this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
647 points (97.8% liked)

politics

18888 readers
3941 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 8 months ago (3 children)

It's literally following the law.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (2 children)

If it lets an insurrectionist like Trump on the ballot, the supreme court will be putting out a welcome mat to autocracy

And they will be among the first up against the wall if that day comes, you can bet on it. I wonder if they have the slightest shred of self-preservation. If they are more afraid of maga now and not what maga will become, then their self-preservation instinct is badly flawed. We'll see.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I think the right-leaning justices know pretty well that their positions are safe. They're already benefiting immensely from corruption. When democracy dies and they have no obligation to the law, they'll do whatever it takes to enrich themselves further.

[–] rifugee 3 points 8 months ago

After all, someone has to rubber stamp the actions of the autocrat.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Well, when democracy dies they're not needed at all. Not being necessary is a dangerous position to be in. People who aren't necessary are easily eliminated. And of course, there's no incentive to pay off people who aren't necessary.

I say if they have an ounce of self-reflection, they would know this is true and it would make them nervous. But you're right, they probably don't.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Roberts doesn't. His response to the American people who were angry about the Dobbs abortion decision was that they should shut up and listen to the court's authority.

[–] Mamertine 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's in the constitution! That sacred document that was divinely inspired. Granted it's an amendment so it wasn't part of Jefferson's initial creation, but it's been in there for 150 years.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

How dare you suggest the Constitution was written by a person! It was written by God himself!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

That's a terrible argument against it.

If there's a bad vibe to eliminating a candidate for following laws that were explicitly written down 150 years ago to stop such a candidate, then what kind of vibe does it give off if we flat out ignore that same law?

If we allow ourselves to be swayed by the idea that taking away a very specific privilege from a person gives off a bad vibe, then we'd be undermining our entire justice system and the very concept of law itself.

The law is unambiguous, and we must follow it. If we don't, then the rule of law truly has no meaning.