this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
510 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3582 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
510
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by MicroWave to c/politics
 

During a major hearing this week, the conservative justices made clear they’re about to gut the federal government’s power to regulate—and take that power for themselves.

The Supreme Court heard two consolidated cases yesterday that could reshape the legal landscape and, with them, the country. The cases take on Chevron deference—the idea that courts should defer to executive agencies when applying regulations passed by Congress. They’re the most important cases about democracy on the court’s docket this year, and I say that knowing full well that the court is also set to decide whether a raving, orange criminal can run again for president, and whether former presidents are immune from prosecution for their crimes in the first place.

That’s because what conservatives on the court are quietly trying to do is pull off the biggest judicial power grab since 1803, when it elevated itself to be the final arbiter of the Constitution in Marbury v. Madison. They’re trying to place their unelected, unaccountable policy preferences ahead of the laws made by the elected members of Congress or rules instituted by the president. If conservatives get their way, elections won’t really matter, because courts will be able to limit the scope of congressional regulation and the ability of presidents to enforce those regulations effectively. And the dumbest justice of all, alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh, basically said so during oral arguments.

I’m contractually obligated to tell you that the cases were technically about fees that fisheries are required to pay to federal observers. But all the justices talked about was Chevron deference. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor even bothered to mention the fish, three hours and 20 minutes into a three-and-a-half-hour hearing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 83 points 10 months ago (3 children)

duh

It is what they said they would do, now they are doing it, later they will brag about having done it, rinse & repeat with the next item on their agenda.

Liberals gonna liberate, while conservatives gonna ~~conserve~~ radically overthrow everything that has come before. It is no accident, it was the point all along.

Maybe RBG could have helped by stepping down, at her advanced age, rather than rolled the dice. Now surely Biden, in his own advanced age, will learn from that? Or, you know, we can roll the dice again I guess...

[–] deweydecibel 28 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

How does Biden's age enter into this at all? That's what the vice president is for. It doesn't in any way equate to what happened with RGB.

Moreover, this is specifically about conservative justices, put in place through stolen judicial nominations, fucking the court system up.

And you decided to take that chance to whine about liberals?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What are the odds that we roll "Snake Eyes" this many times in a row? The worst timeline.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I promise you: we will be absolutely shocked every. single. time. Shocked, shocked I say - SHOCKED!

Just like with school shootings - who knew that entirely ignoring the issue wouldn't completely solve it, or like do anything at all except allow it to fester? Shocked. I. Say. :-(

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The dice are weighted, I'm not sure why anyone is shocked.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Bc media sells better that way.

Over the bodies of children.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, RBG - the three horsemen of the apocalypse.

Each one playing a crucial role in destroying our democracy because they selfishly thought they were the chosen ones.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago

You'd think the republicans, their voters, their donors, and the whole media apparatus behind it, would get some of the blame too. I know, they'll see it as glory rather than blame. The dems didn't do it, they were just lame.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 10 months ago

Obvious "but not equally" comments aside, there does seem to be a lot of that going on lately. I can only hope that they each thought that they were doing the best that they could at the time... except that thought is somehow the most terrifying of all!? :-(

I wish I could rather live in a la-la land of make-believe conspiracy theories, like maybe there really is nobody in the entire USA who could possibly hold a candle to how smart, handsome, and all-around awesome Joe Biden is (...in his own mind?); or it would be a relief actually to hear that his illuminati overloads commanded that he tank the election so as to allow a Republican to win (you know, rather than it being an oopsie that will bring all of America crumbling down along with it); or maybe aliens are actually real and it's so important for like uh... the planetary war that's currently going on that he alone be President, no other Democrats can possibly work for ah... "reasons".

But most likely he's just old, thinks he really is the bee's knees or cat's pajamas or whatever old-timey phrases they used back in his day, and he'll go right on thinking that... until he dies of a stroke or whatever. I am even willing to concede that the likelihood of that might be low - science is freaking awesome, and medical advancements are astonishingly ah... advanced these days - but what I want to know is, why are we willing to gamble on that? And I mean, SO HARD that we aren't even willing to hold primaries, in order to at least see what the other options might have been? Especially, as you pointed out, after we have tried that TWICE BEFORE in recent history and lost so hard that a 5 decade old foundational underpinning of human rights was lost in the process? Are we now trying to do double-or-nothing? (except if so, what could we possibly gain from that?)

Also, even if we take it as a given that he wins - which is at least somewhat likely b/c DT is even older so if Biden loses, it probably won't be his age that was the swing factor - what about after that, like why aren't we raising up a new generation of Democratic hopefuls for the future, i.e. by letting them run in campaigns now? Then again, the last time we tried that things did not work out so well - the choices were the death of democracy, vs. a whole slew of jokers that had no chance even against that somehow? :-( IS BERNIE SANDERS THAT SCARY TO THEM!?!?! Oh wait, I think I answered my own question there, nvm:-(.

Second only to conservatives, the worst aspect of politics is liberals. :-| Our "ruling class" is so disconnected from reality at this point:-(.