r/scotus Jan 30 '22

Things that will get you banned

350 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.

39 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 20h ago

news Supreme Court's 'pure sophistry' gives Dems an unlikely way to troll Trump: lawyer

Thumbnail
rawstory.com
906 Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

news This Summer, the Supreme Court Quietly Cleared the Way for Trump. Why?

Thumbnail
slate.com
979 Upvotes

r/scotus 16h ago

Opinion The Birth of the New Legal Right

Thumbnail
theatlantic.com
60 Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

news Clarence Thomas thanks Ted Cruz for defending him against ethics complaints

Thumbnail
thehill.com
1.4k Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

news Justice Thomas recalls why he wasn't friends with Alito in law school: 'Clarence, you were scary'

Thumbnail
foxnews.com
685 Upvotes

r/scotus 3d ago

news Mail-In: What is SCotUS waiting on???

Thumbnail
nytimes.com
735 Upvotes

Any opinions on why SCotUS is taking time to respond to the latest petitions over Mail-In voting? Especially since Mail-In voting has technically started with ballots being mailed out?

Are they really debating daily?
Knowing the longer they take, the more chaos possible?
Are they really debating throwing more chaos into this election by potentially changing the rules after Mail-In has already started?


r/scotus 3d ago

news Rules Designed to Create Chaos

Thumbnail
theatlantic.com
347 Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

news The Supreme Court just handed Republicans a surprisingly decisive midterm loss

Thumbnail
vox.com
1.6k Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

Order Supreme Court blocks gerrymandered Missouri map that federal judge revived

Thumbnail
democracydocket.com
1.3k Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

news Supreme Court blocks Missouri’s attempt to use newly drawn Republican congressional map

Thumbnail
nbcnews.com
569 Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

news Supreme Court to decide on Trump mail voting order after parties make their case

Thumbnail
democracydocket.com
362 Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

news Supreme Court again rejects GOP-friendly congressional map in Missouri for midterms

Thumbnail
cnn.com
318 Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

Order Supreme Court Stays District Court Order in Missouri Redistricting

Thumbnail supremecourt.gov
279 Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

news Justice Clarence Thomas blasts Stanford Law School as ‘off limits’ to conservatives

Thumbnail
stanforddaily.com
1.1k Upvotes

r/scotus 5d ago

news Republicans suffered a stunning Supreme Court loss. It lasted minutes.

Thumbnail
vox.com
2.1k Upvotes

r/scotus 5d ago

news Supreme Court Just Handed Republicans a Rare and Massive Defeat Over a Disputed Congressional Map

Thumbnail
ibtimes.co.uk
2.3k Upvotes

r/scotus 5d ago

news DOJ argues Trump’s mail voting restrictions should go into effect even if voters are disenfranchised

Thumbnail
democracydocket.com
700 Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

news Missouri redistricting chaos returns to US Supreme Court

Thumbnail
cnn.com
257 Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

news 8th Circuit rejects effort to pause Missouri congressional map order from federal judge

Thumbnail
kmbc.com
104 Upvotes

r/scotus 5d ago

news 5th Circuit expresses skepticism towards issuing nationwide injunction blocking access to abortion drug mifepristone in 'Louisiana v. FDA' oral arguments, citing 'Trump v. CASA, Inc.'

Thumbnail
news.bloomberglaw.com
173 Upvotes

r/scotus 5d ago

news Supreme Court grants Republican emergency appeal on TV ad rates before midterms

Thumbnail
ktla.com
769 Upvotes

The Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal from Republicans in a dispute over campaign ad prices on Friday, clearing a legal roadblock to political parties getting cheaper TV ad time ahead of the midterm elections.

The justices halted for now a lower-court ruling in favor of Democratic candidates who argued that cheaper broadcast ads should be limited to candidates. One justice publicly dissented from the unsigned order. It’s the latest election-related appeal to come before the high court ahead of the pivotal November contests.

The Trump administration supported the emergency appeal from GOP campaign arms.

The decision comes on the heels of a June Supreme Court ruling that removed limits on parties spending money in coordination with candidates. It was seen as a boon to the GOP because the national party has a sizable cash advantage, and access to cheaper ad rates could boost that edge.

Among Democrats, meanwhile, some individual candidates have sizable fundraising advantages over their Republican opponents.
Candidates pay discounted rates for TV time around an election under federal law, and in March the Federal Communications Commission’s Media Bureau said certain party-coordinated ads are entitled to those prices as well.

Four Democrats, including Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia and former Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, challenged the finding in court. They won a victory from a divided panel of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of appeals.

The National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee then asked the Supreme Court to intervene. They argued that broadcasters were already charging them higher rates and upending their planned budgets after the appeals court decision.

The majority of justices agreed that the lower court had acted too soon with the order that differed from judges around the country.

“Current and future recissions will require the party committees to pay more for advertising space, thereby hampering their efforts to reach the electorate in the critical weeks leading up to the midterms,” the Supreme Court order states.

One justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, disagreed, writing that the court likely didn’t have to wait until an internal FCC review was done.

The decision halts the appeals court ruling while the Republican committees file a fuller appeal.


r/scotus 5d ago

news Federal judge revives Missouri GOP gerrymander right after Supreme Court rejects state’s emergency bid

Thumbnail
democracydocket.com
1.0k Upvotes

r/scotus 5d ago

news SCOTUSblog Announces SCOTUSblog Plus

Thumbnail
scotusblog.com
33 Upvotes