Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
The author came to the wrong conclusion. Yes the Supreme Court making themselves the authority on all federal policy will increase their case load. No, it does not mean they will actually need to do any more work. Cases will be backlogged for as long as they want.
Businesses can now dump toxic waste onto public lands knowing that they are safe from judgement for decades.
It also means that lower courts in practically any state can issue injunctions on federal policy as well, which is going to open the floodgates for crazy. They've pretty much just begged everyone to vote Democrat, and get the seating of SC Justices rewritten. That, or pack the court.
The court was already packed with activist judges appointed under suspicious or hypocritical circumstances who then lied to Congress during their confirmations about their deference to precedent on a host of issues only to the engage in a massive power grab from Congress. Subsequent action to rebalance the court is not court packing.
The term "court packing" has a very specific meaning. It refers to adding seats to the supreme court to shift the balance.
Court packing is the solution. It's been suggested that the number of justices be increased to something like 20-30 (similar to the next lowest court is right now) and then judges be rotated out to other federal positions every few years (effectively a term limit in the SC itself).
This achieves two things 1) It allows for each administration to make appointments to the court as a routine matter, making it difficult to capture the court for generations at a time 2) the amount of judges waters down the influence of the extremist dipshits. We know this works because, as we saw in the past, even lunatics like Alito were kept in check when the court was not majority far-right.
That, or pack the court.
Yeah, Democrats are too married to do-nothing incrementalism to ever seriously consider doing that.
It'd help if we had more than the very slimmest of majorities.
It would help if Democrats would wield the power we give them.
As expected, the purpose of state is to facilitate relatively safe theft from classes not in control of it, and blocking justice is the primary method.
I’d hate to be a truck driver taking waste out to the river and running into a 100 wildly angry locals.
Yeah I was confused by the article when they said they would regret it. Yeah if they cared, but they don't.
What price should cable be? Who gives a shit, 100 dollars. There I did, supreme Court's justices can do it too.
It's easy to forget that there's a time, a little over a decade ago, when the Supreme Court Justices were considered above reproach. It was the last vestige of trusted governance in the country. It was considered the one arena untouched by political trends and activism, where citizens could face off against corruption and expect true justice. Decisions were made based not in the shifting winds of the day, but in consideration of the next century or the nations needs.
We have lost something greater than just a political alignment. We have lost trust in the entire State.
We have lost something greater than just a political alignment. We have lost trust in the entire State.
Yep.
I lost my trust 5 years ago during Trump. Biden was just slowly rebuilding that trust. But it's still gone.
Ahem, Bush v Gore... bit longer than a decade. They're certainly more shameless now that they have a larger margin, but republican justices have been pushing an agenda for awhile.
At the time, it wasn't this widely regarded as a power grab by conservative politicians in the Supreme Court. Not saying it wasn't, but it was not seen as such. It was nowhere near as brazen as what we're seeing today. Confidence was still quite high at the time or at least it returned quickly.
A bad decision like Bush v Gore or Citizens United was seen as an anomoly. While there were people who saw these as the political flexing they were, the general sentiment of the public was, "well, it must have been a difficult and complex decision. I'm sure they understand the legal impact and made the best decision that they could for the future of the country."
LOL no. Those decisions were utter bullshit.
Of course they were, in retrospect. But at the time, they were considered flukes.
No they weren't... They were derided as conservative power grabs then as now. Even then they talked about Roberts as an activist conservative, as the "decider" vote in a 5v4 court, who played politics to maintain the appearance of neutrality on unimportant, to them, decisions so they could strike when it mattered.
Hell, even then mass media referred to "conservative" and "liberal" justices, which clearly shows judges were not neutral.
This is the bottom line plan. The end of the nation state of law and the beginning of corporate nationhood. Just like democracies replaced monarchies, the supreme clergy is now ushering the new age of corporate states. Corporate nationhood is modern monarchy, which goes hand in hand with the Christian Caliphate they are also building.
No it wasn't, are you kidding me. It was just that their corruption was obfuscated by difficult to understand legalize. But no even laymen can tell they're making things up.
You have not been listening to conservatives, then. I grew up on a steady diet of Rush Limbaugh and later Fox News. "Activist liberal judges" has been a decades-long refrain on the right.
It's true, and probably some of the moralizing that justifies the current situation in the eyes of the right wing. They see it as "taking back" the court and doing the same thing that "left" was already doing.
The American far right has always had an outsized voice among conservatives, going all the way back to Father Coughlin, who was sympathetic to Hitler and Mussolini. Even mainstream conservatives tended to consider the supreme court more or less immune to political manipulation, with decisions like Roe v Wade to be the exception.
It's entirely possible I'm only familiar with the far right, and not so much the average mainstream conservative. Which is a wild thing to think about my life, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
The fun part is it’s 10 years ago for you. But for others it’s been their entire existence on earth.
There's no karma to be had here, this is the end game. The Republicans have been working to dismantle the government for decades. Every piece that can be sold off to private enterprise will, regulation will be gutted, and consequences be damned.
The fall of the US is now inevitable. There is no future for anyone here that isn't already rich. Leave if you can.
Nope. This just tries to put the US back before the New Deal. Nothing is inevitable.
You know what I ask doomers like this? I ask "what have you done to make your town better to live in?" All politics is local, so if you really care you'll be already doing something to improve your area. Inevitably doomers think someone else should "do something". It's never them that needs to step up.
Fucking vote if you won't do anything else.
And go where, you dipshit?
No it won't. They'll just make every case the worse possible way and wipe their hands clean of it.
They won't regret one moment of it. Maybe a small migraine but all 9 of the members agreed to have no oversight, no party can get enough to impeach any member of it, and they remain on it until they retire (why give up the ability to construct the entire government of 314 million?) or die in the seat.
Every single one of them just wants power, this gives them that. Welcome to fascism. We can't elect any of them, we can't remove any of them, and they get to state if someone is not bound by law or protected by it. And we're not even trying to pack the courts anymore.
Looks like the right to bear arms doesn't prevent tyranny after all. Huh, who'da thunk it?
I mean, anyone could exercise it. These justices are appointed for life after all. The problem seems to be that the far-right has a monopoly on violent lunatics.
Having all 9 of them dead would honestly be a band aid in having them just rip off the entire ground the Capitol is built on.
"The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box. Use them in that order."
For legal reasons, I don't have the ability to do it, nor advocating someone to do it. It's as much as a wish as wanting Putin or Xi dead.
As an Australian, the idea of clinging to the right to own weapons it's illegal to even suggest using is fucking hiliarious...
30% of the population is pro-tyranny.
It’s hard when living in a panopticon. Even the smallest PDs have thermal drones, night vision, fully automatic weapons, ALPRs, facial recognition, security cameras tracking you from the nextdoor neighbor’s Ring to the network of cameras at every turn in a population center. Anyone that tries to make the world a better place in that way also throws away their own life. And that’s if you never use a computer.
Right now, the best use of the second amendment is keeping some weapon in a safe until the purges begin. Trans people will be probably be their first target. Then the LGBs, then anyone whose medical record reflects an abortion or adjacent procedure…
Things Christian Nationalists have already put into the record:
Day 1 Trump becomes a dictator; Day 1 insurrection act martial law; Replace the DOJ and FBI with loyalists to go weaponize them against the presidents “enemies;” His non-followers are vermin instead of Americans; “We are domestic terrorists” banner at CPAC;
Every authoritarian I can think of has tried to purge a population. It’s a way more common occurrence in human history than democracy. It’s just this time the recently unmasked fascists in Silicon Valley already know what every American’s political beliefs are and where they are at any given time.
Just look at India's court system (or the US immigration court system). Backlogs as far as the eye can see! Selective enforcement mixed with laws criminalizing everyone means those in charge can pardon or prosecute whomever they want.
That is until AI gets beyond the toddler with no object permanence stage and suddenly the backlog starts disappearing and all the politicians start retroactively legalizing everything.
Sort of makes me want to write that novel I've been putting off where a website pops up with a list of social security numbers + date + GPS + criminal statute code, and it turns out to be a list of the biggest crimes committed by each politician. No one knows where the list came from, but as each politician resigns, new sets of numbers pop up for their replacement.
The only “good” part of the ruling is that environmental groups can also sue and say weak regulations should be tossed. When Chevron was originally decided, it was considered good for Conservatives.
Obviously, there will probably be terrible rulings for the time being. But who knows if Harlan Crowe’s private jet was made by Boeing? Things can change quickly.
Clarence Thomas and Alito getting stuck at the space station while the MBAs running Boeing try to figure out if they’re worth the risk is how this should end.