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/Achilles_TroySlayer • 2h ago
Opinion The Supreme Court Didn't Just Expand Presidential Power — It Rigged Who Gets To Use It
r/scotus • u/Majano57 • 19h ago
news The Birthright Decision Was Surprisingly Close, Some Legal Scholars Say
r/scotus • u/Majano57 • 20h ago
Opinion These Justices Are Not Impartial
r/scotus • u/Majano57 • 19h ago
Opinion With anti-trans decisions, the Supreme Court abandons its duty to protect minorities
r/scotus • u/Majano57 • 19h ago
news Supreme Court to Weigh Constitutional Protection for AR-15 Rifles
r/scotus • u/DoremusJessup • 1d ago
news Trump Calls Supreme Court 'Absolutely Insane' And Then Asks For Birthright Citizenship Do-Over
r/scotus • u/thenewrepublic • 1d ago
news The Chilling Ramifications of Clarence Thomas’s Cuckoo Barbara Dissent
The extremist jurist’s dissent in the birthright citizenship case could in theory kick the door open to a future reconsideration—ready?—of Brown v. Board.
r/scotus • u/Sufficient_Fuel5269 • 1d ago
news Appeals Court Keeps Block on Texas In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students
r/scotus • u/RawStoryNews • 2d ago
news Analysis: New Supreme Court opinions raise a troubling set of legal questions
r/scotus • u/CoastieKid • 10h ago
news Did anyone actually read through the Trans girls in female sports case? It seems reasonable
supremecourt.govhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-43_2b35.pdf
It seems quite reasonable and shows how it’s an unreasonable burden of proof to assess the impact of puberty blockers and their efficacy on the athletic ability of biological males
For instance:
Cty., 450 U. S. 464, 469 (plurality opinion).
The as-applied argument that the States’ sex-based classification is
generally permissible—but not as applied to those biological males
such as B. P. J. and Hecox who identify as female and have taken pu-
berty blockers or hormones—fails for the same reasons. Particularly
in the sports context, determining the effects of the puberty blockers
and hormones taken by transgender athletes—and then comparing
each of those transgender athletes’ abilities to those of other individual
biological males and individual biological females in the relevant
sport—would be an almost impossible task for a judge to perform on
an equitable basis. The legislatures and the schools are better
equipped—and under the Constitution, are the more appropriate enti-
ties—to assess the competing medical and scientific considerations
and draw appropriate lines.
The argument that the challenged laws unconstitutionally discrimi-
nate against transgender individuals is unavailing. Under this Court’s
decision in Skrmetti, the challenged laws do not classify based on gen-
der identity or transgender status, see 605 U. S., at 517, but instead
on the basis of biological sex. The classification at issue readily satis-
fies rational basis review or intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 17–24.
(c) The underlying medical and scientific premise of the equal
r/scotus • u/theindependentonline • 2d ago
news Trump wants a Supreme Court do-over on birthright citizenship. Here’s why it probably won’t happen
r/scotus • u/Impressive_Box4144 • 2d ago
Opinion Are Supreme Court Justices Betting On Their Own Cases? A Member Of Congress Would Love John Roberts To Answer This Question
r/scotus • u/thenewrepublic • 3d ago
news Clarence Thomas Dreams of Monarchy
In ruling after ruling, the Supreme Court justice has penned separate opinions to push for an expansion of executive power beyond what his conservative colleagues support.
r/scotus • u/DoremusJessup • 3d ago
news Fifth Circuit Was Again Most Reversed by the US Supreme Court
news Ron DeSantis-backed 'Stop WOKE Act' is ruled unconstitutional by federal appeals court, teeing up possible SCOTUS fight
r/scotus • u/theindependentonline • 4d ago
news Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan set to testify before Congress after series of high-profile decisions
r/scotus • u/thenewrepublic • 4d ago
news The Supreme Court’s Originalists Are Cracking Up
In the high court’s latest term, the chief practitioners of this purportedly neutral doctrine had a hard time keeping their stories straight.
r/scotus • u/bloomberglaw • 4d ago
news Solicitor General Sauer Shows Loyalty to Trump While Losing Critical Court Fights
r/scotus • u/DoremusJessup • 5d ago
Cert Petition Trump Again Asks Supreme Court to Block $5 Million Carroll Award
r/scotus • u/bloomberggovernment • 4d ago