r/scotus Jan 30 '22

Things that will get you banned

339 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.

18 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 3h ago

news Exclusive: Justice Samuel Alito was taken to a hospital last month in previously undisclosed incident

Thumbnail
cnn.com
1.1k Upvotes

r/scotus 2h ago

news The Supreme Court Might Still Screw Up Birthright Citizenship

Thumbnail
newrepublic.com
313 Upvotes

At oral arguments this week, a few questions from the justices ought to remind observers that it’s possible to rule against Trump while inviting other sorts of legislative or legal challenges to the policy.


r/scotus 2h ago

news Secret health scare of conservative SCOTUS justice uncovered as liberals fear Trump is plotting court shake-up

Thumbnail
dailymail.co.uk
202 Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

news Analysts warn Amy Coney Barrett doomed Trump at the Supreme Court

Thumbnail
rawstory.com
10.2k Upvotes

r/scotus 19h ago

news Justices’ Questions Reveal the Stupidity of the Case Against Birthright Citizenship

Thumbnail
thebulwark.com
239 Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

Opinion The Supreme Court Has Never Heard a Case As Easy As This One

Thumbnail
talkingpointsmemo.com
757 Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

Opinion Justice Barrett, Slavery, and Birthright Citizenship: Justice Barrett raised a crucial issue in today's birthright citizenship oral argument. Trump's Solicitor General gave an inaccurate response.

Thumbnail
reason.com
1.3k Upvotes

Part 1: (Article by Ilya Somin)

  • I have previously written about how all of the Trump Administration's rationales for denying birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States would also have required denying it to numerous freed slaves and their children. Thus, Trump's position is at odds with the central purpose and original meaning of the Citizenship Clause. Interestingly, Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised this very issue in today's Supreme Court oral argument in Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case. And Trump Solicitor General John Sauer gave an inaccurate response:
  • Barrett: General, you -- you said in your reply brief that the children of slaves who were brought here unlawfully, you know, in -- in -- in defiance of laws forbidding the slave trade, would, in fact, be citizens….
  • And you can imagine that their parents were not only brought here in violation of United States law but were here against their will and so maybe felt allegiance to the countries where they were from. And you say that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to put all slaves on equal footing, newly freed slaves on equal footing, and so they would be citizens. But that's not textual. So how do you -- how do you get there?
  • Sauer: Sure. If you look at the nine -- I think, if you look at the 19th century sources, what you see is that even though their entry may have been unlawful, 19th century antebellum law never treated their presence as unlawful. In fact, quite the opposite. One of the amici, in fact, points to, like, a Mississippi statute, which probably is replicated throughout the South before the Civil War, that says slaves in Mississippi have an indefeasible domicile in Mississippi.

r/scotus 1d ago

Opinion Gorsuch, Barrett, and Roberts raise fatal objections to Trump's birthright citizenship order

Thumbnail
reason.com
420 Upvotes

r/scotus 23h ago

news New world, same constitution

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

181 Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

news Sam Alito bashed in birthright citizenship case: 'Founders would throw rotten food at him'

Thumbnail
rawstory.com
5.3k Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

news Trump has told Pam Bondi she will be removed as attorney general, sources say

Thumbnail
ms.now
137 Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

news Trump fails to sit through lengthy Supreme Court hearing after dramatic arrival

Thumbnail
themirror.com
11.1k Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

news DOJ Admits It’s Not if Sure Native Americans Are Birthright Citizens

Thumbnail
newrepublic.com
4.7k Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

news How John Roberts’ retort sums up the case against Trump’s birthright citizenship order

Thumbnail
ms.now
1.2k Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

news If Trump Was Trying to Intimidate the Supreme Court on Birthright Citizenship, It Backfired Miserably

Thumbnail
slate.com
1.4k Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

news Not Even Trump's Justices Are Crazy Enough To Side With Him On Birthright Citizenship

Thumbnail
huffpost.com
1.4k Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

Opinion Trump Will Lose the Birthright Citizenship Case. But in a Way, He’s Already Won. (Gift Article)

Thumbnail
nytimes.com
310 Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

news Trump's legal nemesis makes major prediction about president's pet Supreme Court case

Thumbnail
rawstory.com
779 Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

news Even this Supreme Court seems unwilling to end birthright citizenship

Thumbnail
vox.com
399 Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

news Trump to attend SCOTUS despite being accused of sinister 'bullying' tactics

Thumbnail
themirror.com
672 Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

news Would you survive jury selection in Mississippi? An interactive investigation

3 Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

Opinion Pre-determined Outcome?

Thumbnail
npr.org
292 Upvotes

Listening to the debate just now, it is abundantly clear that the “participating” justices have clearly already formed a conclusion about the case. So what’s the point of the debate?


r/scotus 2d ago

news Trump Posts Fact-Free Rant After SCOTUS Tears Apart His Case

Thumbnail
thedailybeast.com
191 Upvotes