this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
1173 points (99.3% liked)

politics

19232 readers
3984 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ccunning 37 points 5 months ago (2 children)

…if a sane court is built around them by leaders with enough spine

Lack of spine isn’t the issue. It’s lack of political power.

And even then what would the new court do? If they go back to operating the way they did before this judicial coup, that wouldn’t actually fix any of the damage done. Or remove the traitor sitting on the SCOTUS.

[–] retrospectology 32 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

A court with more judges would water down the influence of any extremists.

But yes, packing the court alone doesn't guaruntee the court can't be captured again. What Elie Mystal suggested way back when the court majority had flipped was basically two things that should happen:

  1. expand the court by alot, maybe somewhere within 20-30, similar to the 9th circuit that's just below the Supreme Court. This helps dilute the power of individual crazies like Alito and then

  2. Rotate judges out routinely to other federal positions. This allows for their life-time appointment still, but ensures also that, due to the high number of justices, every administration is getting an opportunity to appoint a few judges every time. That revolving door means it wpuld require multiple far-right administrations to pin the court down like it is now.

There's no reason the court needs to be nine justices, we've had more and less throughout our history as a nation, and there's no reason that the courts power needs to be concentrated into the hands of so few individuals, since the purpose of the court is suppose to be a moderating force of legal scholars, not an explicitly partisan body.

[–] ccunning 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

None of this addresses my point. There isn’t the political power to do it.

And even if there was, the court has already essentially overturned precedent as a concept. That can’t just be rolled back without completely reworking the court, which…see my first point…

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago

There isn’t the political power to do it.

That's the entire problem, full stop. This wouldn't even have gotten to SCOTUS if Congress would have held POTUS accountable via impeachment. The reason Congress didn't is partially due to political pressure from voters but mostly because the HoR is far too small to adequately represent 300,000,000 people.

[–] retrospectology -2 points 5 months ago

Yes, it depends up getting people out to vote, especially in mid-terms.

Precedent is literally just a tradition that's agreed upon, there's nothing binding judges to adhere to it, which is why the supreme court was so easily able to ignore it.

So in that sense it's a double-edged sword, it's just as easy for judges to rule by precedent as it is for them to not, it's always been this way.

[–] grue 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Lack of spine isn’t the issue. It’s lack of political power.

The court literally just gave Biden the power.

[–] Sanctus 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, they get to decide what an official act is. So the only way this works out is Biden 66ing the extremist judges and the remaining vote that it was an official act. They get to decide what official acts are. So everyone Rubepublican has free reign and every democrat is boxed in.

[–] grue 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

So the only way this works out is Biden 66ing the extremist judges and the remaining vote that it was an official act.

Yep, that's what I said: the court literally just gave Biden the power to do that.

[–] Sanctus 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But, he could do anything else and they'd rule it as unofficial as long as they breathe

[–] grue 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

...as long as they breathe

True, but they wouldn't be anymore, in this hypothetical scenario. I'm not sure why we're belaboring that point.

[–] Sanctus 1 points 5 months ago

The devil is in the details. If he just goes all willy nilly and not at the right people he wastes his opportunity. You can't assassinate Trump as official because they wouldn't deem it so. It matters because it means the only choice he is left with is to official order the extremists on the SC.