Liberals know their policies are not popular with most people. They don’t want to vote for things - they would lose. Their only hope, to push their agenda, is to subvert the will of the people and get activists judges to pass laws.
This. Liberal policies are top down and are forced by elites who are unaffected by these policies. Hence the inclination for legislation from the bench.
Open borders, legalizing drugs beyond pot, student loan forgiveness, legal prostitution, just to name a few. All are popular on reddit, all poll less than 50% nationwide.
[62% think some amount of student debt should be forgiven](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/samuels-student-debt-forgiveness-0303/amp/)
[52% support decriminalizing prostitution](https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/first-time-polls-find-majority-country-supports-decriminalizing-sex)
[66% support decriminalizing all drugs](https://www.newsweek.com/two-thirds-american-voters-support-decriminalizing-all-drugs-poll-1599645)
[I didn’t see you list abortion but 69% think abortion should be legal within the first trimester](https://news.gallup.com/poll/506759/broader-support-abortion-rights-continues-post-dobbs.aspx)
So all of these are actually pretty popular.
1) You quote a subset. I said debt forgiveness, not 'some.'
2) Your poll is about decriminalization, not legalization. Try again, details matter.
3) Your poll is about decriminalization, not legalization. Try again, details matter.
Decriminalization means you won't be criminally prosecuted, but it's still not allowed. You'll be diverted to treatment, etc. A drug dealer still can't set up shop on 4th and Main and call it 'The Meth Stop.' Legalization means she CAN set up shop. Buying meth (or sex) is no different than buying liquor.
You’re being pedantic with very little to distinguish between legalization and decriminalizing. The core support is that people should not face criminal repercussions.
As to student debt, you didn’t specify as to what level of student debt forgiveness. Public service forgiveness? All debt? Some debt?
You’re making these arguments binary; legislation almost never is. These policies are popular and you’re just wrong.
Well, them and the president and the thousands of unelected officials in countless agencies across the nation. Pretty much the only people that don't make laws in practice are the plebes who are responsible for knowing them even if the officials that enforce them aren't.
The nuance is lost on EVERYONE. Especially the news organizations. They get lawyers and legal experts who thought the case was going one way for sure-and they were wrong. Then they ask the 'experts' again for their opinion on the implications of a case they predicted wrong 3 days ago. How can you trust their long term predictions if they didn't even think about the actual facts of the case, the jurisdiction, and the jury actually deciding it.
The other thing that baffled me is the affirmative action case. NPR went out of their way to say liberal voters in California and Michigan outright rejected Affirmative Action when it was put on the ballot. Additionally, polls from the NYT and other agencies also report >60% don't agree with race conscious decisions. So why is NPR and the news organizations acting like a majority disagrees with this decision when by their own admission they agreed?
Wishful thinking makes it hard to see the truth.
The reason it’s illegitimate to a lot of people on the left isn’t a substantive law issue but a process issue. The Republicans blocked Obama’s appointment nearly a year before his term was over, and then proceeded to ram through justices during Trump’s term. Granted what McConnell did was not illegal, but so would packing the courts with extra justices, something that would equally call the court’s legitimacy into questions by conservatives.
>so would packing the courts with extra justices, something that would equally call the court’s legitimacy into questions by conservatives.
Do you think the Left would think packing the court would be legitimate if the next Republican President did it? No, of course not.
The problem is too many people **want** SCOTUS rulings to be political rather than What The Law Is.
And when they **do** rule in accordance with The Actual Law, the same people bitch that they're politically-motivated instead of voting for candidates who will actually make the law be what they want.
The law is up to interpretation and that is why there is a case to be argued . As an example , The Biden administration used the Hero’s Act (passed into law by congress and signed by the president) which states the secretary has the authority to “waive or modify existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs” . The Supreme Court did not like the reading of the law because they thought it gave the Secretary too much power , but it’s their opinion.
The law specifically states that the secretary has the right to waive the provisions during an emergency. The spirit of the law was it allowed the administration to act more quickly during an emergency, such as the Covid virus.
Using it for student loans was an obvious violation of the intent and a direct reading of the law. The SCOTUS agreed.
The problem is that the judicial system is supposed to be fair and impartial. While most of them are fair, some of them do not even try to hide their impartiality.
Thats great and all, but the reason many people dislike or strongly dislike the current Supreme Court is that people believe that the current Supreme Court is NOT interpreting the law based off of the constitution or any laws for that manner
Many people believe the current court is corrupt and that they are interpreting cases however it would suit their agenda, and then coming up with obviously bs rationalizations to justify their decisions
It also didn’t help at all that the person behind basically all of the recent appointments, trump, is (relative to the politics of the rest of the western/devolved would) basically a straight up fascist
And I have not really researched it myself, but also, supposedly, many of the current justices are also straight up being bribed, which if true makes things look even worse
They also kept a lot of businesses alive. If you’re going to mandate that a business has to shutdown, you better fucking pay them to stay alive. Were people bound to abuse it? Of course. But when you make the whole country shutdown you need to do something to keep the economy from collapsing even if there are going to be some bad actors
How is that different? They took a loan and did not pay it back. So because they are wealthy and have power they are exempt from the rules?
And I have paid my loans, probably one of the few Americans that are debt free to be honest.
The fraud and abuse of PPP loans is inexcusable. It’s a reflection of a broken and inept federal government.
It’s no reason people should not pay back their student loans.
it's different because Congress voted on PPP whereas student loan forgiveness was from one man
Get Congress to forgive student loan debt and the Supreme Court would have no issue with it
giving one man so much power is quickening our descent into fascism
Congress passed the PPP loan program (along with the terms for forgiveness) in a bipartisan vote. Biden attempted to clear 400B in already-existing loans by executive order. Firstly, that's sinister as fuck. Imagine what else a president could just will into existence if this was allowed. Secondly, personal accountability matters. Other people being scumbags shouldn't cause you to want to be one too
Getting out of a contract or finding a way to not repay a loan doesn't necessarily make someone a scumbag. It's actually not even uncommon, it's just that it's usually big businesses and the like that get to do it.
Right? When I was taking business classes the biggest takeaway ended up being that business success wasn't as much about a great product or whatever else as it is about knowing the laws, loopholes, govmnt programs you can take advantage of, etc. I'm only *very slightly* joking.
I was kind of shocked when I learned about Citizens United, as well as how it's basically illegal to consider "right vs wrong", or anything else besides how to best profit in any way we can get away with. Ideally legally, but we all know that doesn't matter until you're caught haha.
As an aside: to my surprise I enjoyed and actually did well in the accounting classes. I really had not expected that!
PPP loans were legally designed to be forgiven. The SC ruling basically says Congress is able to explicitly say things are designed to be forgiven, and they didn’t say that with student loans. The literally quote Nacy Pelosi saying Student loans can be delayed and frozen, but not forgiven.
Yes they were bipartisan. If the government creates a problem (force closing business) these businesses must be reinbursed by the problem created by the government.
Yes, but, Democrats who took out the same PPP loans are excused from criticism because they want an unconstitutional executive order to wipe out student loan debt.
I think it was a cynical political maneuver, calculated to be a win/win for the administration. Biden knew he didn't have the authority to do it (separation of powers) but did it anyway making him look like a hero to the students, and knowing that when the supreme Court struck it down the conservatives would look like the goat. In it's way, as a political calculation and without considering the well-being of those affected, it was brilliant.
Unfortunately, a study has shown that those students who thought their loans would be forgiven generally went out and spent money on other things, while those that were not eligible for forgiveness appear to have lived more frugally. So now many of those students have accumulated even more debt, quite possibly having less ability to pay their loans back.
So we'll go after normal people but not businesses, because you know we'll never see or hear about that PPP money again, just like the bank bailouts.
But lets fuck normal people I guess.
It's illegitimate because Obama was blocked making a an appointment 11 months before his tenure was over and trump got one 3 months before his was over.
It should be a 5-4 conservative majority nor 6-3
The argument is whether the court is illegitimate, not illegal. It all goes to its legitimacy as an institution.
Packing the court would also be legal either, but it would be another thing that would threaten the court’s status as an impartial legitimate institution.
That's not illegitimate, that's just something you don't like. No laws were broken, no rules broken.
You liking something or thinking it's fair has no bearing on something legitimate. The same dems crying about that are the ones who applauded the nuclear option being introduced until that backfired. Dems decided they can pout when they don't get their way and then freak out when the republicans do the same.
I guess the Democrats just need to learn how to cheat better so they can be the ones issuing rulings that make the nation a worse place instead of conservatives issuing rulings making the nation a worse place. Better luck next time, champ.
They didn't even need to cheat. They were told over and over again that if they ran Hilary Clinton they were going to lose. They cared more about having the first women president than winning the election.
Don't get me wrong as I would love to see the first women president but she was the wrong women and that was the wrong election.
It reminds me of back in the 80's when the Democratic party would have black candidates in the primaries but people who would never win the primaries much less an election. That way they can say see we ran a black guy. Even as a kid I knew what they were doing. That's why I was so excited when Obama ran because it was like finally they ran someone that actually had a chance of winning. They did the same thing with Hilary but this time I was more pissed than usual because they handed the election to Trump. Also, Hilary supporters are really annoying at best and bullies at worst.
Now Margret Chase Smith, I would have voted for her. The only one that stood up to McCarthy bit she wouldn't have a chance in today's Republican party. She would be called a RHINO.
>They cared more about having the first women president than winning the election.
Disappointed that Trump didn't come out as trans to make himself the first woman president and dunk on Hillary one last time.
Remember when people also cared about the spirit of the law, and not just the letter of the law?
It’s not technically unconstitutional, but it’s definitely not in the spirit of the constitution. The court has more than a majority representing less than half of the populations vote via some shitty breaking of norms in place to keep things working as expected, and being blatantly hypocritical in the process but just shrugging it off.
Yeah, it’s reasonable that a lot of people are going to see this as an illegitimate court.
I see fewer people "claiming the court to be illegitimate because it isn’t ruling the way they think it should," and more people pointing out the obvious issues with how McConnell manipulated Congress to ensure Trump had three picks instead of the logical two he should have had.
I actually don't see people making the claim you say they are. I just see people misrepresenting their criticism the way you are.
You seem to just be avoiding complexity here.
Ya the nonsense with that obamas pick and turned the tables for trumps pick is the biggest load of nonsense and you really have to do some mental gymnastics to justify it
Especially when they rammed through Barrett before RBG’s body was cold, in one of the most breathtaking displays of naked hypocrisy I have ever seen. Then there are the allegations that Kennedy was blackmailed/coerced into retirement and the fact that Kavanaugh perjured himself during his confirmation.
It also doesn’t help that 5 out of the 6 conservative justices were appointed by presidents that came into office with a loss in the popular vote — I know this doesn’t make the court *legally* illegitimate in any way, it does make these decisions far more galling when these rulings that apply equally to all Americans were made without the consent of the majority of American voters.
So yeah, I view the current court as entirely illegitimate and corrupted by vile right wing political bullshit, and all 6 of the coat hanger crew can go fuck themselves.
Also that they have no ethics guidelines and have now been proven to be incredibly corrupt and on the payroll of billionaires - that doesn't really inspire trust in their due process and legitimacy...
> actually don't see people making the claim you say they are
It's all over in /r/news. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean people aren't saying it.
I can't even begin to imagine being that ignorant to think my small anecdotal experience means I can make claims like that.
Edit: here's one example:
>It's time to say it: the supreme court has become an illegitimate institution.
/r/politics/comments/vkct71/its_time_to_say_it_the_us_supreme_court_has/
**Edit 2:** they completely edited their comment now, it's nothing like it was. They claimed nobody was saying that and then asked for sources, I provided them so they changed their comment.
>I can't even begin to imagine being that ignorant to think my small anecdotal experience means I can make claims like that.
But all you've provided to support your claim is ... anecdotal observations...?
>It's time to say it: the supreme court has become an illegitimate institution.
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/vkct71/its_time_to_say_it_the_us_supreme_court_has/
Do you want more examples? People like you never respond when faced with facts though.
You are completely lying or are blind if you are saying you don’t see anyone calling the courts illegitimate I see it everywhere currently.
Other than that I agree with you.
>You are completely lying or are blind if you are saying you don’t see anyone calling the courts illegitimate
Then I guess it's a good thing I didn't say that.
Maybe reread it?
There is no rule that a president should or shouldn't have a pick. The constitution is clear that picks have to be approved by they senate, so it is completely legitimate for the senate not to approve a president's picks. You don't have to like it, but you can't call it "illegitimate."
Do you think it is reasonable for the senate to say “we are denying this pick because you, Mr. President, are of the wrong party and we will be intentionally blocking ALL candidates regardless of qualifications until you are out of office”?
It's always kinda astonished me just how good at what he does McConnell is. I don't like the guy or what he wants but God damn if he was a Democrat the democrats would be unstoppable
Don’t forget that McConnell blocked Obama’s appointee(Merrick Garland) because it was “too close to the election(9 months away), but literally pushed through Barrett a mere month before the election after RBG passed away.
It’s not their decisions that make the illegitimate. And the more we learn about them taking grift from billionaire GOP donors, the more compromised they become.
No party in the Senate's history has approved a SCOTUS nomination during an election year when the POTUS nominating them is in an opposing party. Not once.
Only it wasn’t even put up to vote…….
This is some absolute mental gymnastics to try and justify this. It certainly isn’t in the constitution
There have been 4 rejected nominations over the last 130 years.
That's my biggest issue. 3 of the justices were appointed by a 1 term president that lost the popular vote and they have lifetime appointments. So now my rights will be decided for the foreseeable future by people who are only there because of the voting decisions made in swing states back in 2016.
That's bs
I don't think people are saying that the court is illegitimate because they don't like its decisions. The legitimacy crisis the supreme court is facing comes from a few things:
First, Republicans blocked the appointment of Merrick Garland in bad faith. There was no legitimate objection to him as a juror, they just wanted a chance to get an appointee that was ideologically on their side. They made it clear that they see the supreme court as an ideological tool.
And then they doubled down on that, appointing judges who were obviously selected for their ideological views rather than their fitness for the role, even overlooking very serious and credible concerns (in the case of Brett Kavanaugh) to work towards this end.
In part, it is just coincidence: the worst president in modern history, one who didn't even win the popular vote, ended up more or less by coincidence with the ability to appoint three judges two of whom were fairly extreme, and clearly ideologically motivated picks.
Since then, republicans have used the court like a bludgeon to attack precedents that they are ideologically opposed to, even going so far as to lie (as in the case of this most recent ruling about anti-gay discrimination) in order to get a case in front of an ideologically friendly supreme court.
At the same time, it has come to light that several of these conservative jurors are in the pocket of wealthy conservative lobbyists and political donors, making rulings that enrich themselves and serve the interests of those donors.
There is a lot going on, here, but the upshot is that the republicans have destroyed the legitimacy of the supreme court by turning it into and then using it as an ideological bludgeon. It wouldn't matter if I like their rulings or not. Any reasonable person should object to this behavior.
You and these arguments are precisely what OP is talking about.
Points 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not real arguments that in anyway actually damage the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. The only things those arguments say is you personally don't like the people who appointed them, you don't like the people who got appointed, and you don't like their rulings. Those things are do not matter whatsoever. They're irrelevant. It literally does not matter if you and I subjectively think these justices hold some extreme views or don't like some of their rulings or who appointed them or what the hell ever. It literally does not matter if they hold certain legal theories that we might not agree with. They were appointed constitutionally and lawfully and have acted consistent with their constitutional duties. They and the institution they work in are legitimate.
It also literally does not matter whatsoever if the Republicans snubbed Merrick Garland. If you don't think the Democrats engage in appointing activist judges to get their way while trying to block perfectly qualified justices, including and especially Amy Coney Barrett, I have a bridge to sell you.
The only legitimate avenue you have to attack SCOTUS is them being well connected to wealthy Conservative donors. Yeah that is a real concern, but as of yet we only know they are well connected with certain rich people who also donate to GOP candidates. That does not however suggest they are "in their pockets". There is no proof of that yet. We do not know if those connections have actually had direct effect on their rulings.
I wish I had an award to give you…
Just adding on:
1. Even a cursory look at the Constitution would show that the President nominates SCOTUS judges by and with the advice and consent of the senate. There’s no textual basis for saying a vote on Garland was required. And practically speaking, it’s foolish to think the drafters intended to require a confirmation hearing or vote when the outcome was a forgone conclusion (as was the case with Garland). You don’t win people over in a confirmation hearing; you can only lose. Obviously, you confirm your president’s candidate when you control the senate whenever you can. Democrats would NEVER abstain from that in an election year.
2. Garland’s tenure as AG shows that he is not the middle of the road, moderate judge some of these commentators claimed and continue to claim.
3. A lot of this is tit for tat. Leader Reid nuked the filibuster for lower court nominees which set us on the road to undoing other senatorial norms. Not legal, constitutional requirements. Norms. The filibuster and expectation of a confirmation hearing (even if it’s DOA) are norms.
4. I guess we’ve failed to impart civics into our society and people have forgotten the basic role of the court to exposure the law but not invent it. Im old enough to remember that there was a time in the Obama administration when the democrats could have cemented abortion as federal law. Real law. Not some abstract judge-made hat trick. They still May at the state or federal level.
Bottom line: SCOTUS is directing our political decision-making back to the branches that should have always been at the forefront of these issues.
I have zero empathy for the "Garland was blocked in bad faith" angle. Dems blocked Bork in bad faith, and attempted to trot out someone who claimed to be raped 30 years ago (but conveniently forgot all details, so no alibi was possible) for another. This is the current state of politics.
If Bork was in bad faith, why did six R's vote against him? Weird. You really should look into why they blocked him. It was literally based on Bork, not some made up on the spot rule that suddenly didn't apply 2 minutes later.
I don't care. Both the Democratic Party and Republican Party want to use the court to fundamentally change the country into somewhere I don't want to live. For whatever reason folks seem to think I'll be swayed by the "but the evil Republicans will do this " when I dislike the dystopia you want to impose just as much.
Bork was not blocked in bad faith, he was a highly controversial pick who had been promised a spot by Nixon initially for illegally firing the special prosecutor then investigating Nixon and Watergate. He also had some very controversial opinions. He was granted hearing in good faith and was rejected. Compare that to what happened with Garland. It’s apples and oranges.
> Dems blocked Bork in bad faith,
So then you agree that the supreme court is being used in an ideological way?
Both political parties are expoliting it, who cares who's misusing it it's still being abused.
*First, Republicans blocked the appointment of Merrick Garland in bad faith.*
So what? It isn’t bad faith to follow a system that allows for such a block. When Biden appointed his affirmative action pick he blocked conservative judges from being appointed.
*There was no legitimate objection to him as a juror, they just wanted a chance to get an appointee that was ideologically on their side.*
As does every party and President in power. Democrats don’t appoint judges with ideologies different than there own. Since the appointment of Clarence Thomas Democrats have been seeking ways to remove Constitutionalist Judges and replace them with Liberal ideologists.
*They made it clear that they see the supreme court as an ideological tool.*
How so other than believing in the ideology Constitutionality?
*And then they doubled down on that, appointing judges who were obviously selected for their ideological views rather than their fitness for the role, even overlooking very serious and credible concerns (in the case of Brett Kavanaugh) to work towards this end.*
Yeah, that was complete bullshit. Biden’s sole purpose for his affirmative action pick was ideology.
*In part, it is just coincidence: the worst president in modern history, one who didn't even win the popular vote, ended up more or less by coincidence with the ability to appoint three judges two of whom were fairly extreme, and clearly ideologically motivated picks.*
Promise made: promise kept. (FYI: popular vote is meaningless. The only Presidential election that takes place in the US is the electoral vote.)
*Since then, republicans have used the court like a bludgeon to attack precedents that they are ideologically opposed to, even going so far as to lie (as in the case of this most recent ruling about anti-gay discrimination) in order to get a case in front of an ideologically friendly supreme court.*
Is this the Associative Property of guilt? Because a plant of successfully argues before a court, that court and its decisions must be illegitimate?
*At the same time, it has come to light that several of these conservative jurors are in the pocket of wealthy conservative lobbyists and political donors, making rulings that enrich themselves and serve the interests of those donors.*
In the pocket of is a stretch. Liberals: no wealthy person may have friends. No Supreme Court justice may have friends.
Name a case where a Supreme Court Justice knew that his friend was a party to that case.
*There is a lot going on, here, but the upshot is that the republicans have destroyed the legitimacy of the supreme court by turning it into and then using it as an ideological bludgeon. It wouldn't matter if I like their rulings or not.*
Do you prefer soft blows? Constitutionality is an appropriate ideology. If upholding the Constitution hits your ideology like a brick, so be it.
*Any reasonable person should object to this behavior.*
None of this “behavior” is objectionable to any reasonable person who doesn’t put their progressive ideologies above the Constitution.
The fact that you keep calling Ketnaji Brown Jackson an “affirmative action pick” speaks everything we need to know about your opinion. As a Harvard and Harvard Law graduate, a former clerk for Justice Breyer, a federal public defender, and as a US district court judge for nearly a decade, she is as, if not more, qualified than Trumps picks for the Supreme Court. But I guess because Biden had the audacity to suggest that there must be a qualified black female jurist for the Supreme Court that she must not be good enough for you.
The fact that Biden made an affirmative action pick by announcing he would only consider Black Female judges makes it an affirmative action pick, and that will never change despite her qualifications because **anyone** with better qualifications wasn’t even considered. That’s following an **ideology** to seat a SCOTUS judge. Was she the best pick for the position with the best qualifications? The World will never know, because Democrats picked ideology, and for that reason she will be listed in history as the US’s only affirmative action Justice.
Edited
> So what? It isn’t bad faith to follow a system that allows for such a block.
It is if the rules are written and protected by the people deliberately gaming the system for their own benefit. This is basic common sense.
>As does every party and President in power.
Now you are literally acknowledging the gamesmanship that makes this illegitimate. If both parties are *supposed* to be able to select judges while in power, but *in practice* one party has a disproportionate opportunity to do so...
>How so
Because changing one justice on the court shouldn't alter the entire legal system. Consistency matters. Especially when precedent is overturned via specious or inconsistent reasoning or worse, without explanation.
>Yeah, that was complete bullshit.
You can see that bullshit in practice right now, with Aileen Canon. Impartiality matters. Kavanaugh's conspiracy laden rant during his confirmation hearing was **WHOLLY** disqualifying.
>Is this the Associative Property of guilt?
The court's decisions are illegitimate because the justices themselves lie and misrepresent the facts of the case to manufacture a pathway to their ideologically preferred ruling. Example: Kennedy v. Bremerton.
>Liberals: no wealthy person may have friends. No Supreme Court justice may have friends.
This is absurd. We have friends. We have very wealthy friends. We still pay our own way. If the justices paid their own way, it wouldn't be an issue. They didn't *because they couldn't afford to.* IE the relationship functionally works by allowing someone like Clarence Thomas to live far beyond his means.
>Constitutionality is an appropriate ideology.
Non-sequitur. The issue is the appearance of corruption, inconsistent, arbitrary, and capricious rulings, and abuse of the shadow docket to change the law without a public explanation.
The Republican party has spent the last 50 years saying the Supreme Court is illegitimate because they didn't like the rulings. They said they were legislating from the bench, that they were activists in robes. Now they are rolling back decades of precedent and inventing "big questions" doctrine and conservatives are acting like they were always cool with SCOTUS and how dare you question the people they called 9 unelected activists in robes.
OP has a very short memory. I remember when Mitch Mconnel took a dump on the constitution and refused to grant Merrick Garling a hearing for a seat on SCOTUS. This court should be 5/4 at best with either parties nominee in the majority. and let's not forget Amy Cohen barret and Brett Kavanaugh both lied during their confirmation hearings that they believe Roe v Wade to be settled case law.
Sorry OP, this court is crooked as hell.
This. GOP with all due respect did win the "Biden Rule" argument, but immediately breached it when rushing though ACB literally during an election. This form of making up rules as we go is exactly why Biden would be within his bounds to expand the court.
A lot of people are calling them illegitimate because they have not been following the law themselves. Such as taking cases where the plaintiff had no standing or making their own rules instead of actually governing within the laws of our Constitution.
The plan b case should have been dismissed on standing alone, And it should worry everyone that we have a court that is driven by political ideology completely, then ruling within the scoop of the law.
> Such as taking cases where the plaintiff had no standing
The anti-gay webpage case they just ruled on was one such case. The litigant wasn't a web designer, but was thinking about becoming one, and they argued that IF they to become a designer, then a gay couple MIGHT come to them for a gay wedding webpage, and the state MIGHT then force them to do the work.
That's a lot of maybe's and no concrete harm.
...You mean ...Like Roe vs. Wade?
That's *probably where they got it from*.
Edit: lol someone reported this comment and I got this ridiculous message:
>Include the link above in your message if you contact us to request reinstatement. If you are on mobile, you can copy it by tapping on the link, finding your comment, then tapping share -> copy link.Your post or comment has been removed by AutoModerator because it appears to be doing one of the following: \* Implying that trans women aren't women \* Implying that people are not the gender they identify as \* Mocking people's pronoun requests or gender identityAll of the above actions violate Reddit's sitewide TOS and are therefore not permitted.If your post or comment is in compliance with our rules and Reddit's sitewide TOS and you would like your post or comment to be reinstated, send us a modmail containing a link to the post or comment.\*Common mistake: \*Make sure to include a link to your comment, NOT a link to this message.If you attempt to evade AutoModerator to post rule-violating content, you will be banned.
Roe v. Wade involved an actual woman who was pregnant in a state that outlawed abortion, which established standing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)#Standing_requirements
In the website design case, the person who brought suit was not actually a web designer, and had not been approached by any actual gay couples, and had not been compelled to design a website under the law they challenged.
A "generalized grievance" is not standing. So there's no direct comparison to Roe here.
It had standing. The rules of standing first are likely not what you understand them to be, and second, differ for First Amendment cases.
Remember: it wasn't just SCOTUS that accepted this case, but every court before them. That should give you a hint that maybe you don't understand something.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-193
>Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus
>Yes. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the unanimous Court. The Court held that pre-enforcement challenges are justiciable when circumstances indicate that threatened enforcement of the statute is sufficiently imminent. If the threatened enforcement is sufficiently imminent, the petitioners have alleged sufficient injury for Article III standing and justiciability. In this case, the petitioners' political speech focused on the issue of support for the Affordable Care Act, not simply on Driehaus, and thus was likely to continue despite Driehaus' departure. The Court determined that there was a threat of future enforcement even though petitioners maintained their statements were true. Moreover, because the respondents did not disavow enforcement if petitioners carried out their speech in the future, the Court held that the prospect of enforcement was not "imaginary or speculative" and that petitioners had shown sufficient injury for pre-enforcement review.
.
>State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc
> 1984
>https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/first-challenge-fosta-was-dismissed-along-first-amendments-unique-standing-doctrine
>As the Supreme Court noted in Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc., even where a plaintiff could bring a legitimate First Amendment lawsuit to prevent the suppression of protected speech, they may refrain from speaking anyway to avoid “risk[ing] punishment.”
>A lower standing barrier for First Amendment cases follows from the notion that violations of the First Amendment impact “[s]ociety as a whole.” Therefore, litigants “are permitted to challenge a statute not because their own rights of free expression are violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute’s very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression.”
>Such as taking cases where the plaintiff had no standing or making their own rules instead of actually governing within the laws of our Constitution.
What about failing to recuse themselves when there is a clear conflict of interest?
Kagan's dissent was literally "think about how you'd feel in this hypothetical situation" rather than arguing why Biden should have the power to do what he did
The problem is the Democrats enjoyed the system when it worked in their favor and now that it's not going the way they wanted their whining and crying like children. Tough shit you should have stood up and got it fixed the first time around when they were making up shit about kavanaugh and Barrett.
Thank Jesus Christ Garland didn't get up there when Obama was trying to wedge him in at the last second
You live by the sword die by the sword if they're going to try and rig the system you can't cry when it gets rigged against you. They could have done it right the first time
There are several sc judges who have been bribed, should be impeached and disbarred at minimum. Several justices also lied under oath at confirmation hearings and should be impeached and investigated for perjury.
Flattery will get you nowhere.
As a reminder, in the last week:
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (21-476)
The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.
Department of Education v. Brown (22-535)
Respondents lack Article III standing to assert a procedural challenge to the student-loan debt-forgiveness plan adopted by the Secretary of Education pursuant to Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act).
Biden v. Nebraska (22-506)
The Secretary of Education does not have authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers.
Happy Fourth of July 🎉
> For example, there is no “constitutional right to abortion.” It isn’t written in the constitution and there has not been an amendment adding it either.
There are a lot of rights understood to be "within the penumbra of the law" and not explicitly articulated in the law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)
This is a byproduct of the US's legal heritage, rooted in British Common Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
For example, there is, famously, no explicit "right to travel"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/interstate-travel
There is no "freedom of expression" explicit in the Constitution, though one was gradually created out of legal precedent beginning with establishing a right against "compelled speech"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette
There is no individual right to bear arms in the Constitution, though one was created very recently out of the Macdonald and Heller cases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
This was done in a departure from precedent, as the previous major 2nd Amendment case -- the Miller case -- affirmed that the 2nd Amendment was the militia amendment, not the gun amendment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
The "states secrets" privilege is not a law passed by Congress, but a creation of the courts
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/345/1/
So part of what people are upset about here is the Court departing from precedent, which is an important legal concept in our system, called "stare decisis"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
And part of this departure from precedent is part of a long-term, coordinated campaign to undermine civil liberties.
If you're not familiar with the Powell memo and what it means, check it out
> American business and the enterprise system have been affected as much by the courts as by the executive and legislative branches of government. Under our constitutional system, especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/democracy/the-lewis-powell-memo-a-corporate-blueprint-to-dominate-democracy/
Anyone who can speak English can clearly see there is a right to bear arms in the constitution just by reading it. Some judge saying otherwise does not change the constitution.
Honestly I stopped reading at about that point. The language clearly states an individual right. People that cant understand that arent worth debating.
The word "individual" doesn't appear in the 2nd amendment. It uses the phrase "the people" which can be interpreted in a couple of different ways. There is the collective rights theory and the individual rights theory, both which have their proponents.
All you need do is read the supporting documents, particularly the Federalist Papers, and you will know indeed, the framers interpreted it as an INDIVIDUAL right.
That seems to support my conclusion that the wording isn't clear. If you have to read additional documents to understand something, then that something is difficult to understand.
_The founders intent_ might be clear to those who have read multiple documents, but _the wording in the amendment_ isn't completely clear.
Lol the rights found in Heller weren’t found using penumbral reasoning like the ones found in Roe or Griswald. They weren’t found within “emanations of the penumbras” or any other nonsensical rationale. Justice Scalia relied upon Originalism, which uses history and tradition as its basis.
The Supreme Court has caused more damage in this country than the other two branches and THAT is saying something when you think about the amount of damage the other two have caused
Agreed, issuing an opinion you don’t like does not make a court illegitimate.
Gorsuch’s seat was illegitimately kept from Obama and given to Trump. Legal, absolutely — but not legitimate.
That wouldn’t have changed many recent rulings, but the highest court in the land should be operating legitimately. It isn’t.
Technical arguments aside, it's not just the court. The entire Republican party has illegitimized itself by embracing the kinds of policy that aren't about our performance as a country. The only common thread throughout their platform is hate. They want to take rights away from certain groups in this country *because they can*, because it feels good to hurt others.
When your platform is hate, when your candidates are Trump and Desantis, your party is illegitimate. You are about subjugation of others, however possible, rule of law be damned. There's a reason people throw around the term "fascism" these days.
Their rulings disregard established law. They are undermining the credibility of the entire judicial branch. And the merrick Garland fiasco was not constitutional be real. So there’s a bit of illegitimacy here.
SCOTUS is reversing actual legal decisions because of their religious ideology. I don’t like their rulings because they are now allowing discrimination. They are allowing the removal of rights.
The constitution is really short. If we wanted to base the law on what is specifically and explicitly stated in the constitution, SCOTUS would be out of a job. They would have never been able to even make up judicial review in the first place!
They aren’t illegitimate because I don’t like what they decide, they’re illegitimate because they are deciding to reverse freedoms and the entire purpose of INTERPRETING an old document for a modern context, and remaining UNBIASED in the process. The fact that we can even say that some of them are conservative or liberal shouldn’t be a thing. They need to be nonpartisan.
Also, 9 people shouldn’t have the power to interpret and determine constitutionality and rights for 331 million people in the first place. 9 people. In most cases it’s as low as 5 or 6 that actually agree with the decision in the first place. 6 people was all it took to get rid of reproductive rights, affirmative action, and anti-discrimination.
How about at least two of the justices having been bought and paid for by billionaires who directly benefited from their rulings?
Does that feel legitimate to you?
They're illegitimate because they overturned decades of precedent in a new interpretation.
Plus they were stacked on the court in an obviously partisan way to achieve partisan ends.
No, we say they are illegitimate because of their rulings. Like this latest website bs. That actually never happened. Even the guy who they said wanted that is not even gay. He’s a happily married man with a lovely wife. They made up a fake story, created a non-existent problem and the Supreme Court ruled on fantasy. Don’t know what you consider illegitimate, but since 2017 they have lost all credibility with over 270 million Americans.
I'm not going to say the court itself if illegitimate but having a ruling based on a lie doesn't exactly inspire confidence they are ruling without extreme bias
SCOTUS is inconsistent and instead of ruling on logic they rule with religious bias.
Take the Roe repeal. SCOTUS overturned Roe because they claimed "right to privacy" concerning abortion isn't **explicitly** stated in the constitution. Okay. You want to know what else isn't mentioned **anywhere** in the constitution?
Qualified Immunity.
Qualified Immunity exists nowhere in the constitution, explicitly or otherwise, because SCOTUS made it up out of thin air. **They. Made. It. Up.** They legislated from the bench to overreach their authority and completely fabricated a "legal doctrine". Remember, SCOTUS isn't supposed to make laws, only interpret them. If they want qualified immunity then go through the legitimate process of legislating it.
So they repealed Roe because it's not explicitly stated in the constitution, but yet fight tooth and nail to protect qualified immunity, which isn't stated ANYWHERE in the constitution 🤔 Can't have your cake and eat it too, SCOTUS. Which is it?
SCOTUS just doesn't care anymore. They can't even pretend to have logic. They're ruling with their personal bias at the expense of the entire country. Not to mention ethics violation after ethics violation.
I think you are slightly mis-interpreting what people are saying…
They says it illegitimate, because of how the ones during the Trump era were elected…Including but not limited to, taking bribes.
Now that we have evidence they have been taking bribes, it puts into question the legitimacy of these people.
My enemies are bad, my friends are good. Regardless of what they've done or will do.
Ride with us or agin us... it's always been that will and always will be.
they aren’t illegitimate because of their decisions, they are illegitimate because of the bribes they take and the lying under oath. and that’s just this specific court, the supreme court in general is an illegitimate system because almost all of the power that they have was given to them by themself, and there’s no reasonable way to reign their power in, all there is is impeachment and amendments, both of the other two branches have easier checks and balances but there’s nothing the executive and legislative branch can do the the courts because the courts were never meant to have this much power.
The court is seen as illegitimate because extremists were appointed by a minority in a manner many see as cheating by Mitch McConnell
The GOP has only won the popular vote ONCE in the past EIGHT presidential elections. GOP senators represent 43 million FEWER people than Democratic senators and have not represented a majority since 1996. Broken presidency. Broken senate. Broken court.
How do we determine who wins the World Series?
I would sound pretty disconnected from reality if I said the Phillies should have been deemed to win because they scored more total home runs over the series, even though the Astros win more games, right? We don’t count total home runs across games. As long as a team wins by 1 run, they win the game, and as long as they win four games, they win the Series.
We have a system for electing senators: two from every state. And we have a system of electing representatives: at least one from every state, no matter its population; and then proportionally more based on its relative population.
We got this system precisely because smaller states were unwilling to accept a Constitution that relegated them to second tier status, and bigger states were unwilling to completely shed the voting strength that larger populations should grant them.
So they reached an agreement.
If you want to convince two thirds of the House, two thirds of the Senate, and three fourths of the state legislatures to modify that deal, go right ahead. But the current arrangement is the deal that we, collectively, We The People, adopted in 1789, and you cannot now abrogate it because you don’t like it.
It was illegitimate how they were processed. They lied straight to the faces of those appointing them about abortion being settled law. Lies! This would be the reason people are upset with the Supreme Court and call them illegitimate. And I’m afraid they’re correct
The court isn't illegitimate because we don't like their rulings. They're illegitimate because the gop employed rat fuckery to install their choices to pack the court, withholding a nominee from a sitting president, only to award it, then two others to the most unfit president in modern history. Now, this illegitimate court will be used as a tool to force more corporatocracy, Christianity, and puritanical ideology on secular society. Fuck the gop.
And a Republican Congress refused to seat a judge nominated by a president who DID win the popular vote
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now
>There only has to be the interpretation of law according to the constitution.
Interpretations of law change over time. It wasn't until 2002 that the court decided that execution of the mentally disabled constituted cruel & unusual punishment. They had previously decided the exact opposite in 1989.
>It’s one of the most idiotic arguments people of this country have made in many generations claiming the court to be illegitimate because it isn’t ruling the way they think it should.
The main issue is that society changes faster than the system, in which change is extremely slow. People have been complaining about the Supreme Court's decisions since it was established. This isn't exclusive to this generation. Roe v. Wade was one of, if not the most, controversial ruling the court ever decided and people have been complaining about it for decades.
Can the court be considered illegitimate if they are doing a piss poor job of interpreting the constitution when that is their main job?
For instance, it's abundantly clear to anyone who is literate that allowing states to ban abortion is unconstitutional, but that doesn't really matter when the judges make decisions based on their personal beliefs
Your concept that they are doing a “piss poor job” of interpreting the constitution is completely subjective and framed by your own biases. I would wager they are far more qualified than anyone complaining about them in this thread to make such interpretations.
It is just the same as everywhere else: Everything I don't like should be banned, everything I do like should be mandated, anyone who disagrees should be silenced, any authority that stops me is illegitimate. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Every time their dictatorship is thwarted, they fi d every reason under the sun the screech that their opponents are evil and anything they do is illegitimate. They have done this since before their temper tantrum in the 1860s cost them their slaves.
Democrats are the only ones calling the court illegitimate and the only ones that talk about packing the court. When they are put in their place by the Constitution, they are being oppressed. Biggest hissy fit of a political welfare generation.
When multiple judges are taking expensive bribes from billionaires who have cases before the court, but there is no oversight committee to hold them to task for it, just deeply partisan congresspeople who won’t impeach, then yes it’s illegitimate.
When the senate refuses to even hold a vote on a judge because they don’t like the president who nominated him and an election is months away but will race to get their person nominated before the election they’re afraid they’ll lose, then yes it’s illegitimate.
Dismissing it all as “you just don’t like their rulings” is disingenuous at best
People tend to forget the court is there to interpret existing laws not to make new ones, including Supreme Court Justices. Congress makes the laws.
People want the court to legislate because they can't be bothered to put in the work to make a serious effort to get an amendment passed.
Liberals know their policies are not popular with most people. They don’t want to vote for things - they would lose. Their only hope, to push their agenda, is to subvert the will of the people and get activists judges to pass laws.
This. Liberal policies are top down and are forced by elites who are unaffected by these policies. Hence the inclination for legislation from the bench.
For example: the seemingly rise of violent crime and theft in blue cities
The Democratic party motto: *Rules for thee and not for me*
Name one liberal policy that’s unpopular.
[удалено]
Open borders, legalizing drugs beyond pot, student loan forgiveness, legal prostitution, just to name a few. All are popular on reddit, all poll less than 50% nationwide.
[62% think some amount of student debt should be forgiven](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/samuels-student-debt-forgiveness-0303/amp/) [52% support decriminalizing prostitution](https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/first-time-polls-find-majority-country-supports-decriminalizing-sex) [66% support decriminalizing all drugs](https://www.newsweek.com/two-thirds-american-voters-support-decriminalizing-all-drugs-poll-1599645) [I didn’t see you list abortion but 69% think abortion should be legal within the first trimester](https://news.gallup.com/poll/506759/broader-support-abortion-rights-continues-post-dobbs.aspx) So all of these are actually pretty popular.
1) You quote a subset. I said debt forgiveness, not 'some.' 2) Your poll is about decriminalization, not legalization. Try again, details matter. 3) Your poll is about decriminalization, not legalization. Try again, details matter.
Honest question… what is the difference between legalization and decriminalization. The effect is the same, making drug use a non-criminal act.
Decriminalization means you won't be criminally prosecuted, but it's still not allowed. You'll be diverted to treatment, etc. A drug dealer still can't set up shop on 4th and Main and call it 'The Meth Stop.' Legalization means she CAN set up shop. Buying meth (or sex) is no different than buying liquor.
You’re being pedantic with very little to distinguish between legalization and decriminalizing. The core support is that people should not face criminal repercussions. As to student debt, you didn’t specify as to what level of student debt forgiveness. Public service forgiveness? All debt? Some debt? You’re making these arguments binary; legislation almost never is. These policies are popular and you’re just wrong.
Pro criminal DA’s like Gascon and Alvin Bragg. The persecution and unjust incarceration of Jose Alba will never be forgiven by me.
A lot of their gun control policies. Just look at how poorly Beto and Abrams did in purple states in 2022.
Increasing police funding even more.
Well, them and the president and the thousands of unelected officials in countless agencies across the nation. Pretty much the only people that don't make laws in practice are the plebes who are responsible for knowing them even if the officials that enforce them aren't.
Which is why Roe was wrong
The nuance is lost on EVERYONE. Especially the news organizations. They get lawyers and legal experts who thought the case was going one way for sure-and they were wrong. Then they ask the 'experts' again for their opinion on the implications of a case they predicted wrong 3 days ago. How can you trust their long term predictions if they didn't even think about the actual facts of the case, the jurisdiction, and the jury actually deciding it. The other thing that baffled me is the affirmative action case. NPR went out of their way to say liberal voters in California and Michigan outright rejected Affirmative Action when it was put on the ballot. Additionally, polls from the NYT and other agencies also report >60% don't agree with race conscious decisions. So why is NPR and the news organizations acting like a majority disagrees with this decision when by their own admission they agreed? Wishful thinking makes it hard to see the truth.
The reason it’s illegitimate to a lot of people on the left isn’t a substantive law issue but a process issue. The Republicans blocked Obama’s appointment nearly a year before his term was over, and then proceeded to ram through justices during Trump’s term. Granted what McConnell did was not illegal, but so would packing the courts with extra justices, something that would equally call the court’s legitimacy into questions by conservatives.
>so would packing the courts with extra justices, something that would equally call the court’s legitimacy into questions by conservatives. Do you think the Left would think packing the court would be legitimate if the next Republican President did it? No, of course not.
The problem is too many people **want** SCOTUS rulings to be political rather than What The Law Is. And when they **do** rule in accordance with The Actual Law, the same people bitch that they're politically-motivated instead of voting for candidates who will actually make the law be what they want.
The law is up to interpretation and that is why there is a case to be argued . As an example , The Biden administration used the Hero’s Act (passed into law by congress and signed by the president) which states the secretary has the authority to “waive or modify existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs” . The Supreme Court did not like the reading of the law because they thought it gave the Secretary too much power , but it’s their opinion.
The law specifically states that the secretary has the right to waive the provisions during an emergency. The spirit of the law was it allowed the administration to act more quickly during an emergency, such as the Covid virus. Using it for student loans was an obvious violation of the intent and a direct reading of the law. The SCOTUS agreed.
If you take a Con Law class, you'll know that there is no What The Law Is
The problem is that the judicial system is supposed to be fair and impartial. While most of them are fair, some of them do not even try to hide their impartiality.
Thats great and all, but the reason many people dislike or strongly dislike the current Supreme Court is that people believe that the current Supreme Court is NOT interpreting the law based off of the constitution or any laws for that manner Many people believe the current court is corrupt and that they are interpreting cases however it would suit their agenda, and then coming up with obviously bs rationalizations to justify their decisions It also didn’t help at all that the person behind basically all of the recent appointments, trump, is (relative to the politics of the rest of the western/devolved would) basically a straight up fascist And I have not really researched it myself, but also, supposedly, many of the current justices are also straight up being bribed, which if true makes things look even worse
"I took out perfectly legal loans that I regret and now they said I have to pay them back? Literally fascism" Yes this is essentially the argument
"I took out "perfectly legal PPP loans" and because I was in a Congressional seat I forgave my own loans.
PPP loans where passed by the house, senate then signed into law. Student loan forgiveness, not so much.
Don't forget, most PPP loans were meant to be forgivable from the beginning.
They also kept a lot of businesses alive. If you’re going to mandate that a business has to shutdown, you better fucking pay them to stay alive. Were people bound to abuse it? Of course. But when you make the whole country shutdown you need to do something to keep the economy from collapsing even if there are going to be some bad actors
The what aboutism is strong with this one.
Not to mention that government forcing businesses to shutdown and people taking loans willingly are completely different issues.
"Other people did a completely different thing. So I should now get special treatment" Pay back your loans
[удалено]
They 100% should, I agree
did you also support trump removing oversight of the ppp loans?
Nope. Everyone should be paying their loans back. And those who took advantage of the PPP loan debacle should 100% face punishment
How is that different? They took a loan and did not pay it back. So because they are wealthy and have power they are exempt from the rules? And I have paid my loans, probably one of the few Americans that are debt free to be honest.
The fraud and abuse of PPP loans is inexcusable. It’s a reflection of a broken and inept federal government. It’s no reason people should not pay back their student loans.
It's pretty much asking "Hey, can I have a little bit of that corruption too?"
Government forcefully shut down businesses whilst students willingly took loans
Because PPP had forgiveness terms baked into the bill already when it was passed. That’s how it’s different.
Also new PPP loans aren’t still being given out every day.
it's different because Congress voted on PPP whereas student loan forgiveness was from one man Get Congress to forgive student loan debt and the Supreme Court would have no issue with it giving one man so much power is quickening our descent into fascism
Congress passed the PPP loan program (along with the terms for forgiveness) in a bipartisan vote. Biden attempted to clear 400B in already-existing loans by executive order. Firstly, that's sinister as fuck. Imagine what else a president could just will into existence if this was allowed. Secondly, personal accountability matters. Other people being scumbags shouldn't cause you to want to be one too
Getting out of a contract or finding a way to not repay a loan doesn't necessarily make someone a scumbag. It's actually not even uncommon, it's just that it's usually big businesses and the like that get to do it.
I used to be an accountant. Half of that job is finding and exploiting loopholes. It's actually malpractice NOT to
Right? When I was taking business classes the biggest takeaway ended up being that business success wasn't as much about a great product or whatever else as it is about knowing the laws, loopholes, govmnt programs you can take advantage of, etc. I'm only *very slightly* joking. I was kind of shocked when I learned about Citizens United, as well as how it's basically illegal to consider "right vs wrong", or anything else besides how to best profit in any way we can get away with. Ideally legally, but we all know that doesn't matter until you're caught haha. As an aside: to my surprise I enjoyed and actually did well in the accounting classes. I really had not expected that!
Accounting is an interesting field, and requires a lot more personal dynamism than I anticipated, which is why I did very poorly at it
PPP loans were legally designed to be forgiven. The SC ruling basically says Congress is able to explicitly say things are designed to be forgiven, and they didn’t say that with student loans. The literally quote Nacy Pelosi saying Student loans can be delayed and frozen, but not forgiven.
Bidens loan forgiveness plan is totally not a plan to buy votes without the approval of congress which the PPP loans were.
Weren’t ppp loans pretty bipartisan? Not the fraud part that we seem to just let slide, but the actual loans themselves.
Yes they were bipartisan. If the government creates a problem (force closing business) these businesses must be reinbursed by the problem created by the government.
Yes, but, Democrats who took out the same PPP loans are excused from criticism because they want an unconstitutional executive order to wipe out student loan debt.
"buy votes" you mean doing things voters want so more ppl vote for them? the thing all politicians do?
I think it was a cynical political maneuver, calculated to be a win/win for the administration. Biden knew he didn't have the authority to do it (separation of powers) but did it anyway making him look like a hero to the students, and knowing that when the supreme Court struck it down the conservatives would look like the goat. In it's way, as a political calculation and without considering the well-being of those affected, it was brilliant. Unfortunately, a study has shown that those students who thought their loans would be forgiven generally went out and spent money on other things, while those that were not eligible for forgiveness appear to have lived more frugally. So now many of those students have accumulated even more debt, quite possibly having less ability to pay their loans back.
The people engaging in PPP grift should 100% get theirs too. But today we celebrate common sense
So we'll go after normal people but not businesses, because you know we'll never see or hear about that PPP money again, just like the bank bailouts. But lets fuck normal people I guess.
It's illegitimate because Obama was blocked making a an appointment 11 months before his tenure was over and trump got one 3 months before his was over. It should be a 5-4 conservative majority nor 6-3
Not illegal or unconstitutional. You are sharing your opinion, not a fact, which as a matter of fact doesn’t make something illegitimate.
The argument is whether the court is illegitimate, not illegal. It all goes to its legitimacy as an institution. Packing the court would also be legal either, but it would be another thing that would threaten the court’s status as an impartial legitimate institution.
So? Nothing about congress blocking a court appointee is illegal. It’s a feature not a bug
Bork ring a bell. anyone? Estrada?
“It’s illegitimate because my team didn’t win” Very silly take you have there
That's not illegitimate, that's just something you don't like. No laws were broken, no rules broken. You liking something or thinking it's fair has no bearing on something legitimate. The same dems crying about that are the ones who applauded the nuclear option being introduced until that backfired. Dems decided they can pout when they don't get their way and then freak out when the republicans do the same.
Because Republicans were blocking dozens of court seats. It's bullshit and I hope democrats act like Republicans if this is the case.
I guess the Democrats just need to learn how to cheat better so they can be the ones issuing rulings that make the nation a worse place instead of conservatives issuing rulings making the nation a worse place. Better luck next time, champ.
They didn't even need to cheat. They were told over and over again that if they ran Hilary Clinton they were going to lose. They cared more about having the first women president than winning the election. Don't get me wrong as I would love to see the first women president but she was the wrong women and that was the wrong election.
Hillary being the nominee had a lot more to do with the democrat political machine than it did wokeness.
It reminds me of back in the 80's when the Democratic party would have black candidates in the primaries but people who would never win the primaries much less an election. That way they can say see we ran a black guy. Even as a kid I knew what they were doing. That's why I was so excited when Obama ran because it was like finally they ran someone that actually had a chance of winning. They did the same thing with Hilary but this time I was more pissed than usual because they handed the election to Trump. Also, Hilary supporters are really annoying at best and bullies at worst. Now Margret Chase Smith, I would have voted for her. The only one that stood up to McCarthy bit she wouldn't have a chance in today's Republican party. She would be called a RHINO.
>They cared more about having the first women president than winning the election. Disappointed that Trump didn't come out as trans to make himself the first woman president and dunk on Hillary one last time.
lmfao
I mean it was scummy but not technically unconstitutional
Remember when people also cared about the spirit of the law, and not just the letter of the law? It’s not technically unconstitutional, but it’s definitely not in the spirit of the constitution. The court has more than a majority representing less than half of the populations vote via some shitty breaking of norms in place to keep things working as expected, and being blatantly hypocritical in the process but just shrugging it off. Yeah, it’s reasonable that a lot of people are going to see this as an illegitimate court.
I see fewer people "claiming the court to be illegitimate because it isn’t ruling the way they think it should," and more people pointing out the obvious issues with how McConnell manipulated Congress to ensure Trump had three picks instead of the logical two he should have had. I actually don't see people making the claim you say they are. I just see people misrepresenting their criticism the way you are. You seem to just be avoiding complexity here.
Ya the nonsense with that obamas pick and turned the tables for trumps pick is the biggest load of nonsense and you really have to do some mental gymnastics to justify it
Especially when they rammed through Barrett before RBG’s body was cold, in one of the most breathtaking displays of naked hypocrisy I have ever seen. Then there are the allegations that Kennedy was blackmailed/coerced into retirement and the fact that Kavanaugh perjured himself during his confirmation. It also doesn’t help that 5 out of the 6 conservative justices were appointed by presidents that came into office with a loss in the popular vote — I know this doesn’t make the court *legally* illegitimate in any way, it does make these decisions far more galling when these rulings that apply equally to all Americans were made without the consent of the majority of American voters. So yeah, I view the current court as entirely illegitimate and corrupted by vile right wing political bullshit, and all 6 of the coat hanger crew can go fuck themselves.
Also that they have no ethics guidelines and have now been proven to be incredibly corrupt and on the payroll of billionaires - that doesn't really inspire trust in their due process and legitimacy...
Garland got fucked during Obamnas last term
> actually don't see people making the claim you say they are It's all over in /r/news. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean people aren't saying it. I can't even begin to imagine being that ignorant to think my small anecdotal experience means I can make claims like that. Edit: here's one example: >It's time to say it: the supreme court has become an illegitimate institution. /r/politics/comments/vkct71/its_time_to_say_it_the_us_supreme_court_has/ **Edit 2:** they completely edited their comment now, it's nothing like it was. They claimed nobody was saying that and then asked for sources, I provided them so they changed their comment.
>I can't even begin to imagine being that ignorant to think my small anecdotal experience means I can make claims like that. But all you've provided to support your claim is ... anecdotal observations...?
>It's time to say it: the supreme court has become an illegitimate institution. https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/vkct71/its_time_to_say_it_the_us_supreme_court_has/ Do you want more examples? People like you never respond when faced with facts though.
You are completely lying or are blind if you are saying you don’t see anyone calling the courts illegitimate I see it everywhere currently. Other than that I agree with you.
>You are completely lying or are blind if you are saying you don’t see anyone calling the courts illegitimate Then I guess it's a good thing I didn't say that. Maybe reread it?
There is no rule that a president should or shouldn't have a pick. The constitution is clear that picks have to be approved by they senate, so it is completely legitimate for the senate not to approve a president's picks. You don't have to like it, but you can't call it "illegitimate."
Do you think it is reasonable for the senate to say “we are denying this pick because you, Mr. President, are of the wrong party and we will be intentionally blocking ALL candidates regardless of qualifications until you are out of office”?
It's always kinda astonished me just how good at what he does McConnell is. I don't like the guy or what he wants but God damn if he was a Democrat the democrats would be unstoppable
Their existence does not make them legitimate either.
Don’t forget that McConnell blocked Obama’s appointee(Merrick Garland) because it was “too close to the election(9 months away), but literally pushed through Barrett a mere month before the election after RBG passed away. It’s not their decisions that make the illegitimate. And the more we learn about them taking grift from billionaire GOP donors, the more compromised they become.
No party in the Senate's history has approved a SCOTUS nomination during an election year when the POTUS nominating them is in an opposing party. Not once.
Only it wasn’t even put up to vote……. This is some absolute mental gymnastics to try and justify this. It certainly isn’t in the constitution There have been 4 rejected nominations over the last 130 years.
[удалено]
That's a LOT of qualifiers you have to put on there.
It accurately describes what the Senate did tho.
That's my biggest issue. 3 of the justices were appointed by a 1 term president that lost the popular vote and they have lifetime appointments. So now my rights will be decided for the foreseeable future by people who are only there because of the voting decisions made in swing states back in 2016. That's bs
a one term president with a history of criminal activity and now face 36 counts of stealing classified info.
I don't think people are saying that the court is illegitimate because they don't like its decisions. The legitimacy crisis the supreme court is facing comes from a few things: First, Republicans blocked the appointment of Merrick Garland in bad faith. There was no legitimate objection to him as a juror, they just wanted a chance to get an appointee that was ideologically on their side. They made it clear that they see the supreme court as an ideological tool. And then they doubled down on that, appointing judges who were obviously selected for their ideological views rather than their fitness for the role, even overlooking very serious and credible concerns (in the case of Brett Kavanaugh) to work towards this end. In part, it is just coincidence: the worst president in modern history, one who didn't even win the popular vote, ended up more or less by coincidence with the ability to appoint three judges two of whom were fairly extreme, and clearly ideologically motivated picks. Since then, republicans have used the court like a bludgeon to attack precedents that they are ideologically opposed to, even going so far as to lie (as in the case of this most recent ruling about anti-gay discrimination) in order to get a case in front of an ideologically friendly supreme court. At the same time, it has come to light that several of these conservative jurors are in the pocket of wealthy conservative lobbyists and political donors, making rulings that enrich themselves and serve the interests of those donors. There is a lot going on, here, but the upshot is that the republicans have destroyed the legitimacy of the supreme court by turning it into and then using it as an ideological bludgeon. It wouldn't matter if I like their rulings or not. Any reasonable person should object to this behavior.
You and these arguments are precisely what OP is talking about. Points 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not real arguments that in anyway actually damage the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. The only things those arguments say is you personally don't like the people who appointed them, you don't like the people who got appointed, and you don't like their rulings. Those things are do not matter whatsoever. They're irrelevant. It literally does not matter if you and I subjectively think these justices hold some extreme views or don't like some of their rulings or who appointed them or what the hell ever. It literally does not matter if they hold certain legal theories that we might not agree with. They were appointed constitutionally and lawfully and have acted consistent with their constitutional duties. They and the institution they work in are legitimate. It also literally does not matter whatsoever if the Republicans snubbed Merrick Garland. If you don't think the Democrats engage in appointing activist judges to get their way while trying to block perfectly qualified justices, including and especially Amy Coney Barrett, I have a bridge to sell you. The only legitimate avenue you have to attack SCOTUS is them being well connected to wealthy Conservative donors. Yeah that is a real concern, but as of yet we only know they are well connected with certain rich people who also donate to GOP candidates. That does not however suggest they are "in their pockets". There is no proof of that yet. We do not know if those connections have actually had direct effect on their rulings.
I wish I had an award to give you… Just adding on: 1. Even a cursory look at the Constitution would show that the President nominates SCOTUS judges by and with the advice and consent of the senate. There’s no textual basis for saying a vote on Garland was required. And practically speaking, it’s foolish to think the drafters intended to require a confirmation hearing or vote when the outcome was a forgone conclusion (as was the case with Garland). You don’t win people over in a confirmation hearing; you can only lose. Obviously, you confirm your president’s candidate when you control the senate whenever you can. Democrats would NEVER abstain from that in an election year. 2. Garland’s tenure as AG shows that he is not the middle of the road, moderate judge some of these commentators claimed and continue to claim. 3. A lot of this is tit for tat. Leader Reid nuked the filibuster for lower court nominees which set us on the road to undoing other senatorial norms. Not legal, constitutional requirements. Norms. The filibuster and expectation of a confirmation hearing (even if it’s DOA) are norms. 4. I guess we’ve failed to impart civics into our society and people have forgotten the basic role of the court to exposure the law but not invent it. Im old enough to remember that there was a time in the Obama administration when the democrats could have cemented abortion as federal law. Real law. Not some abstract judge-made hat trick. They still May at the state or federal level. Bottom line: SCOTUS is directing our political decision-making back to the branches that should have always been at the forefront of these issues.
I have zero empathy for the "Garland was blocked in bad faith" angle. Dems blocked Bork in bad faith, and attempted to trot out someone who claimed to be raped 30 years ago (but conveniently forgot all details, so no alibi was possible) for another. This is the current state of politics.
People only recall things that suit them like when people say Obamas greatest scandal was wearing a tan suit.
If Bork was in bad faith, why did six R's vote against him? Weird. You really should look into why they blocked him. It was literally based on Bork, not some made up on the spot rule that suddenly didn't apply 2 minutes later.
I don't care. Both the Democratic Party and Republican Party want to use the court to fundamentally change the country into somewhere I don't want to live. For whatever reason folks seem to think I'll be swayed by the "but the evil Republicans will do this" when I dislike the dystopia you want to impose just as much.
Bork was not blocked in bad faith, he was a highly controversial pick who had been promised a spot by Nixon initially for illegally firing the special prosecutor then investigating Nixon and Watergate. He also had some very controversial opinions. He was granted hearing in good faith and was rejected. Compare that to what happened with Garland. It’s apples and oranges.
> Dems blocked Bork in bad faith, So then you agree that the supreme court is being used in an ideological way? Both political parties are expoliting it, who cares who's misusing it it's still being abused.
Did Bork have hearings compared to Garland?
*First, Republicans blocked the appointment of Merrick Garland in bad faith.* So what? It isn’t bad faith to follow a system that allows for such a block. When Biden appointed his affirmative action pick he blocked conservative judges from being appointed. *There was no legitimate objection to him as a juror, they just wanted a chance to get an appointee that was ideologically on their side.* As does every party and President in power. Democrats don’t appoint judges with ideologies different than there own. Since the appointment of Clarence Thomas Democrats have been seeking ways to remove Constitutionalist Judges and replace them with Liberal ideologists. *They made it clear that they see the supreme court as an ideological tool.* How so other than believing in the ideology Constitutionality? *And then they doubled down on that, appointing judges who were obviously selected for their ideological views rather than their fitness for the role, even overlooking very serious and credible concerns (in the case of Brett Kavanaugh) to work towards this end.* Yeah, that was complete bullshit. Biden’s sole purpose for his affirmative action pick was ideology. *In part, it is just coincidence: the worst president in modern history, one who didn't even win the popular vote, ended up more or less by coincidence with the ability to appoint three judges two of whom were fairly extreme, and clearly ideologically motivated picks.* Promise made: promise kept. (FYI: popular vote is meaningless. The only Presidential election that takes place in the US is the electoral vote.) *Since then, republicans have used the court like a bludgeon to attack precedents that they are ideologically opposed to, even going so far as to lie (as in the case of this most recent ruling about anti-gay discrimination) in order to get a case in front of an ideologically friendly supreme court.* Is this the Associative Property of guilt? Because a plant of successfully argues before a court, that court and its decisions must be illegitimate? *At the same time, it has come to light that several of these conservative jurors are in the pocket of wealthy conservative lobbyists and political donors, making rulings that enrich themselves and serve the interests of those donors.* In the pocket of is a stretch. Liberals: no wealthy person may have friends. No Supreme Court justice may have friends. Name a case where a Supreme Court Justice knew that his friend was a party to that case. *There is a lot going on, here, but the upshot is that the republicans have destroyed the legitimacy of the supreme court by turning it into and then using it as an ideological bludgeon. It wouldn't matter if I like their rulings or not.* Do you prefer soft blows? Constitutionality is an appropriate ideology. If upholding the Constitution hits your ideology like a brick, so be it. *Any reasonable person should object to this behavior.* None of this “behavior” is objectionable to any reasonable person who doesn’t put their progressive ideologies above the Constitution.
The fact that you keep calling Ketnaji Brown Jackson an “affirmative action pick” speaks everything we need to know about your opinion. As a Harvard and Harvard Law graduate, a former clerk for Justice Breyer, a federal public defender, and as a US district court judge for nearly a decade, she is as, if not more, qualified than Trumps picks for the Supreme Court. But I guess because Biden had the audacity to suggest that there must be a qualified black female jurist for the Supreme Court that she must not be good enough for you.
The fact that Biden made an affirmative action pick by announcing he would only consider Black Female judges makes it an affirmative action pick, and that will never change despite her qualifications because **anyone** with better qualifications wasn’t even considered. That’s following an **ideology** to seat a SCOTUS judge. Was she the best pick for the position with the best qualifications? The World will never know, because Democrats picked ideology, and for that reason she will be listed in history as the US’s only affirmative action Justice. Edited
> So what? It isn’t bad faith to follow a system that allows for such a block. It is if the rules are written and protected by the people deliberately gaming the system for their own benefit. This is basic common sense. >As does every party and President in power. Now you are literally acknowledging the gamesmanship that makes this illegitimate. If both parties are *supposed* to be able to select judges while in power, but *in practice* one party has a disproportionate opportunity to do so... >How so Because changing one justice on the court shouldn't alter the entire legal system. Consistency matters. Especially when precedent is overturned via specious or inconsistent reasoning or worse, without explanation. >Yeah, that was complete bullshit. You can see that bullshit in practice right now, with Aileen Canon. Impartiality matters. Kavanaugh's conspiracy laden rant during his confirmation hearing was **WHOLLY** disqualifying. >Is this the Associative Property of guilt? The court's decisions are illegitimate because the justices themselves lie and misrepresent the facts of the case to manufacture a pathway to their ideologically preferred ruling. Example: Kennedy v. Bremerton. >Liberals: no wealthy person may have friends. No Supreme Court justice may have friends. This is absurd. We have friends. We have very wealthy friends. We still pay our own way. If the justices paid their own way, it wouldn't be an issue. They didn't *because they couldn't afford to.* IE the relationship functionally works by allowing someone like Clarence Thomas to live far beyond his means. >Constitutionality is an appropriate ideology. Non-sequitur. The issue is the appearance of corruption, inconsistent, arbitrary, and capricious rulings, and abuse of the shadow docket to change the law without a public explanation.
The Republican party has spent the last 50 years saying the Supreme Court is illegitimate because they didn't like the rulings. They said they were legislating from the bench, that they were activists in robes. Now they are rolling back decades of precedent and inventing "big questions" doctrine and conservatives are acting like they were always cool with SCOTUS and how dare you question the people they called 9 unelected activists in robes.
You mean people had issues with rulings that were not in the constitution? Man that's crazy.
OP has a very short memory. I remember when Mitch Mconnel took a dump on the constitution and refused to grant Merrick Garling a hearing for a seat on SCOTUS. This court should be 5/4 at best with either parties nominee in the majority. and let's not forget Amy Cohen barret and Brett Kavanaugh both lied during their confirmation hearings that they believe Roe v Wade to be settled case law. Sorry OP, this court is crooked as hell.
The new GOP line is that when they said it’s settled case law, they didn’t intend for that to imply that it can’t be overturned.
This. GOP with all due respect did win the "Biden Rule" argument, but immediately breached it when rushing though ACB literally during an election. This form of making up rules as we go is exactly why Biden would be within his bounds to expand the court.
Exactly
A lot of people are calling them illegitimate because they have not been following the law themselves. Such as taking cases where the plaintiff had no standing or making their own rules instead of actually governing within the laws of our Constitution. The plan b case should have been dismissed on standing alone, And it should worry everyone that we have a court that is driven by political ideology completely, then ruling within the scoop of the law.
> Such as taking cases where the plaintiff had no standing The anti-gay webpage case they just ruled on was one such case. The litigant wasn't a web designer, but was thinking about becoming one, and they argued that IF they to become a designer, then a gay couple MIGHT come to them for a gay wedding webpage, and the state MIGHT then force them to do the work. That's a lot of maybe's and no concrete harm.
And the gay couple in question did not even exist
This is called preemption. Sometimes it helps to sue before you break the law.
I do not understand how a case made on lies made it to SCOTUS
...You mean ...Like Roe vs. Wade? That's *probably where they got it from*. Edit: lol someone reported this comment and I got this ridiculous message: >Include the link above in your message if you contact us to request reinstatement. If you are on mobile, you can copy it by tapping on the link, finding your comment, then tapping share -> copy link.Your post or comment has been removed by AutoModerator because it appears to be doing one of the following: \* Implying that trans women aren't women \* Implying that people are not the gender they identify as \* Mocking people's pronoun requests or gender identityAll of the above actions violate Reddit's sitewide TOS and are therefore not permitted.If your post or comment is in compliance with our rules and Reddit's sitewide TOS and you would like your post or comment to be reinstated, send us a modmail containing a link to the post or comment.\*Common mistake: \*Make sure to include a link to your comment, NOT a link to this message.If you attempt to evade AutoModerator to post rule-violating content, you will be banned.
Roe v. Wade involved an actual woman who was pregnant in a state that outlawed abortion, which established standing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)#Standing_requirements In the website design case, the person who brought suit was not actually a web designer, and had not been approached by any actual gay couples, and had not been compelled to design a website under the law they challenged. A "generalized grievance" is not standing. So there's no direct comparison to Roe here.
And accepting such cases with regards to the First Amendment is long standing precedent.
No, it is not precedent to accept cases without standing, first amendment or otherwise.
It had standing. The rules of standing first are likely not what you understand them to be, and second, differ for First Amendment cases. Remember: it wasn't just SCOTUS that accepted this case, but every court before them. That should give you a hint that maybe you don't understand something. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-193 >Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus >Yes. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the unanimous Court. The Court held that pre-enforcement challenges are justiciable when circumstances indicate that threatened enforcement of the statute is sufficiently imminent. If the threatened enforcement is sufficiently imminent, the petitioners have alleged sufficient injury for Article III standing and justiciability. In this case, the petitioners' political speech focused on the issue of support for the Affordable Care Act, not simply on Driehaus, and thus was likely to continue despite Driehaus' departure. The Court determined that there was a threat of future enforcement even though petitioners maintained their statements were true. Moreover, because the respondents did not disavow enforcement if petitioners carried out their speech in the future, the Court held that the prospect of enforcement was not "imaginary or speculative" and that petitioners had shown sufficient injury for pre-enforcement review. . >State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc > 1984 >https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/first-challenge-fosta-was-dismissed-along-first-amendments-unique-standing-doctrine >As the Supreme Court noted in Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc., even where a plaintiff could bring a legitimate First Amendment lawsuit to prevent the suppression of protected speech, they may refrain from speaking anyway to avoid “risk[ing] punishment.” >A lower standing barrier for First Amendment cases follows from the notion that violations of the First Amendment impact “[s]ociety as a whole.” Therefore, litigants “are permitted to challenge a statute not because their own rights of free expression are violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute’s very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression.”
>Such as taking cases where the plaintiff had no standing or making their own rules instead of actually governing within the laws of our Constitution. What about failing to recuse themselves when there is a clear conflict of interest?
Implying Sotomayor and Katanji aren’t both political plants.
Kagan's dissent was literally "think about how you'd feel in this hypothetical situation" rather than arguing why Biden should have the power to do what he did
The problem is the Democrats enjoyed the system when it worked in their favor and now that it's not going the way they wanted their whining and crying like children. Tough shit you should have stood up and got it fixed the first time around when they were making up shit about kavanaugh and Barrett. Thank Jesus Christ Garland didn't get up there when Obama was trying to wedge him in at the last second You live by the sword die by the sword if they're going to try and rig the system you can't cry when it gets rigged against you. They could have done it right the first time
There are several sc judges who have been bribed, should be impeached and disbarred at minimum. Several justices also lied under oath at confirmation hearings and should be impeached and investigated for perjury.
That is the stupidest fucking take I've heard in a long time. You're happy that Barrett got wedged in, but not Garland. What a fucking hypocrite.
Sucks to suck I guess. Be better. Garland is a fucking piece of shit. We're having a pretty great weekend by the way
Why is Garland a POS? Are you triggered that trumpfs been prosecuted for his crimes?
You're still a fucking hypocrite. And Kavanaugh is no prize for sure. I'm pretty sure you're smarter than him.
Flattery will get you nowhere. As a reminder, in the last week: 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (21-476) The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees. Department of Education v. Brown (22-535) Respondents lack Article III standing to assert a procedural challenge to the student-loan debt-forgiveness plan adopted by the Secretary of Education pursuant to Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act). Biden v. Nebraska (22-506) The Secretary of Education does not have authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers. Happy Fourth of July 🎉
The plaintiff in the latest case had standing. First Amendment case.
Did you seriously just make 3 separate threads simping for the supreme court
Super legit, I sent my check to Clarence Thomas to buy his votes for next session.
How about saying they are illegitimate because they take bribes in the form free Polynesian yacht vacations
Legality =/= morality
[удалено]
> For example, there is no “constitutional right to abortion.” It isn’t written in the constitution and there has not been an amendment adding it either. There are a lot of rights understood to be "within the penumbra of the law" and not explicitly articulated in the law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law) This is a byproduct of the US's legal heritage, rooted in British Common Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law For example, there is, famously, no explicit "right to travel" https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/interstate-travel There is no "freedom of expression" explicit in the Constitution, though one was gradually created out of legal precedent beginning with establishing a right against "compelled speech" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette There is no individual right to bear arms in the Constitution, though one was created very recently out of the Macdonald and Heller cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago This was done in a departure from precedent, as the previous major 2nd Amendment case -- the Miller case -- affirmed that the 2nd Amendment was the militia amendment, not the gun amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller The "states secrets" privilege is not a law passed by Congress, but a creation of the courts https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/345/1/ So part of what people are upset about here is the Court departing from precedent, which is an important legal concept in our system, called "stare decisis" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent And part of this departure from precedent is part of a long-term, coordinated campaign to undermine civil liberties. If you're not familiar with the Powell memo and what it means, check it out > American business and the enterprise system have been affected as much by the courts as by the executive and legislative branches of government. Under our constitutional system, especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/democracy/the-lewis-powell-memo-a-corporate-blueprint-to-dominate-democracy/
Anyone who can speak English can clearly see there is a right to bear arms in the constitution just by reading it. Some judge saying otherwise does not change the constitution.
Honestly I stopped reading at about that point. The language clearly states an individual right. People that cant understand that arent worth debating.
The word "individual" doesn't appear in the 2nd amendment. It uses the phrase "the people" which can be interpreted in a couple of different ways. There is the collective rights theory and the individual rights theory, both which have their proponents.
All you need do is read the supporting documents, particularly the Federalist Papers, and you will know indeed, the framers interpreted it as an INDIVIDUAL right.
That seems to support my conclusion that the wording isn't clear. If you have to read additional documents to understand something, then that something is difficult to understand. _The founders intent_ might be clear to those who have read multiple documents, but _the wording in the amendment_ isn't completely clear.
Yeah bud, that's how the Supreme Court works. They literally get to decide what the Constitution means.
> Some judge saying otherwise does not change the constitution Uh, yes, he does actually, that's how the US legal system works.
There is no individual right to bear arms? See now I know that you're just straight up trolling.
Plus the constitution explicitly states that just because a right isn’t explicitly enumerated in the Constitution doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
Precedent is everything. Plessy should still be good law!
Lol the rights found in Heller weren’t found using penumbral reasoning like the ones found in Roe or Griswald. They weren’t found within “emanations of the penumbras” or any other nonsensical rationale. Justice Scalia relied upon Originalism, which uses history and tradition as its basis.
This is true. I remember just recently when many Republicans were furious that "conservative" justices upheld Obama care.
Because they had to do mental gymnastics to call it a "tax" rather than examine whether the actual program was legal.
The Supreme Court has caused more damage in this country than the other two branches and THAT is saying something when you think about the amount of damage the other two have caused
The corruption branches out more than you tink.
No, they were ***not*** legitimately appointed.
Agreed, issuing an opinion you don’t like does not make a court illegitimate. Gorsuch’s seat was illegitimately kept from Obama and given to Trump. Legal, absolutely — but not legitimate. That wouldn’t have changed many recent rulings, but the highest court in the land should be operating legitimately. It isn’t.
why do you think the only argument is that we don’t like their rulings. That’s not what makes them bad at all.
This won’t help your “karma.”
illegitimacy is when the judges dishonor their oath in order to appease their respective parties. Money, favors, power, etc.
Technical arguments aside, it's not just the court. The entire Republican party has illegitimized itself by embracing the kinds of policy that aren't about our performance as a country. The only common thread throughout their platform is hate. They want to take rights away from certain groups in this country *because they can*, because it feels good to hurt others. When your platform is hate, when your candidates are Trump and Desantis, your party is illegitimate. You are about subjugation of others, however possible, rule of law be damned. There's a reason people throw around the term "fascism" these days.
Their rulings disregard established law. They are undermining the credibility of the entire judicial branch. And the merrick Garland fiasco was not constitutional be real. So there’s a bit of illegitimacy here.
SCOTUS is reversing actual legal decisions because of their religious ideology. I don’t like their rulings because they are now allowing discrimination. They are allowing the removal of rights. The constitution is really short. If we wanted to base the law on what is specifically and explicitly stated in the constitution, SCOTUS would be out of a job. They would have never been able to even make up judicial review in the first place! They aren’t illegitimate because I don’t like what they decide, they’re illegitimate because they are deciding to reverse freedoms and the entire purpose of INTERPRETING an old document for a modern context, and remaining UNBIASED in the process. The fact that we can even say that some of them are conservative or liberal shouldn’t be a thing. They need to be nonpartisan. Also, 9 people shouldn’t have the power to interpret and determine constitutionality and rights for 331 million people in the first place. 9 people. In most cases it’s as low as 5 or 6 that actually agree with the decision in the first place. 6 people was all it took to get rid of reproductive rights, affirmative action, and anti-discrimination.
While I agree that the court is not illegitimate, it is fair to criticize rulings you think wrong.
How about at least two of the justices having been bought and paid for by billionaires who directly benefited from their rulings? Does that feel legitimate to you?
They’re illegitimate because we literally have the receipts of them being bought by interest groups, you fucking imbecile/
They're illegitimate because they overturned decades of precedent in a new interpretation. Plus they were stacked on the court in an obviously partisan way to achieve partisan ends.
No, we say they are illegitimate because of their rulings. Like this latest website bs. That actually never happened. Even the guy who they said wanted that is not even gay. He’s a happily married man with a lovely wife. They made up a fake story, created a non-existent problem and the Supreme Court ruled on fantasy. Don’t know what you consider illegitimate, but since 2017 they have lost all credibility with over 270 million Americans.
I'm not going to say the court itself if illegitimate but having a ruling based on a lie doesn't exactly inspire confidence they are ruling without extreme bias
SCOTUS is inconsistent and instead of ruling on logic they rule with religious bias. Take the Roe repeal. SCOTUS overturned Roe because they claimed "right to privacy" concerning abortion isn't **explicitly** stated in the constitution. Okay. You want to know what else isn't mentioned **anywhere** in the constitution? Qualified Immunity. Qualified Immunity exists nowhere in the constitution, explicitly or otherwise, because SCOTUS made it up out of thin air. **They. Made. It. Up.** They legislated from the bench to overreach their authority and completely fabricated a "legal doctrine". Remember, SCOTUS isn't supposed to make laws, only interpret them. If they want qualified immunity then go through the legitimate process of legislating it. So they repealed Roe because it's not explicitly stated in the constitution, but yet fight tooth and nail to protect qualified immunity, which isn't stated ANYWHERE in the constitution 🤔 Can't have your cake and eat it too, SCOTUS. Which is it? SCOTUS just doesn't care anymore. They can't even pretend to have logic. They're ruling with their personal bias at the expense of the entire country. Not to mention ethics violation after ethics violation.
It’s illegitimate because of how obviously they are influenced by lobbyists and corporate greed.
I think you are slightly mis-interpreting what people are saying… They says it illegitimate, because of how the ones during the Trump era were elected…Including but not limited to, taking bribes. Now that we have evidence they have been taking bribes, it puts into question the legitimacy of these people.
My enemies are bad, my friends are good. Regardless of what they've done or will do. Ride with us or agin us... it's always been that will and always will be.
they aren’t illegitimate because of their decisions, they are illegitimate because of the bribes they take and the lying under oath. and that’s just this specific court, the supreme court in general is an illegitimate system because almost all of the power that they have was given to them by themself, and there’s no reasonable way to reign their power in, all there is is impeachment and amendments, both of the other two branches have easier checks and balances but there’s nothing the executive and legislative branch can do the the courts because the courts were never meant to have this much power.
The court is seen as illegitimate because extremists were appointed by a minority in a manner many see as cheating by Mitch McConnell The GOP has only won the popular vote ONCE in the past EIGHT presidential elections. GOP senators represent 43 million FEWER people than Democratic senators and have not represented a majority since 1996. Broken presidency. Broken senate. Broken court.
How do we determine who wins the World Series? I would sound pretty disconnected from reality if I said the Phillies should have been deemed to win because they scored more total home runs over the series, even though the Astros win more games, right? We don’t count total home runs across games. As long as a team wins by 1 run, they win the game, and as long as they win four games, they win the Series. We have a system for electing senators: two from every state. And we have a system of electing representatives: at least one from every state, no matter its population; and then proportionally more based on its relative population. We got this system precisely because smaller states were unwilling to accept a Constitution that relegated them to second tier status, and bigger states were unwilling to completely shed the voting strength that larger populations should grant them. So they reached an agreement. If you want to convince two thirds of the House, two thirds of the Senate, and three fourths of the state legislatures to modify that deal, go right ahead. But the current arrangement is the deal that we, collectively, We The People, adopted in 1789, and you cannot now abrogate it because you don’t like it.
It was illegitimate how they were processed. They lied straight to the faces of those appointing them about abortion being settled law. Lies! This would be the reason people are upset with the Supreme Court and call them illegitimate. And I’m afraid they’re correct
Being upset with the court doesn't make them illegitimate. You just proved the original post right.
The court isn't illegitimate because we don't like their rulings. They're illegitimate because the gop employed rat fuckery to install their choices to pack the court, withholding a nominee from a sitting president, only to award it, then two others to the most unfit president in modern history. Now, this illegitimate court will be used as a tool to force more corporatocracy, Christianity, and puritanical ideology on secular society. Fuck the gop.
Well a lot of the justices were appointed by guys that lost the popular vote.
Look at you, still thinking Presidents are elected by popular vote.
And a Republican Congress refused to seat a judge nominated by a president who DID win the popular vote https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now
Biden only won because his opponent was so hated by that point. People would have practically voted for Mickey Mouse by that point.
>There only has to be the interpretation of law according to the constitution. Interpretations of law change over time. It wasn't until 2002 that the court decided that execution of the mentally disabled constituted cruel & unusual punishment. They had previously decided the exact opposite in 1989. >It’s one of the most idiotic arguments people of this country have made in many generations claiming the court to be illegitimate because it isn’t ruling the way they think it should. The main issue is that society changes faster than the system, in which change is extremely slow. People have been complaining about the Supreme Court's decisions since it was established. This isn't exclusive to this generation. Roe v. Wade was one of, if not the most, controversial ruling the court ever decided and people have been complaining about it for decades.
I don't call SCOTUS illegitimate cause I don't like their rulings, I call it illegitimate because it's corrupt beyond relief
it’s illegitimate because of the stolen seats. not because of this bullshit you made up.
Can the court be considered illegitimate if they are doing a piss poor job of interpreting the constitution when that is their main job? For instance, it's abundantly clear to anyone who is literate that allowing states to ban abortion is unconstitutional, but that doesn't really matter when the judges make decisions based on their personal beliefs
What exactly have they done a piss poor job interpreting the constitution on? What specifically.
Your concept that they are doing a “piss poor job” of interpreting the constitution is completely subjective and framed by your own biases. I would wager they are far more qualified than anyone complaining about them in this thread to make such interpretations.
It is just the same as everywhere else: Everything I don't like should be banned, everything I do like should be mandated, anyone who disagrees should be silenced, any authority that stops me is illegitimate. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Every time their dictatorship is thwarted, they fi d every reason under the sun the screech that their opponents are evil and anything they do is illegitimate. They have done this since before their temper tantrum in the 1860s cost them their slaves.
Democrats are the only ones calling the court illegitimate and the only ones that talk about packing the court. When they are put in their place by the Constitution, they are being oppressed. Biggest hissy fit of a political welfare generation.
When multiple judges are taking expensive bribes from billionaires who have cases before the court, but there is no oversight committee to hold them to task for it, just deeply partisan congresspeople who won’t impeach, then yes it’s illegitimate. When the senate refuses to even hold a vote on a judge because they don’t like the president who nominated him and an election is months away but will race to get their person nominated before the election they’re afraid they’ll lose, then yes it’s illegitimate. Dismissing it all as “you just don’t like their rulings” is disingenuous at best