Public sentiment is mixed regarding the Supreme Court's directive to expedite trials for heinous crimes. While some praise the initiative for promoting timely justice and express hope for systemic improvements, others are critical, viewing the directive as politically motivated and questioning its effectiveness in addressing core judicial issues. A significant portion of the commentary reflects a deep mistrust in the judiciary, particularly regarding its impartiality and political affiliations.

Supreme Court

Political Parties

Judiciary

I think the problem people have with the supreme court is when it doesn't align with their personal morals not realizing the supreme court is supposed to judge whether the action is law abiding and constitutional.

Captain_Crapout

Personal preference. The court is currently 6-3 in favor of GOP appointees, therefore "illegitimate" if you are a democrat.

Lucky-Hunter-Dude

According to democrats, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the government as a whole only depends on whether or not they disagree with their decisions.

If they agree with the courts, legislature, and president, they bend over backwards for the government.

If they don’t, it’s an evil Nazi fascist regime.

Upriver-Cod

Supreme Court appointments shouldn’t be able to be confirmed on partisan votes. We’re a long way from the representation the founders imagined.

United-Ad5268

The law in the US is built upon presidency where all cases are the foundation for later cases. The supreme decider of that is the supreme court. Now normally in cases of settled law there is no question as that brings so much more chaos and we can just go forward knowing everything. Its a very conservative (meaning slow to change) approch. 

What these supreme court justices are doing is disrupting all of those cases and throwing 90+ years of settle cases into the wind. They are being more like the activist judges they claim to hate than the activit judges they claim to hate. This chaos is happening but in a predictable manner, in the way that best suits the republican party with very few exceptions. This is why people say its illegitimate. 

As for the other question... I dont think there is a way to measure it. Does the court practice the English style of law like 49 states do? Do they constantly question settled law in a way that strictly favors one side? 

This isnt to say settled law should never be overturned but it should never be overturned with as much ease as it is. Several times through history settled law was overturned but then it became settled. Law is a fascinating subject.

[deleted]

When a judge broadcasts how they will rule before a case is even before them, they are illegitimate.

Justice requires a neutral arbiter, not a biased one.

ericbythebay

We have at some corrupt justices. 

1. [Justice Thomas is bought like a cheap trinket at a garage sale](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/09/04/clarence-thomas-here-are-all-the-ethics-scandals-involving-the-supreme-court-justice-amid-new-ginni-thomas-report/)

2. [Justice Alito is a Christian Nationalist shit stain](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/flag-associated-with-christian-nationalism-flown-at-alitos-beach-house-report-says)

jdtrouble

Legitimacy isn’t about liking or disliking rulings. A court loses it when people see it as partisan, secretive, and aligned with power - and that’s exactly where the Supreme Court has now drifted. Under Trump’s second term, justices still refuse to recuse from battles tied to political interests while taking luxury gifts and perks from billionaire benefactors.

Clarence Thomas has accepted years of undisclosed vacations, private jet flights, and favorable real estate deals with donor Harlan Crow. Alito took a billionaire-funded fishing trip and later ruled in cases touching that same donor’s interests. These are not quirks - there are dozens of cases of justices taking favors from the same class of people their decisions end up protecting.

Then there’s the *shadow docket* - a backdoor emergency process the Court uses to push through major policies with minimal explanation or hearing. In 2025, the Court has ruled in Trump’s favor in 21 of 23 emergency cases via that route, allowing sweeping actions (like withholding foreign aid or approving deportations) before full review.  When you combine that with moves like striking down protections for independent agencies and embracing broader presidential immunity, and the hyper-accelerated confirmations that locked in a conservative supermajority, it’s no wonder people see this Court as illegitimate.

When justices take gifts from billionaires, rule in the shadows, and reshape the game in favor of power, it stops being a court and starts looking like a tool for power.

TechFlow33

It's not legitimate because it's openly partisan. The same would be the case of a court with a strong and obvious left bias causing them to overturn long held legal precedence in that direction. 

Jswazy

Are there 9?  Function as intended?  Objective, not subjective.

JagR286211

Conservatives have long pushed the idea that liberal judges in the court are "activists". That said, reasoning that each judge presents for a ruling, itself speaks volumes about their legitimacy. The fact that we have a Supreme Court that has assumed a position that the President is immune, is in NO WAY legitimate defender of the US Constitution. And that is before we consider individual justices that we already know which way they will go on any case.

TheWizard

If your are giving powers to the president not in the constitution, or blatantly against the constitution, you are illegitimate.


The Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to federal officials, including the president, prohibiting them from accepting money or gifts from foreign governments unless they receive permission from Congress.


SCOTUS said the people filing suit didn't have grounds to sue. When people with grounds to sue did, SCOTUS said the issue was moot because he no longer was president and refused to consider the suit.

tbodillia

To sort this thread by 'best comments first', [click or tap here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1nzgiaf/discussion_thread_us_supreme_court_hears_oral/?sort=confidence).

To sort this thread by 'newest comments first', [click or tap here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1nzgiaf/discussion_thread_us_supreme_court_hears_oral/?sort=new).

PoliticsModeratorBot

Can someone ELI5?

Is this all regarding how quickly immigrants can be processed and deported?

internetdeadaf

&gt;Issue: Whether a trial court abridges a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess.

Okay first of all calling your defendant as a witness is usually stupid unless you're Phoenix Wright-levels of sure that they're innocent, but I see no reason why a defendant shouldn't be able to discuss anything and everything with their own lawyer.

Schiffy94

I am surprised they hear cases during the shutdown

shadowdra126

I'd love a more nuanced discussion on the pros and cons to each option. At first glance, if the court is in recess why would it be inappropriate for an attorney to be able to discuss the trial with their client?

kidcrumb


As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. 

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

 For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
 
 We are actively looking for new moderators.  If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
 

***


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

AutoModerator

The explanation is simple, they’re corrupt.

JH_Edits

So all the bullshit about how they can’t influence the Supreme Court to get progressive ideas passed was bullshit. 

LulzLookatTheseNoobs

What explanation were you expecting? They legalized racial profiling. You think they have some way of justifying that under the law? Come on.

Wrong_Confection1090

There needs to be a French style thingy. Like quickly. Before they get us into a nuclear war.

Conscious_Problem924

Of course they did. They are Trump's bitches now. They do whatever he tells them to.

backpackwayne

The same scotus who will then do book tours and interviews saying how they are so transparent and how everyone should stop saying they are biased

Savagevandal85

As soon as the opportunity arises, every justice who signed an unexplained Supreme Court decision should be impeached and removed, for that and that alone.

ocschwar

Supreme Court again does not believe we deserve an explanation.

Chance_Warthog_9389

In short, Stop-and-Frisk will soon become policy.

notnri

It is so they can avoid making a precedent setting ruling that a Democratic President might take advantage to say, I don't know, cut the entire budget of the Supreme Court as a for example. 

It is plain political gamesmanship. The Supreme Court is helplessly corrupt and if we ever actually get another election the first order of business is some investigations and impeachments.

Leucippus1

It’s obvious that they on the Epstein list and getting blackmailed.

Myheelcat

at this point it's a waste of energy to keep coming up with BS excuses

JaVelin-X-

The reason is always the same, To bring about the white male fascist takeover the country.

rewardingsnark

Hisuinooka

Just doing what the boss wants. No explanation needed.

&gt;Boss Paul: That ditch is Boss Kean's ditch. And I told him that dirt in it's your dirt. What's your dirt doin' in his ditch?

&gt; Luke: I don't know, Boss.

&gt; Boss Paul: You better get in there and get it out, boy.

pgm_01

Because some may be in the EPSTEIN files  plus corruption for sure

missgrinchfeet

Minute-Plantain

They are in Trump's rule — he's got something on the vast majority of them.

invalidpassword

Why should they? They and Trump are lords, you and I are peasants.

AdHopeful3801

The headline and the whole articles refuse to acknowledge clearly that this and other shadow docket decisions are straightly partisan. It’s true that Supreme Court decided but it is not clearly stated that all these are decided purely from republican justices votes which unanimous opposition from democratic justices.

spa22lurk

Empty robes and rubber stamps, nothing more. “Supreme” court my ass

powderedmilf

We should expel ice from blue states and give no explanation.

availablelol

New constitution. Only option when this is all over.

yesrushgenesis2112

The 6 MAGA members are neither justices nor part of the Supreme Court. They are simply rubber stamps. 

If the Dems retake Congress in 26, all of them should be impeached. And at least two should face trial someday for their corruption.

Depressed-Industry

Fun3mployed

No-Scar8782

Non American here.  Why is this “shadow docket” thing legal?  Seems pretty shady (pun not intended)

JoopahTroopah

Conservative SCOTUS are clearly MAGA zealots. They are not upholding America Laws specifically for Trump. Ivy Tower and rich, Amy Barrett said she couldn't even answer a question if something Trump does is illegal or Un-Constitutional without having a case file in front of her face first.  She appeared pretty smug about it.

yorapissa

Traditional-Dig-9982

At this point, it’s pretty much an open secret that the Supreme Court is now controlled by the far right.

SheriffWyattDerp

Relevant_Device_3958

He’s our king and we obey his whining requests.

Senior-bud

Anther big win for Trump, hats off Americans

Alwaystired254

We are no longer a democracy so no explanation is needed or required.  Isn’t hard to understand.

*Ex parte Quirin* is if not the winner for shortest in the running for close and famous for the timeline it was decided on.

The arrests were in June of 1942 and by July a military tribunal had already been conducted and appealed to SCOTUS and the decision handed down July 31 with full written opinions in October (multiple executions were carried out before the October opinion was formally released after the July announcement).

doubleadjectivenoun

Brown v Bd of Education was re-argued, which delayed it a year. Then after the first decision, the remedies case was argued again.

TimSEsq

The "Pentagon papers" case in 1971 was a fast decision: 

[https://famous-trials.com/ellsberg/277-chronology](https://famous-trials.com/ellsberg/277-chronology) 

Exert: 

||
||
|June 26, 1971|The day after granting the government's (in the Post case) and the New York Times's appeal petitions, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in New York Times v United States, raising the question of whether the First Amendment allows an injunction (prior restraint) to be entered against newspapers seeking to publish the Pentagon Papers.|
|June 28, 1971|Ellsberg surrenders to arrest at the federal courthouse in Boston. A grand jury in Los Angeles indicts Daniel Ellsberg for theft and espionage....E. Howard Hunt writes a memo to Nixon aide Chuck Colson headed "Neutralization of Ellsberg." The memo proposes building a file of damning material about Ellsberg to destroy his credibility. Among the memo's suggestions: "Obtain Ellsberg's files from his psychiatric analysis."|
|Jhttps://famous-trials.com/ellsberg/277-chronologyune 30, 1971|The U. S. Supreme Court announces its decision in the Pentagon Papers cases. In a per curium decision, the Court rules that the government did not meet its burden for a prior restraint under the First Amendment. Three justices dissent, arguing that the Court rushed to judgment and thus endangered national security.June 26, 1971	The day after granting the government's (in the Post case) and the New York Times's appeal petitions, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in New York Times v United States, raising the question of whether the First Amendment allows an injunction (prior restraint) to be entered against newspapers seeking to publish the Pentagon Papers.June 28, 1971	Ellsberg surrenders to arrest at the federal courthouse in Boston. A grand jury in Los Angeles indicts Daniel Ellsberg for theft and espionage....E. Howard Hunt writes a memo to Nixon aide Chuck Colson headed "Neutralization of Ellsberg." The memo proposes building a file of damning material about Ellsberg to destroy his credibility. Among the memo's suggestions: "Obtain Ellsberg's files from his psychiatric analysis."June 30, 1971	The U. S. Supreme Court announces its decision in the Pentagon Papers cases. In a per curium decision, the Court rules that the government did not meet its burden for a prior restraint under the First Amendment. Three justices dissent, arguing that the Court rushed to judgment and thus endangered national security.|

naked_nomad

What do you think is the biggest, most significant issue to face the country that has NOT yet been tested in the Supreme Court?

EDIT TO ADD:  Actually, I'd be interested in hearing *some* of the issues, not just one.  :)

MaxSupernova

Hello Professor! Thanks for taking some time to answer questions. Are there any cases, in your list or otherwise, that you would say have “underrated” impacts? In other words, is there a case that you believe is particularly more important than it might initially seemed, or a case that you believe will have large long term
impacts that have not yet been realized? Thanks!

tosh_pt_2

I'm interested in why no Euclid vs. Ambler, considering the impact it's had on American Land Use and Zoning for nearly 100 years? Are its effects covered in other cases?

Alors_cest_sklar

Why did you leave out :

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc

Seems like a very important case

SCOTUS recently heard oral arguments around two relatively high-profile cases involving sex discrimination: Bostock v. Clayton County, and R.G. &amp; G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC. In Part IX of your 100 cases, you bring up 5 cases that are no more recent than 1996. Do you see these two recent sex discrimination cases as being monumental enough to make their way onto your list?

Resvrgam2

Has the general opinion regarding Buck v Bell shifted over time, and do you ever see it being overturned?

Thanks for this AMA.

betweentwosuns

*Disclaimer: I am mostly ignorant on SCOTUS ruling, impacts, and history despite their impacts*

What makes these 100 cases worthy of being ones "everyone should know"?

Of these cases, which are examples of "bad" outcomes. For example, [Burwell v Hobby Lobby 'belief' apparently overruling facts](https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-me-ra-craziest-thing-about-hobby-lobby-20140630-column.html). Is that even a bad outcome? Is it even relevant?       
Or something like Dred Scott where I've heard the dissents had greater influence/value than the ruling itself.

snowseth

I have a super obscure question:

Do you think the 1876-77 Electoral Commission, which joined 5 members of the House, 5 members of the Senate, and 5 Supreme Court justices to referee the claims of dueling slates of electors from 3 states with disputed elections was constitutional?  Is it permissible to put members of the Congress and the Judiciary onto a joint body like that?

Edit to add source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Commission_(United_States)

huadpe

Could you explain the RFRA and its impacts on court cases?  I did some googling and it seems confusing that sometimes it applies, sometimes it doesn't, as it seems plainly unconstitutional.

**/r/NeutralPolitics is a curated space.** 

In order not to get your comment removed, please familiarize yourself with our [rules on commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules) before you participate:

1. Be courteous to other users.
1. Source your facts.
1. Put thought into it.
1. Address the arguments, not the person.

If you see a comment that violates any of these essential rules, click the associated *report* link so mods can attend to it.

However, please note that the mods will not remove comments reported for lack of neutrality or poor sources. There is [no neutrality requirement for comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_neutral-ness) in this subreddit — it's only the *space* that's neutral — and a poor source should be countered with evidence from a better one.


*Special AMA note*

This is an AMA authorized by the mod team.  Prof. Blackman is a professor of constitutional law at South Texas College of Law and has been an AMA guest here [in the past.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/53hdyw/i_am_josh_blackman_constitutional_law_professor/)

He has indicated to the mods he will begin answering questions around 4pm ET.

**All top level comments should have a question for Prof. Blackman.**

Prof Blackman has finished answering questions.  Thanks to him for participating and to our users for their questions!

Could you talk a little about how the various Supreme Courts have viewed the Constitution in terms of flexibility of interpretation? Do modern courts extrapolate more, or stay more rigid? How that's evolved the centuries is interesting to me, and I don't know anything about it.

iNuzzle

Professor,  
I'm interested in how you approach analyzing your own stance/view on particular cases and developing doctrine.  
I was wondering what source most informs your particular "opinions?"  
I say opinions because of your handful of amicus briefs that I am familiar with.

What were your criteria for choosing? Obviously there are a *ton* of important cases. I always thought *National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie* was the most important case most people haven't heard of but maybe that is because I'm a Chicagoan.

mkvgtired

Purely as a matter of appellate advocacy (and not for any value for political posturing), how terrible/self-defeating/cringeworthy was the amicus filed by the Democratic senators in the New York gun case?

thesplenda

I know you're involved in litigation around the country regarding DefCAD. I haven't seen much news on these cases lately. Where are you at with them?

RoundSimbacca

In recent years, I have seen more and more scholars come to the conclusion that Roe v. Wade set a painfully poor constitutional precedent for Supreme Court powers. To what extent do you agree or disagree with that statement, ignoring the issue of abortion entirely?

James_Locke

I just want to voice my approval about the inclusion of the Penn Central case. Absolutely vital to the creation of historic preservation commissions and districts. What were your reasons for including this case?

What do you personally feel is the most important case the Supreme Court has heard in the past 20 years?

FlyingPeacock

Do you think the Justices by requesting the parties be prepared to discuss the issue of mootness in  NY Rifle v. NY are lending credibility to the argument or are they just attempting to appease a certain audience (or other Justices)?

Madisonian88

Which case is the 101st case that I should know?

Do you see a more restrictive interpretation of the commerce clause as likely to arise?  i.e. in our lifetimes and more than 50/50.

What are your odds on NYSRPA v CNY being found moot?

tzonesharderer

Hi Professor Blackman, I want to thank you for posting all your lectures on youtube--they're a great resource for everyone and I appreciate your openness. Could you share what advice you would give to undergraduate students who want to go to law school. What kind of prep work and studies should they do? I'm fond of Justice Frankfurter's advice (albeit to a younger child) of focusing on broader studies, but at some point students need to commit, so I'm curious what advice you would give.

psilar

What do you think will be the outcome in the nyc 2a case? Could lower courts rule other gun control laws uncontitutional. Could they reinforce the ruling in heller?

samjohnson998877

If the WH continues to defy subpoenas and this makes its way to the Supreme Court, are there any other cases that have set a precedent? And what would be the constitutional implications of such a case?

Thank you for this research! Con law was my favorite class in college. 

Why do you see a case a one of the 100 most important when its ruling no longer applies to constitutional law? For example, the first case on your list, Chisholm v Georgia, establishes a precedent that was then overruled by the 11th amendment - why is this a case we need to know then?

theflyinginger

Is there any merit to the common second amendment argument that every single male in the United States is a member of the militia and therefore entitled to bear arms? If I recall correctly, it's based off an obscure ruling made in the early 1900s that was not constitutionally ratified nor put into wide practice, yes?

VortexMagus

What do you believe the meaning of this statement made in Chrisholm vs Georgia to be?

&gt;Suffice it at present to say that another principle, very different in its nature and operations, forms, in my judgment, the basis of sound and genuine jurisprudence; laws derived from the pure source of equality and justice must be founded on the CONSENT of those whose obedience they require. The sovereign, when traced to his source, must be found in the man.

rea1l1

I'm trying to purchase but I am unable because I am located in the UK. Am I unable to view your work?

Adhesiveduck

Are all supreme court cases online? Searchable text or images of the original text?

OMG_GOP_WTF

What Supreme Court case do you feel that everyone should know for the importance of it?

Currently looking at Democratic Party and the data for future voting results do you believe that in the next 20-30 years a case for hate speech will arise and end with a some sort of hate speech law?

TicStackToe

What are your thoughts on Santa Clara Co. vs. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)? Not the opinion itself but the assumptions behind it, that the Equal Protection Clause applied to corporations. How did this 'non-opinion" morph into a settled precedent?

spike

Hello professor and thanks.

Which of these cases which have not been overturned yet have the greatest chance of being overturned by a future court? I expect Roe v Wade is the obvious answer, so if that is it, what would be next?

TheCenterOfEnnui

Do you think that people (such as anarchists) who say that our institutions (such as the supreme court) are too much flawed and should be rethinked are being delusional idiots ?

No *Reynolds v. Sims*?  

In my humble opinion, this case in particular has caused great harm to the American Republic, and has gone a long ways into provoking animosity at the State and National Levels.

The framers of the US Constitution realized that State representation needed balance between big States and small ones, and was smart enough to build the Senate (even representation) and House (proportional representation) to separate powers and provide checks and balances.  This separation of powers coming from Montesquieu who saw what happened in pre-Revolutionary France.

Reynolds v. Sims effectively made it impossible for States to bridge their rural/urban divides along long-standing county lines.  In an ideal state, the counties would be represented by 2 Senators, and apportioned by population for the Lower House.  Instead, both Upper and Lower Houses are proportioned by population.

This ends up meaning in both hard-core RED and BLUE states that urban centers end up dictating a lot of State policy, creating animosity between cities and the surrounding areas.  

If we didn't have Harold v. Sims, state politics would be less one-sided, and would allow some level of competition across the rural-urban divide to achieve an agenda.  If the Democrats wanted to push a platform, they would need to make it applicable to the rural population and urban population at large.

It's a real tragedy honestly, rooted mainly in a poor decision by a 1960s activist court.  It's made the nation a lot worse off, and should another civil war happen, be one of the root causes.

-----------------------------------------------------

**Now for my question:** Do you feel that Reynolds V. Sims was a decision marred by a unilateral focus in civil rights?  It's my impression the Court was very myopic in deciding this on the humorous assumption that one man = one vote.  Do you also feel there was a way for this decision to maintain a separation of powers?  Perhaps ensuring more equal proportional representation in the lower house, but also ensuring the upper house couldn't restructure itself once set?

AdwokatDiabel

The Supreme Court of India has directed the Union government to establish a mechanism for expediting trials in heinous crimes, particularly those handled by the NIA.

Supreme Court's Directive on Timely Trials in Heinous Crimes

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want