conservative
A community to discuss conservative politics and views.
Rules:
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
-
No spam posting.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
-
No trolling.
No, it isn't. They're judging the law as written. Thats what they are supposed to do. Blame congress.
I truly hope this statement is true.
Maybe the judgements are conservative leaning because....the constitution is fairly conservative?
I'm glad this supreme court is ruling based on the constitution rather than having a pseudo legislative role.
If the people want legislation, they should go through the legislative branch.
If the people want legislation, they should go through the legislative branch.
How is that a reasonable expectation? I don't mean to be glib, this is a legitimate question. The chances that any given policy gets passed through congress and becomes a law is 30% regardless of public support:
So even when 99% of the population agrees on a bill, it still only has a 30% chance of passing. Bills that share the interests of the rich do not have this effect. They instead have this effect:
I don't mean to say that legislation should be through the judicial branch, but to me, treating the issue as simple as "go through the legislative branch" seems to miss the context that our legislation branch isn't good for anything other than giving money to the rich. So if the people want legislation, how should they reasonably be expected to make it happen?
How is that a reasonable expectation? I don’t mean to be glib, this is a legitimate question. The chances that any given policy gets passed through congress and becomes a law is 30% regardless of public support:
Just because you don't like that your bills aren't getting passed, doesn't mean that we should actively go against our foundation of the nation. Sorry weed isn't legalized, doesn't mean that we should remove the judicial branch from the government.
but to me, treating the issue as simple as “go through the legislative branch” seems to miss the context that our legislation branch isn’t good for anything other than giving money to the rich
You can thank the Chevron Deference case for that. Hopefully this SC court rules on that next year.
So if the people want legislation, how should they reasonably be expected to make it happen?
Get involved. Vote for better candidates.
doesn’t mean that we should actively go against our foundation of the nation. Sorry weed isn’t legalized, doesn’t mean that we should remove the judicial branch from the government.
Already covered that part:
"I don’t mean to say that legislation should be through the judicial branch"
You can thank the Chevron Deference case for that. Hopefully this SC court rules on that next year.
The supreme court is also in the pockets of the rich though.
Get involved. Vote for better candidates.
I do, and then those candidates typically don't get very far because they get called communists for daring to say that maybe healthcare shouldn't be for profit.
The supreme court is also in the pockets of the rich though.
Maybe. Are you able to prove this at all?
I do, and then those candidates typically don’t get very far because they get called communists for daring to say that maybe healthcare shouldn’t be for profit.
Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean the system is wrong. Maybe your ideas aren't popular. Don't worry, most people have some unpopular ideas.
Maybe. Are you able to prove this at all?
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-ethics-documents-conflicts-9fa2847e60e11601c872c3ba3eea12a3
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-investigation-reveals-potential-conflicts-of-interest-for-supreme-court-justices (Same root source but a 2nd take on it)
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1168649656/justice-thomas-trips
Just because people disagree with you doesn’t mean the system is wrong.
I never said the system is wrong because people disagree with me.
I'm just pointing out that these solutions you are giving aren't anywhere near as effective as you seem to think they are.
You're showing some conflict of interest, but come on. You're trying to prove something here, all you have are a couple articles of going on trips?
He just ruled on roe v wade, show me how he's in the pockets of the rich for that ruling. Or anything, come on, you said it, make your point.
I never said the system is wrong because people disagree with me.
You said the system is broken and it's because you get called a communist by someone online.
I’m just pointing out that these solutions you are giving aren’t anywhere near as effective as you seem to think they are.
So you're sad because vote isn't overriding every one elses?I don't know what you want me to say, to you not getting your way every election.
You’re showing some conflict of interest, but come on.
Yup, that's generally what "in the pocket of the rich" means. It means you have a conflict of interest to rule in favor of the rich because they have given you shit. I sincerely do not understand what part of that you're hung up on.
He just ruled on roe v wade, show me how he’s in the pockets of the rich for that ruling
Just because somebody is in the pocket of the rich doesn't mean that every single ruling will have something to do with money. You have an unrealistic expectation here as well.
If you're looking for rulings that blatantly side with the rich, the citizens united ruling is the place to start.
Here is another good place to start: https://time.com/5793956/supreme-court-loves-rich/
Or anything, come on, you said it, make your point.
See the above links.
You said the system is broken and it’s because you get called a communist by someone online.
No I did not. If you're going to spend the time to debate you should at least understand what people have said.
So you’re sad because vote isn’t overriding every one elses?
Nope. Never said that either.
I don’t know what you want me to say, to you not getting your way every election
I want you to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a simple solution for these problems. You keep saying "oh, just do X if Y doesn't work", but that's not the reality of the situation, these problems require significant and complicated change.
Yup, that’s generally what “in the pocket of the rich” means.
Any conflict of interest? LOL you'd be hard pressed to find any politician that hasn't had some COI transactions.
Just because somebody is in the pocket of the rich doesn’t mean that every single ruling will have something to do with money. You have an unrealistic expectation here as well.
That's why I asked you, tell me what case he's ruled on that he got bought off. I'm encouraging you to show me.
Here is another good place to start: https://time.com/5793956/supreme-court-loves-rich/
-
That's court cases from the 80's. How does that prove your point that our current SC is in the pocket of the rich?
-
You'd have to do more than show that sometimes the cases go against the 'marginalized' - you have to prove it's bad law. The SC is supposed to rule on if the law supports one side or not - it's not their place to empathize with one party over the other. You want the SC to rule more friendly to you? Get 'better' law makers in office.
No I did not. If you’re going to spend the time to debate you should at least understand what people have said.
You: The systems broken, I can't get what I want!
Me: It's up to your representatives, get involved, get better people in office
You: They call me a communist :(
I’m encouraging you to show me.
I think I'm alright. I'm not going to waste my time any further.
You: The systems broken, I can’t get what I want!
Me: It’s up to your representatives, get involved, get better people in office
You: They call me a communist :(
Why say anything if you're just gonna misrepresent what I've said?
I think I’m alright. I’m not going to waste my time on you any further.
I know, hard to make an argument when you just make wild claims.
Why say anything if you’re just gonna misrepresent what I’ve said?
That's what you said, like 2nd comment of our conversation.
I know, hard to make an argument when you just make wild claims.
No, it's just hard to talk with people who do not do so in good faith.
I asked you to support your claim that the reason why supreme court cases are being rule dhow they are is because they are in rich folks pockets.
You really couldn't, so I don't see why there would be a point to continue this convo.
You really couldn’t
You can lead a horse to water...
It takes a lot of logical leaps to go from 'someone paid for his vacation' to say 'they're just ruling with whatever rich person is sending them money! I can't point to any specific people....or cases they ruled on, BUT THEY ARE!!"
I can't explain something to somebody who doesn't want to listen to the explanation.
You can't explain anything because you can't prove what you need to about your statement. You made a statement, but you failed to prove any part of it. I've read every single word you've wrote and gone to each of your sources.
Show me how money has altered any of the sitting current justices opinions.
I’ve read every single word you’ve wrote and gone to each of your sources.
Reading something doesn't mean anything if you don't understand it.
Show me how money has altered any of the sitting current justices opinions.
See above and actually read in good faith.
Reading something doesn’t mean anything if you don’t understand it.
Hahaha, come back with an actual argument, instead of some loose 'see he went on a paid vacation, therefore he just gets paid to rule court cases for rich people.'
You made the claim, I asked which case you thought that they ruled on based on corruption, and what their flawed legal reasoning was.
You can't back anything up that you've said. If you want to be convincing, you gotta back up your claims.
you gotta back up your claims.
I did, see above.
You did not note 1 single case ruling that can be related to corruption nor that the ruling had poor law.
If that's all your back up was, it's not convincing.