why marriage needs to be legal for another 50 years before we see a difference. 

Straight people created such a hateful society that the damage they’ve done won’t be cleaned up in our lifetime. So I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise that these people are trying to outlaw it after only ten years. 

Made no difference to me &amp; none of the other gay people I knew got married or even met anyone over the last 10 years either. 

How about more resources on how to find and have lasting relationships? That’s something we could actually use!

jl56649

Successful-Cry-7123

Not this fucking Kim Davis shitscum again

Majestic-Two3474

I'm so sorry to you folks in America dealing with this utter bollocks.

Sleepysleepychick

First it was trans people, then the “immigrants”, now it’s gay marriage. Any guess on when it’ll be black people next? 3-4 months? JFC. Speed run of hatred.

To the Five people who have downvoted me, really? do you think they won’t go there? They’ve already floated removing women from voting.

Totally forgot they already mentioned “getting rid of all the lunatic lefties” too.

bforce1313

ElBorracho2000

I fucking called this of course. Anyone with a brain would. But what will this mean for federal taxes and forn people who received their citizenship through a same-sex marriage? Fucking chaos, that's what.

insertbrackets

Wonder what the gay republicans have to say ?

unretrofiedforyou

Extra_Fig_7547

Love all the Trump supporters who laughed at us saying we were overreacting and people’s rights wouldn’t be taken away 😒

EndsWhereItBegins

My parents enthusiastically voted for the Republican Party in the last election, even with me warning and pleading that those votes could lead to my marriage becoming invalid. 

My stepmom said that gay marriage wasn’t in any threat at alll. My Dad replied “You and (my husband) would still love each other.”

After the election we decided it was best for our relationship with them to end, as we couldn’t spend the next 4+ normalizing their (and Trump’s) values and ethics. 

I can only hope they see this headline too.

Lances_Looky_Loo

ionbear1

Sounds like these republicans are thinking about gay sex A LOT 🤔

Impossible-Gur-8073

Sounds to me like his “newly unveiled criminal indictment” has been trumped up by the trump DOJ… I’m sure they just cut a deal with one of real criminals charged so they could get the final say on this man’s life. I hope they all burn in hell for what they are doing and getting away with.

SenseAndSensibility_

The Supreme Court needs to fear consequences again. They should be protested 24/7.

OrganicDoom2225

Corrupt SC justices headed by Roberts.

In other countries, they would have been impeached right away.

They have been paid by the tax payer's money to protect only one man- Donald Trump. Not our constitution .

I can safely say that the SC justices are helping Trump terrorize our country to form an authoritarian form of government so they could enrich themselves for years.

reddittorbrigade

I can only hope that, someday, we shall have a second set of Nuremberg trials for all of these evil bastards.

anrwlias

Expand the court. I don't care if republicans can get in and expand it more, who cares, have 500 Supreme Court justices. It's clear there's zero diversity of thought and the majority has a very clear agenda that has no basis in law.

FlaccidEggroll

I mean. They've made this decision which undermines; I say violates; the law so I say to them if there is no law protecting those people then there is no law protecting us. With that understanding there is no law let alone one protecting them. They're gonna wanna fix this before they lose their protections under the law.

The Supreme Court has made several important rulings affecting illegal firearms and drug policies, influencing significant legal precedents.

Supreme Court Decisions

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want