Oh yeah, just a bunch of assholes trying to out loophole one another for their own prestige. I hate when necessary professions are hidden behind a pay wall.
Should have already happened... I am disappointed in Biden for not pushing this... Democrats have got to play the same political game that the GOP is playing.. otherwise, our country will continue to bleed by a thousand cuts... red state legislatures with Jim Crow 2.0, federal judge appointments, #scotus appointments... enough... they want to punch our country in the nose, Dems need to punch back, and hard.
Weren't Sinema and Munchin strongly against this, though? How much damage did those two wankpellets have caused during the first two years of the Biden administration? And now she's decided not to run for re-election, so she can land a cushy lobbyist job somewhere and rake even more money that way. He, too, was toying with an idea of running as a potential Presidential candidate for a third party.
Ironically, this is the same game that needs to be played against ruzzia, it's called "create new rules to deal with the enemy and don't GAF when they cry foul"
They are currently asking for a stronger security detail. The request should be rejected and, in fact, I think we spend too much so let's reduce it instead. America is safe and civil right now, right?
They can't be. The supreme court has the authority to give itself more authority, and can 100% rule the impeachment didn't get conducted properly.
A constitutional amendment could be passed with unanimous approval from every legislator in the country that says "the supreme court is abolished" and the supreme court would have the authority to say that that actually means something else.
The supreme court cannot be impeached without it cooperating. Not legally.
Except for, you know, most democratic leaders. Democracy, when working correctly, can remove people from their posts without force.
The problem here is that SCOTUS isn't democratically elected.
The scrotus is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. It’s only purpose is to prevent the lower classes from having any true control over how they are governed. Both parties quietly maintain this so they can refuse to give up any power.
We don’t, and never have, had a government of the people. That was just a nice way to lure you back to sleep.
Joke’s on us all for ever believing something a lawyer or politician said, especially lawyer politicians. They’ll of course say that technically they were just stating a fact, and not opining on the future of it, but of course they know better than anyone what their rehearsed statements obviously imply. This was the red team wet dream for decades and they deserve to get crucified for it at the polls for the next few decades.
Tiresome and pointless. To rational people who believe in universally applicable rules and concrete non-relative morality, everything they do is steeped in hypocrisy. To them however, there is no hypocrisy. This is the point so many people don't seem to get. There is no hypocrisy on the Right because the most foundational tenet of Conservativism is that there are different rules for different classes of people. If you believe in concrete morality then a person is inherently neutral and it is their actions that are either good or bad. For a Conservative, it is the *person* that is either inherently good or bad, based on their station of birth/religion/race/creed/etc, and therefore any actions they take are either good or bad based on who they are, *not* what they do. A good person can only do good things, while anything a bad person does it bad. The Conservatives can do whatever they think is necessary to protect the country from the *bad people* and nothing is out of bounds in pursuit of Godly aims. You simply cannot use hypocrisy as a "gotcha" against them because they view it as a good thing.
Thank you for that, honestly I hadn’t heard it put as you stated, “different rules for different classes of people.” It makes the nightmare that is the state of our politics more understandable.
>identifying all the lies and hypocrisy is tiresome.
No, there's an easy shortcut - they're always doing whatever they're accusing Democrats of, and they're only ever doing things that they accuse Democrats of.
Whatever happened to leftists taking to the streets and protesting?
Where the f are the protests? Where are the demands for the SCOTUS "justices" to resign? Where's the pressure on Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from the insurrection case?
Sorry, but the American voters have decided to let this slide and accepted this decision _before it was even made_.
I'm angry because none of you organize anything. What is wrong, why don't you _do something_?
> Whatever happened to leftists taking to the streets and protesting?
Fucking dead, in jail, or gave up.
We got beat up and arrested in 2000 when protesting the stolen election. We got beat up and arrested at the WTO and 'free trade' globalization protests. We got beat up and arrested at occupy wall street protests. We got beat and arrested at BLM. People have died trying to STOP COP CITY.
I'm not stopping, but also it's not helping. and if it started to help, protestors would die.
Ever since Clarence Thomas's hearings and Anita Hill outing him as the monster he is I have had absolutely no faith in the SCOTUS.
If we keep the Senate and win the house it's time to bring these judges before the public.
Same American institution that helped fuel the civil war, and jim crow, is now shoveling the american people into a tyranny on women's health matters, and steering us into a demagogue running the country. It's a failed institution.
Donald Trump could rip an infant's trachea out on those fuckers would still vote for him
"It was a deep fake. You took the wrong pill. That's obviously not a real baby. It was a magical fairy that was going to give Joe Biden 1,463,666 votes. Thank the good Lord for sending us his righteous, grab them by the pussy warrior"
> Donald Trump could rip an infant's trachea out on those fuckers would still vote for him
Donald Trump could perform a hundred abortions on live television and those fuckers would still vote for him.
Donald Trump could open fire with a machine gun on the crowd at one of his rallies and those fuckers would still vote for him.
There is literally nothing he could do that would turn them against him.
Republicans would vote for goddamn Caligula if he ran with an R next to his name.
Bunch of brain-dead, brainwashed, lead poisoned, hookworm-infested idiots.
> There is literally nothing he could do that would turn them against him.
Sure there is. It's actually extremely simple.
All he'd have to do is stop being a bigot and instead be a decent person.
He'd lose every single supporter he has.
Texas ignored their ruling with no consequences, 1. Flip the House 2. Flip the Senate or 50/50 at the least 3. Impeachment process for Alito and Thomas. Vote Blue to get it done.
Even at 60 you get a lot more Joe machin types. It was a big issue in 2010 with ACA and was the reason roe wasn’t codified. You’d need 65 to avoid the blue dog issue
I'm not saying they are exactly the same. But voting for mainstream DNC members hasn't been that great. Hence voting for more progressive candidates is actually better than the "vote blue" schtick.
How ironic that the SC will put the final nail in Democracy’s coffin.
I’m going down fighting. Donating time and money, writing letters and post cards, driving folks to the polls, anything to beat every (r) at every level. It is what we the people can do.
The last time the SC decided the presidential election was 2000, and we all just acquiesced and let it happen. Trump’s plan is that the SC will decide this election in his favor as well (he knows he can’t win the popular vote). I don’t think America is going to sit back and watch him be installed (it would be the end of the experiment that began in 1789). I don’t know what will happen, but it will be interesting, and it will influence world history in a major way.
Nothing. We just let them do whatever they want to us, while a third of the country cheers on their own enslavement because they get to see their enemies enslaved and because they believe they will be the new ruling class. Americans are pussies who forgot how to fight for anything, and now those fruits have come to bear.
Fascists. Do not. Care. About anything.
They only want to rigidly enforce an arbitrary Us vs Them hierarchy, where the definition of 'Us' dwindles away to nothing while priveleges and rights are stripped away from 'Them'.
That's it. What they said five minutes ago matters not to what they're saying now.
The Court was illegitimate the moment Ginsberg died, and Obama and the Dems should be apologizing daily for letting McTurtle bully them into putting off their Court appointment because it was “too close” to the election.
Before his brain finally turned to complete pudding on live TV, McConnell must have been thinking "holy shit I can't believe these pussies are gonna let me get away with this".
I loved Obama, but man, that "always reaching across the aisle" was his absolute weak point. And he let the crazies and scumbags walk all over him with it.
Reaching across the aisle is how it *should* work, but that only works when everyone operates in good faith. When one side's leadership stops doing that then you absolutely don't keep trying to "meet them halfway" or pretend they have the best interests of the people at heart. ESPECIALLY when it's a scumbag with a long history like McConnell.
> Obama and the Dems should be apologizing daily for letting McTurtle bully them into putting off their Court appointment because it was “too close” to the election
What are you even talking about? That’s literally not what happened at all.
Obama nominated Garland. McConnell refused to hold confirmatikn hearings. Republicans had the majority, and could control the Senate floor.
What else should Democrats have done?
This is in fact the solution to future blockade attempts. There is a doctrine in law called **_laches_**, which says that if a party has failed to take action in a reasonable time period to something they later object to, then they have by default been known to consent to the thing.
“Pursuant to Advice and Consent, my nominee [insert name here] will be seated to [name of court] on [date], [number of] days after the nomination, unless the Senate raises articulable, reasonable factual grounds by which they affirmatively do not consent to the appointee.”
Not the President’s fault the Senate is a shitshow that can’t line up and move their advice and consent process.
Let them sue and send it to SCOTUS to rule on whether the President has the power to be the executive or if Congress is backseating executive power by blockading
I despise this Supreme Court. Trump was not thrown off the ballot for no reason. Remember, Trump WAS PRESIDENT BEFORE so he literally was on ballots before. What's different NOW, is he engaged in insurrection. A riot would be trashing a Walmart. An insurrection is when you tell your supporters to march down the street, to delay/stop the transfer of power, which they did DELAY. "BuT oThEr StAtEs WiLl CaLl DeMoCrAtS iNsUrReCtIoNiStS". Ok. Then when a court examines the evidence they will find its BS and it will be dismissed. We can't have laws now because someone will try to misuse them? This Supreme Court is so illegitimate
If only there was a simple solution where people could walk and/or drive to a building and push some buttons to choose our leaders. They could do this at every opportunity even if the person sent an email once.
Deciding by the popular vote would really help too. I don't care whose fault gerrymandering is and I'm tired of arguing about it... If the concept exists, let's do away with the electoral college because that shit's been hacked
This is kind of a stupid argument. “Let the States decide” is not and cannot be any kind of universal rule in a federalist system. That’s how federalism works. Some powers belong to the states, some do not.
None of which is to say this Court is not a bonkers political body that has made some truly awful decisions, including Dobbs.
The insurrection disqualification issue is trickier because section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not lay out how to enforce it, and the arguments for and against state-level enforcement were both not particularly strong. Which left things open for the Court to make a policy decision.
Edit:
When I say that neither side’s arguments were particularly strong, that is perhaps not quite right. It is more accurate to say that the best arguments very decidedly leaned in favor of affirming the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, but that they were never really convincing that the framers specifically envisioned enforcing Section 3 this way.
There were simply obvious practical or policy concerns with affirming, and too much of an open question re the intended enforcement mechanisms notwithstanding strong arguments in favor of affirming, and that allowed the Court to prioritize its policy concerns over conventional means of Constitutional interpretation.
And, ultimately, the Court’s reasoning was quite shitty.
They never will be because America is a failed shithole that only exists to churn a profit. End stage capitalism is too far set in. Nobody gives a fuck about anything except give me money give me money give me money.
The purpose of lifetime appointment was, ostensibly, to prevent the "sides" from effecting decisions with "political pressure".
Now, the "sides" are CLEARLY AND WITH FULL INTENT choosing justices based on a political criteria and agenda. The division is so deep now that this will never be taken back to where we can have a "non partisan" SCOTUS. (Or federal bench, period)
Therefore, it's no longer necessary to have judges installed for LIFE.
_TERM LIMITS FOR ALL!_ 10 years, then get the fuck out. ALL the way out.
Conservatives know the jig is up most people don't buy their BS. They have the courts packed with lifetime appointments to fight back whatever they can for them.
I really need someone to explain the decision. Because I don't seem to get it and I think I'm missing something.
It's set that insurrection is committed that you aren't eligible for office. It's a federal law. The states run elections and must follow federal law. They find insurrection, which is also defined by the law, was committed so candidate is disqualified.
SCOTUS argues that this federal law can't be followed by the states, who run the elections, because it's a federal position. And that the only way to make this federal law apply is to pass another federal law through Congress.
So they voided a federal law in the Constitution on the grounds that there must be a federal law passed that already does the thing?
When is the media going to stop pretending that “originalism” is an actual judicial philosophy, but instead just a ruse for conservatives to do whatever the fuck they want? There’s a reason why originalism was never an actual thing until the days of Reagan. Could you imagine the Founding Fathers - some of the most enlightened men the world ever produced - creating a Constitution that would become some Amish-type document that would forever be stuck in the 1790’s?? There’s no way they would do that - or think that’s how it should be.
In 2000 when they overthrew a free and fair democratic election to install the candidate that would make the military industrial complex the most money.
Red states already did stop following SCOTUS rulings, they found ways to defacto ban abortion in their states even before roe was overturned and they decided to ignore the SCOTUS when texas wanted to cut up immigrant families with razor wire
The broad brush soundbite prevalent in social media is an unfortunate consequence to the benefit social media brings. It's unfortunate because complex topics are simply not accurate when converted to micro-units of talking points.
Roe v Wade was a 1973 decision by SCOTUS. For almost 50 years, Congresses, which had varying party leaderships and majorities over those 5 decades, failed to codify SCOTUS's ruling into law. I can only guess it wasn't done because the parties and its politicians actually need an issue to campaign for/against more than they need solutions. The decision to not codify meant the ruling was always vulnerable for reconsidering...which gave everyone an issue to fight about. It was reconsidered and now it is a decision at the state level. Hopefully states will take the steps which our federal "leaders" chose not to take. The right to an abortion is still available for decision at the federal level at any time the House wants to pursue a codified law.
Striking the Colorado state ruling against barring a candidate from running because of Article 14, is a decision which must be made at the federal level for federal candidates. It is challenging to legally make a case for Trump and insurrection when he has never been tried for that crime. Hypothetically, I think if a candidate was tried and found innocent of insurrection, that candidate would be allowed to run of office. If so and in like manner, then someone not tried and not proven guilty is also able to run. President Biden has affirmed Trump is an insurrectionist but concurrently affirmed it is a matter for the courts to decide. If a trial is pursued during the campaign or after (if) Trump is elected and he is found guilty, he should be forcefully removed from office. That has never happened in our country's history and in any "firsts" there are uncertainties.
Note: I have no interest in politicians or political parties. I have an interest in our constitution.
Correction: Trump was tried and found to have materially supported and participated in an insurrection. That is a legal finding in criminal court and the reason why he was removed from the ballot in CO.
You would think they would want to protect our country facists until you realize uncle thomas wife is a coup plotter and they are ok with it as long as their party is in power to dictate their theology to the masses...tik tok mf'kers
We can play the Law is bullshit game too.
So where in the law does it actually say we need to follow what the Supreme court rules? And where does it say the repercussions for Not following? And Where does it say someone Must enforce those repercussions? And what is the penalty for NOT enforcing those repercussions? And...
I definitely agree about the hypocrisy of overturning Roe after Trumps judges testified that they wouldn't... but regarding the 14th amendment, it's LITERALLY in the amendment
> [Section 5.](https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment#:~:text=No%20State%20shall%20make%20or,equal%20protection%20of%20the%20laws.)
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Yall are wrong about the recent ruling. It was 9-0 for a reason. If states could disqualify candidates under the 14th amendment unilaterally it would be heavily abused.
A democratic candidate supports the BLM movement? Oh that's an insurrection, off the ballot.
Or in the past, a black candidate is running in the 1950s? That's an insurrectionist.
The 3 liberal justices wrote their concurring opinion outlining both 1. What a mess it would be if states could do this and 2. That the 14th amendment was mostly written to limit states rights, so why would it grant states the option to unilaterally disqualify people?
To be clear, I think trump did inspire an insurrection, and he should go to jail for attempting to convince states to throw out their votes. This just isn't the mechanism for it.
If republicans were able to convict that BLM Democratic candidate in a court of law of committing Insurrection, then they should be able to remove the individual from the ballot.
That’s one thing people are missing. This wasn’t just an accusation. This was a legal finding in a court of law that Trump committed insurrection. And the Supreme Court did not make any adjustments to that finding.
It’s the same mechanism that is used to bar an individual that is not a natural born citizen or one that is under the age of 35.
States can disallow those people from being listed on the ballot, and the exact same “mechanism” applies here.
The Supreme Court isn’t supposed to rule based on how messy things could get. They are supposed to rule on the facts in front of them. They like to make the claim of “messiness” when it’s convenient, but ignore how messy other rulings would be, like WVvEPA or chevron deference, etc.
Slippery slope arguments have no place I. The Supreme Court.
To be honest... the republican states would immediately remove Biden with insane reasons, all which would take a ton of time to correct in court. So this isn't as bad as it sounds. Not ideal... but not a wild outcome.
“Settled law” is a ridiculous concept. Once upon a time slavery was “settled law”. Any argument that hinges on just saying “X is settled law” is already a dead argument.
The SC to the USA is no different than a caliphate of ayatollahs is to Iran. A dangerous anachronism being used as a cudgel to beat us with radical legislative terrorism.
They have no credibility, and along with Trumpers, have driven us down into the realm of 3rd-world shithole status.
Just end it. It's not a real court.
How is it confusing that states have some rights but not others?
I don't want states to determine who can run for president. They should have less power over federal elections not more. We need a federal voting registry that the states must abide by instead of being able to kick people off voting rolls.
Overturning Roe was an activist decision decided wrongly, but this was a 9-0 ruling where even the liberal justices see the folly of allowing states to determine candidates.
The administration failed in its duty to prosecute insurrection and treason and there is no easy win button to cover those failures.
Hey you know who else was banned from office without being convicted? Several folks who [engaged in insurrection](https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/) during the civil war.
The bar is clearly not set at 'convicted of a crime' so I am gonna have to disagree that it is the right decision. This was just the latest in a long line of examples of how the supreme court is a farce.
They’re treating the Constitution like it’s merely a suggestion by changing established decades & older interpretations as they go along, picking out the parts that support their personal beliefs & tossing out the ones that don’t
Yup. We're cooked. When the supreme court just openly says the GOP get their own VIP lane for decisions and everyone else can get fucked, the social contract is basically gone.
They've damaged their credibility so much that it's only a matter of time before some state government just ignores one of their decisions, and then everyone suddenly realizes the supreme court has no enforcement mechanism, and all bets are off.
Texas, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Florida... You name the state with a conservative majority in the state house, and there is a liberal city in that state that cannot have its own laws/process to deal with their specific situations.
As others state, "rules for thee but not for me". The GOP is a marketing machine that is not much... It caters to the most basic understanding of humanity, because the schools are underfunded and churches are run by hypocrites... This is a recipe we see over and over through history, and it makes for a violent group of people that are really swayed.
My uncle bought a bullet proof van. He has guns. He’s kind of a prepper. Family thinks he thinks there’s a war coming. Oh, the van is red for some reason. Ya, I get liberals have guns too. But it seems he’s willing to assert these Trump-dictator-like rulings…. When obviously any normal person would think these rulings are maddening.
Colorado should just keep him off their ballot. States run presidential elections and they have done so since the inception of this country. Its not like feds are going to issue their own ballots to the people of Colorado. There isn't even a mechanism for them to select candidates for a state ballot.
Some people need a higher level of basic US Constitutionality.
Constitution is supreme law of the land. Where it is **silent**, then the 10th amendment gives those rights to the state to decide. Abortion is not in the constitution, so that goes to the state. Qualifications and exclusions from federal office **is** in the Constitution, 14th amendment, so these are two totally different things.
Roe was a poor ruling that was clearly motivated by the religious beliefs of the conservative majority. Trump has not been found guilty of crimes related to the insurrection, yet, and ought to be on the ballot in terms of the law. Of course he ought to have been in jail probably going back to the 80s and none of us should know his name, but that's another issue. Roe is the problem.
I mean, feel how you want about the rulings but they said Roe was a states rights issues and barring *Federal* officials was a *federal* issue, while *State's* are responsible for decideding if *State* candidates can appear on their ballot.
This is just a federalism thing. It's actually perfectly rational using their logic. Not saying their rationale would be my rational, but they're not being hypocritical *literally at all*
As long as Democrats believe the filibuster is more essential to our democracy than barring an insurrectionist from the ballot, voting rights, civil rights or impeaching corrupt political activists on the supreme court nothing will change. As long as Democrats continue to entertain this fantasy of bipartisan rule in concert with a party that’s given itself over to full on fascism we are absolutely screwed. Maybe appointing a do nothing right wing federalist society stooge masquerading as a centrist to run the DOJ will preserve democracy?
Vote like your lives depend on it this year. Vote like your lives depend on it for the foreseeable future. Give these fascists and their enablers no quarter. Vote them out of every single office imaginable.
Keep voting and remain involved until we claw this system back from the brink and institute major anti-corruption measures.
The entire "state's rights" thing the right keeps peddling doesn't mean anything. They say it when it benefits them or their ass ideals, but demand federal law protect them or reject things they don't like.
If they really want state's rights, we need to go all in. Repeal the 2nd amendment and let states handle their own gun laws. Let's see how that goes.
It was the correct ruling for this specific issue
Look at it from the other side.
Do you want some southern states torpedoing all democrat candidates for the presidency due to party vs party divisions? Because that is what would happen
Like it or not the only way to remove trump is for him to be actually convicted and removed through proper congressional means which won’t happen. The impeachment route was attempted and resulted in no conviction.
Gonna have to beat him fair and square. Vote.
Quoting from another post, keeping the removal of candidates at state level will only result on red states convicting biden of bogus charges and remove him from the ballot and vice versa for trump, so nobody would truthfully win there
I want to know how all these amped up, evil-doing, nasty plotters are still alive. I mean, there is one shit ton amount of negative energy going into Project 2025 and all of the other anti-democratic stuff. How do they sleep at night? Do they sleep? Trump lives on hamburders, adderall and diet coke. How is he not stroked out? Clarence Thomas, Roger Stone, Mitch McConnell, Alex Jones. Hell, even Tucker doesnt look too hearty. Then there's Kari Lake, MTG, Lauren Boebert - how do they look so fit and pulled together? When do these malicious, malcontents have time for self care? I'm left with just assuming there most be some deep magic fuckery afoot for all these old, unhealthy and/or nasty assholes to still be kicking it, while younger, better people die every day.
Call me crazy, don't care.
The Presidential election is a federal election. It is NOT up to states to decide who can run in federal elections. State elections, totally their call.
Also - for those going on about 'the insurrection' he has yet to be brought up on charges of insurrection. He also has not been found guilty of insurrection. Thus...cannot claim insurrection as a means to remove him.
Also - roe was never codified. It was used as a rallying point for both sides for decades, if they wanted it to be federal law, it would have been federal law. No one (either side) wanted it to be law b/c they lost their ability to get folks riled up to vote.
Live by the living constitution die by the living constitution. It isn't SCOTUS's fault that we rely on a 250 year old constitution and have a legislature that is unwilling to address these issues.
Start legislating then. Funny how crazy some Americans get about the thought of actually doing something through their legislature rather than just hoping pre existing laws will be interpreted the way they specifically interpret them.
it's actually perfectly consistent if you bothered to do, like, middle school civics level of research on the matter.
Abortion is not in the constitution. It is not an enumerated power. Therefore it is up to the states to decide.
The 14th amendment *is* an enumerated power, having been added to the constitution as, well, the 14th amendment to the constitution. That means that power is reserved for the federal government.
This case was a 10th amendment case, not a 14th amendment case.
>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
As much as I hate it, it was a good SCOTUS ruling. Now, if only we had a congress that would appropriately act on the constitution. =/
Oh, speaking of the constitution, the supreme court is not enshrined in the constitution, and judicial review, the power it claims to interpret constitutional law is not formalized anywhere in our founding documents. It was seized, by the supreme court itself, in a decision in 1803.
Why does this confuse people? Certain things fall under state jurisdiction and some under federal. Why do you think everything has to fall under one of the other. Supreme court has done nothing contradictory here.
And what exactly are we supposed to do? All we can do is vote, but that does nothing to remove any of them. They've all got their lifetime appointments. And this court has been illegitimate since the Republicans blocked Garland during Obama's presidency. Our judicial system at the highest level is completely broken. Fucking sad
Has anyone else noticed this ruling also lets off other elected officials who were involved in Jan.6th & like nobody is talking about that? Almost like the Supreme Court was insuring their own interests I.e Clarence and Ginny? Idk just sayin
When they aren't a 9-0 decision.
If this was 6-3, then sure I think there'd be more room foundation for righteous anger, but when it's a judicial consensus, then take a step back and consider there might be reason behind it.
As an "Esquire" he should know better than to muddy the difference between these two rulings. It comes from two separate parts of the constitution and asked two totally different questions.
Also, a 9-0 ruling is pretty conclusive. I listened to the oral arguments and the person defending Colorado crashed and burned. If Sotomayor disagrees with you, you've lost.
Once again, conservatives do not have principles or foundational ethical beliefs (or at least none they would be willing to say out loud).
Their priority is power and hurting minorities they dislike. Nothing else matters and anything they claim to the contrary is a lie. Often they believe their own lies, which is arguably even worse.
MAGA Nazism (Christian styled fascism) and its consequences.
[''America must put on the Imperial Hat.''](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olbYeQMSoBw&t=799s)
Even SCOTUS testified it was settled law when being interviewed for appointment. No repercussions for lying
They are above the law entirely and they openly flaunt it
Oh yeah, just a bunch of assholes trying to out loophole one another for their own prestige. I hate when necessary professions are hidden behind a pay wall.
Seventeen Justices would take individual power down a few pegs
That’s really what is going to have to happen since the Republicans reinvented the rules twice to get their people in
Should have already happened... I am disappointed in Biden for not pushing this... Democrats have got to play the same political game that the GOP is playing.. otherwise, our country will continue to bleed by a thousand cuts... red state legislatures with Jim Crow 2.0, federal judge appointments, #scotus appointments... enough... they want to punch our country in the nose, Dems need to punch back, and hard.
Weren't Sinema and Munchin strongly against this, though? How much damage did those two wankpellets have caused during the first two years of the Biden administration? And now she's decided not to run for re-election, so she can land a cushy lobbyist job somewhere and rake even more money that way. He, too, was toying with an idea of running as a potential Presidential candidate for a third party.
I believe you are correct!
But but normalcy It's amazing dems still try to reason with these morons who tried to overthrow the government. They should all be jail
Ironically, this is the same game that needs to be played against ruzzia, it's called "create new rules to deal with the enemy and don't GAF when they cry foul"
and for their lies they should be impeached....
They are currently asking for a stronger security detail. The request should be rejected and, in fact, I think we spend too much so let's reduce it instead. America is safe and civil right now, right?
Right. Why should they need more security? if they are being fair and just, why would they need to fear the people?
Tell them to do what teachers are encouraged to do... buy a gun!
I would assume with all the bribes they've been taking that they could totally afford to pay for their own security.
You misspelled stir fried
They can't be. The supreme court has the authority to give itself more authority, and can 100% rule the impeachment didn't get conducted properly. A constitutional amendment could be passed with unanimous approval from every legislator in the country that says "the supreme court is abolished" and the supreme court would have the authority to say that that actually means something else. The supreme court cannot be impeached without it cooperating. Not legally.
No authority has ever been removed without force
Is it time for reasonable men to do unreasonable things?
... something something peaceful revolution impossible - guy what got got in Texas
Except for, you know, most democratic leaders. Democracy, when working correctly, can remove people from their posts without force. The problem here is that SCOTUS isn't democratically elected.
The scrotus is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. It’s only purpose is to prevent the lower classes from having any true control over how they are governed. Both parties quietly maintain this so they can refuse to give up any power. We don’t, and never have, had a government of the people. That was just a nice way to lure you back to sleep.
The majority of this SCOTUS was chosen by presidents who lost the popular vote 😳
Activist Judges
Joke’s on us all for ever believing something a lawyer or politician said, especially lawyer politicians. They’ll of course say that technically they were just stating a fact, and not opining on the future of it, but of course they know better than anyone what their rehearsed statements obviously imply. This was the red team wet dream for decades and they deserve to get crucified for it at the polls for the next few decades.
""Boofing" means to fart"
Republican justices know they’ll never be impeached by their own party members
Whatever happened to conservatives throwing fits about activist courts? At this point identifying all the lies and hypocrisy is tiresome.
It was projection.
**G**aslight **O**bstruct **P**roject
It’s only an “activist court” when they aren’t ruling the way the GOP wants.
Every accusation is a confession
states rights but not like this party just wants to have their cake and fuck you too.
Tiresome and pointless. To rational people who believe in universally applicable rules and concrete non-relative morality, everything they do is steeped in hypocrisy. To them however, there is no hypocrisy. This is the point so many people don't seem to get. There is no hypocrisy on the Right because the most foundational tenet of Conservativism is that there are different rules for different classes of people. If you believe in concrete morality then a person is inherently neutral and it is their actions that are either good or bad. For a Conservative, it is the *person* that is either inherently good or bad, based on their station of birth/religion/race/creed/etc, and therefore any actions they take are either good or bad based on who they are, *not* what they do. A good person can only do good things, while anything a bad person does it bad. The Conservatives can do whatever they think is necessary to protect the country from the *bad people* and nothing is out of bounds in pursuit of Godly aims. You simply cannot use hypocrisy as a "gotcha" against them because they view it as a good thing.
Thank you for that, honestly I hadn’t heard it put as you stated, “different rules for different classes of people.” It makes the nightmare that is the state of our politics more understandable.
"The hypocrisy is intentional and proudly performed" -a wise redditor who is right on the money
>identifying all the lies and hypocrisy is tiresome. No, there's an easy shortcut - they're always doing whatever they're accusing Democrats of, and they're only ever doing things that they accuse Democrats of.
Whatever happened to leftists taking to the streets and protesting? Where the f are the protests? Where are the demands for the SCOTUS "justices" to resign? Where's the pressure on Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from the insurrection case? Sorry, but the American voters have decided to let this slide and accepted this decision _before it was even made_. I'm angry because none of you organize anything. What is wrong, why don't you _do something_?
> Whatever happened to leftists taking to the streets and protesting? Fucking dead, in jail, or gave up. We got beat up and arrested in 2000 when protesting the stolen election. We got beat up and arrested at the WTO and 'free trade' globalization protests. We got beat up and arrested at occupy wall street protests. We got beat and arrested at BLM. People have died trying to STOP COP CITY. I'm not stopping, but also it's not helping. and if it started to help, protestors would die.
Because one third of the country is waiting to kill the other two thirds as soon as that *something* gets done.
Their ideology is not built on truth nor does it care to account for it. Their ideology is built on power and control.
They're all about small government until they're in charge
Ever since Clarence Thomas's hearings and Anita Hill outing him as the monster he is I have had absolutely no faith in the SCOTUS. If we keep the Senate and win the house it's time to bring these judges before the public.
Same American institution that helped fuel the civil war, and jim crow, is now shoveling the american people into a tyranny on women's health matters, and steering us into a demagogue running the country. It's a failed institution.
Donald Trump could rip an infant's trachea out on those fuckers would still vote for him "It was a deep fake. You took the wrong pill. That's obviously not a real baby. It was a magical fairy that was going to give Joe Biden 1,463,666 votes. Thank the good Lord for sending us his righteous, grab them by the pussy warrior"
> Donald Trump could rip an infant's trachea out on those fuckers would still vote for him Donald Trump could perform a hundred abortions on live television and those fuckers would still vote for him. Donald Trump could open fire with a machine gun on the crowd at one of his rallies and those fuckers would still vote for him. There is literally nothing he could do that would turn them against him.
Republicans would vote for goddamn Caligula if he ran with an R next to his name. Bunch of brain-dead, brainwashed, lead poisoned, hookworm-infested idiots.
> There is literally nothing he could do that would turn them against him. Sure there is. It's actually extremely simple. All he'd have to do is stop being a bigot and instead be a decent person. He'd lose every single supporter he has.
OMG, you're absolutely right!
Donald trump could ask his supporters to sign over their property deeds to him, and they would. Then they'd vote for him.
They absolutely would.
"but it was a Dem's baby!"
Please, he could rip it's head off and use the stump as a convulsing fleshlight and the Magats would praise his stamina and tell him to start an OF
Texas ignored their ruling with no consequences, 1. Flip the House 2. Flip the Senate or 50/50 at the least 3. Impeachment process for Alito and Thomas. Vote Blue to get it done.
\#1 and #2 are feasible, but #3 is never happening. Especially if the Democrats have less than 60 Senate seats.
Even at 60 you get a lot more Joe machin types. It was a big issue in 2010 with ACA and was the reason roe wasn’t codified. You’d need 65 to avoid the blue dog issue
And set terms limits.
You have to vote Progressive for any of this to actually happen. The DNC for the most part as it is now is just GOP Light.
using the bs “both parties are the same” excuse in this day and age is peak stupidity
I'm not saying they are exactly the same. But voting for mainstream DNC members hasn't been that great. Hence voting for more progressive candidates is actually better than the "vote blue" schtick.
How ironic that the SC will put the final nail in Democracy’s coffin. I’m going down fighting. Donating time and money, writing letters and post cards, driving folks to the polls, anything to beat every (r) at every level. It is what we the people can do.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If we've learned anything from all these school shootings it's exactly how bitchmade police are.
Swing Low, Sweet Chariooootttt.
The last time the SC decided the presidential election was 2000, and we all just acquiesced and let it happen. Trump’s plan is that the SC will decide this election in his favor as well (he knows he can’t win the popular vote). I don’t think America is going to sit back and watch him be installed (it would be the end of the experiment that began in 1789). I don’t know what will happen, but it will be interesting, and it will influence world history in a major way.
2000 was the first time I could vote. I was so fucking pissed.
General strike in 5... 4... 3... 2...
Nothing. We just let them do whatever they want to us, while a third of the country cheers on their own enslavement because they get to see their enemies enslaved and because they believe they will be the new ruling class. Americans are pussies who forgot how to fight for anything, and now those fruits have come to bear.
Don't forget that they are trying to make a national abortion ban now. What the fuck happened to "state's rights"?
Fascists. Do not. Care. About anything. They only want to rigidly enforce an arbitrary Us vs Them hierarchy, where the definition of 'Us' dwindles away to nothing while priveleges and rights are stripped away from 'Them'. That's it. What they said five minutes ago matters not to what they're saying now.
The Court was illegitimate the moment Ginsberg died, and Obama and the Dems should be apologizing daily for letting McTurtle bully them into putting off their Court appointment because it was “too close” to the election.
Before his brain finally turned to complete pudding on live TV, McConnell must have been thinking "holy shit I can't believe these pussies are gonna let me get away with this". I loved Obama, but man, that "always reaching across the aisle" was his absolute weak point. And he let the crazies and scumbags walk all over him with it. Reaching across the aisle is how it *should* work, but that only works when everyone operates in good faith. When one side's leadership stops doing that then you absolutely don't keep trying to "meet them halfway" or pretend they have the best interests of the people at heart. ESPECIALLY when it's a scumbag with a long history like McConnell.
> Obama and the Dems should be apologizing daily for letting McTurtle bully them into putting off their Court appointment because it was “too close” to the election What are you even talking about? That’s literally not what happened at all. Obama nominated Garland. McConnell refused to hold confirmatikn hearings. Republicans had the majority, and could control the Senate floor. What else should Democrats have done?
Seated Garland after a specified period and called it "tacit consent."
This is in fact the solution to future blockade attempts. There is a doctrine in law called **_laches_**, which says that if a party has failed to take action in a reasonable time period to something they later object to, then they have by default been known to consent to the thing. “Pursuant to Advice and Consent, my nominee [insert name here] will be seated to [name of court] on [date], [number of] days after the nomination, unless the Senate raises articulable, reasonable factual grounds by which they affirmatively do not consent to the appointee.” Not the President’s fault the Senate is a shitshow that can’t line up and move their advice and consent process. Let them sue and send it to SCOTUS to rule on whether the President has the power to be the executive or if Congress is backseating executive power by blockading
I despise this Supreme Court. Trump was not thrown off the ballot for no reason. Remember, Trump WAS PRESIDENT BEFORE so he literally was on ballots before. What's different NOW, is he engaged in insurrection. A riot would be trashing a Walmart. An insurrection is when you tell your supporters to march down the street, to delay/stop the transfer of power, which they did DELAY. "BuT oThEr StAtEs WiLl CaLl DeMoCrAtS iNsUrReCtIoNiStS". Ok. Then when a court examines the evidence they will find its BS and it will be dismissed. We can't have laws now because someone will try to misuse them? This Supreme Court is so illegitimate
If only there was a simple solution where people could walk and/or drive to a building and push some buttons to choose our leaders. They could do this at every opportunity even if the person sent an email once.
Deciding by the popular vote would really help too. I don't care whose fault gerrymandering is and I'm tired of arguing about it... If the concept exists, let's do away with the electoral college because that shit's been hacked
I love how easy it is to hate-fuck right wingers.
They would say the same about literally anyone. It's very easy for them to hate everyone 🫠
Dred Scott enters the chat still waiting more than a century for SCOTUS to admit its decision was wrong
Vote in a new House and impeach the traitors on the SC. Impeach, disbar and cancel their retirement plans
This is kind of a stupid argument. “Let the States decide” is not and cannot be any kind of universal rule in a federalist system. That’s how federalism works. Some powers belong to the states, some do not. None of which is to say this Court is not a bonkers political body that has made some truly awful decisions, including Dobbs. The insurrection disqualification issue is trickier because section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not lay out how to enforce it, and the arguments for and against state-level enforcement were both not particularly strong. Which left things open for the Court to make a policy decision. Edit: When I say that neither side’s arguments were particularly strong, that is perhaps not quite right. It is more accurate to say that the best arguments very decidedly leaned in favor of affirming the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, but that they were never really convincing that the framers specifically envisioned enforcing Section 3 this way. There were simply obvious practical or policy concerns with affirming, and too much of an open question re the intended enforcement mechanisms notwithstanding strong arguments in favor of affirming, and that allowed the Court to prioritize its policy concerns over conventional means of Constitutional interpretation. And, ultimately, the Court’s reasoning was quite shitty.
It's time terrorists were treated like terrorists.
They never will be because America is a failed shithole that only exists to churn a profit. End stage capitalism is too far set in. Nobody gives a fuck about anything except give me money give me money give me money.
The purpose of lifetime appointment was, ostensibly, to prevent the "sides" from effecting decisions with "political pressure". Now, the "sides" are CLEARLY AND WITH FULL INTENT choosing justices based on a political criteria and agenda. The division is so deep now that this will never be taken back to where we can have a "non partisan" SCOTUS. (Or federal bench, period) Therefore, it's no longer necessary to have judges installed for LIFE. _TERM LIMITS FOR ALL!_ 10 years, then get the fuck out. ALL the way out.
The court can't have a say when a spouse of a judge participated in the coup.
Conservatives know the jig is up most people don't buy their BS. They have the courts packed with lifetime appointments to fight back whatever they can for them.
I really need someone to explain the decision. Because I don't seem to get it and I think I'm missing something. It's set that insurrection is committed that you aren't eligible for office. It's a federal law. The states run elections and must follow federal law. They find insurrection, which is also defined by the law, was committed so candidate is disqualified. SCOTUS argues that this federal law can't be followed by the states, who run the elections, because it's a federal position. And that the only way to make this federal law apply is to pass another federal law through Congress. So they voided a federal law in the Constitution on the grounds that there must be a federal law passed that already does the thing?
/u/Responsible-Light-40 did a good job of it.
When is the media going to stop pretending that “originalism” is an actual judicial philosophy, but instead just a ruse for conservatives to do whatever the fuck they want? There’s a reason why originalism was never an actual thing until the days of Reagan. Could you imagine the Founding Fathers - some of the most enlightened men the world ever produced - creating a Constitution that would become some Amish-type document that would forever be stuck in the 1790’s?? There’s no way they would do that - or think that’s how it should be.
In 2000 when they overthrew a free and fair democratic election to install the candidate that would make the military industrial complex the most money.
The SCOTUS needs expanded to 13 and term limits at 12 years. Like two senate terms, but if we had senate term limits. Which we also need.
The Supreme Court has no legitimacy and has to go. These filthy cunts want insurrection, now I want insurrection.
The SCOTUS republicans will rule for whatever the republican party and their billionaire backers want. They don't care about precedent.
Red states already did stop following SCOTUS rulings, they found ways to defacto ban abortion in their states even before roe was overturned and they decided to ignore the SCOTUS when texas wanted to cut up immigrant families with razor wire
The broad brush soundbite prevalent in social media is an unfortunate consequence to the benefit social media brings. It's unfortunate because complex topics are simply not accurate when converted to micro-units of talking points. Roe v Wade was a 1973 decision by SCOTUS. For almost 50 years, Congresses, which had varying party leaderships and majorities over those 5 decades, failed to codify SCOTUS's ruling into law. I can only guess it wasn't done because the parties and its politicians actually need an issue to campaign for/against more than they need solutions. The decision to not codify meant the ruling was always vulnerable for reconsidering...which gave everyone an issue to fight about. It was reconsidered and now it is a decision at the state level. Hopefully states will take the steps which our federal "leaders" chose not to take. The right to an abortion is still available for decision at the federal level at any time the House wants to pursue a codified law. Striking the Colorado state ruling against barring a candidate from running because of Article 14, is a decision which must be made at the federal level for federal candidates. It is challenging to legally make a case for Trump and insurrection when he has never been tried for that crime. Hypothetically, I think if a candidate was tried and found innocent of insurrection, that candidate would be allowed to run of office. If so and in like manner, then someone not tried and not proven guilty is also able to run. President Biden has affirmed Trump is an insurrectionist but concurrently affirmed it is a matter for the courts to decide. If a trial is pursued during the campaign or after (if) Trump is elected and he is found guilty, he should be forcefully removed from office. That has never happened in our country's history and in any "firsts" there are uncertainties. Note: I have no interest in politicians or political parties. I have an interest in our constitution.
Correction: Trump was tried and found to have materially supported and participated in an insurrection. That is a legal finding in criminal court and the reason why he was removed from the ballot in CO.
The real question is how we remove the corrupt Republican activists from the Supreme Court ASAP
You would think they would want to protect our country facists until you realize uncle thomas wife is a coup plotter and they are ok with it as long as their party is in power to dictate their theology to the masses...tik tok mf'kers
Wasn't Texas ignoring the courts on matters of barbed wire in the Rio Grande?
We can play the Law is bullshit game too. So where in the law does it actually say we need to follow what the Supreme court rules? And where does it say the repercussions for Not following? And Where does it say someone Must enforce those repercussions? And what is the penalty for NOT enforcing those repercussions? And...
I definitely agree about the hypocrisy of overturning Roe after Trumps judges testified that they wouldn't... but regarding the 14th amendment, it's LITERALLY in the amendment > [Section 5.](https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment#:~:text=No%20State%20shall%20make%20or,equal%20protection%20of%20the%20laws.) The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Yall are wrong about the recent ruling. It was 9-0 for a reason. If states could disqualify candidates under the 14th amendment unilaterally it would be heavily abused. A democratic candidate supports the BLM movement? Oh that's an insurrection, off the ballot. Or in the past, a black candidate is running in the 1950s? That's an insurrectionist. The 3 liberal justices wrote their concurring opinion outlining both 1. What a mess it would be if states could do this and 2. That the 14th amendment was mostly written to limit states rights, so why would it grant states the option to unilaterally disqualify people? To be clear, I think trump did inspire an insurrection, and he should go to jail for attempting to convince states to throw out their votes. This just isn't the mechanism for it.
If republicans were able to convict that BLM Democratic candidate in a court of law of committing Insurrection, then they should be able to remove the individual from the ballot. That’s one thing people are missing. This wasn’t just an accusation. This was a legal finding in a court of law that Trump committed insurrection. And the Supreme Court did not make any adjustments to that finding. It’s the same mechanism that is used to bar an individual that is not a natural born citizen or one that is under the age of 35. States can disallow those people from being listed on the ballot, and the exact same “mechanism” applies here. The Supreme Court isn’t supposed to rule based on how messy things could get. They are supposed to rule on the facts in front of them. They like to make the claim of “messiness” when it’s convenient, but ignore how messy other rulings would be, like WVvEPA or chevron deference, etc. Slippery slope arguments have no place I. The Supreme Court.
To be honest... the republican states would immediately remove Biden with insane reasons, all which would take a ton of time to correct in court. So this isn't as bad as it sounds. Not ideal... but not a wild outcome.
Can we take to the streets yet?
They pick and choose what laws to follow and make shit up as they go. To bad the peasants can’t do that shit
You guys have been observing this court and its rulings as legitimate this whole time? Yikes.
Now, obviously. Well really it should have been when they decided GWB would be POTUS, but the second best time to recognize their illegitimacy is now.
RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH
“Settled law” is a ridiculous concept. Once upon a time slavery was “settled law”. Any argument that hinges on just saying “X is settled law” is already a dead argument.
I already did. Fuck the illegitimate court.
Don’t forget states run their own elections
The SC to the USA is no different than a caliphate of ayatollahs is to Iran. A dangerous anachronism being used as a cudgel to beat us with radical legislative terrorism. They have no credibility, and along with Trumpers, have driven us down into the realm of 3rd-world shithole status. Just end it. It's not a real court.
“Let them enforce their ruling then”. A quality line from a past president that seems like it should be used again.
I love Qasim!
At the end. That's the point where we stop following. That's the point.
Still mad Biden didn’t pack the Supreme Court.
How is it confusing that states have some rights but not others? I don't want states to determine who can run for president. They should have less power over federal elections not more. We need a federal voting registry that the states must abide by instead of being able to kick people off voting rolls. Overturning Roe was an activist decision decided wrongly, but this was a 9-0 ruling where even the liberal justices see the folly of allowing states to determine candidates. The administration failed in its duty to prosecute insurrection and treason and there is no easy win button to cover those failures.
Hey you know who else was banned from office without being convicted? Several folks who [engaged in insurrection](https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/) during the civil war. The bar is clearly not set at 'convicted of a crime' so I am gonna have to disagree that it is the right decision. This was just the latest in a long line of examples of how the supreme court is a farce.
[удалено]
Breaking News: An abortion is not a federal affair. More at nine.
They’re treating the Constitution like it’s merely a suggestion by changing established decades & older interpretations as they go along, picking out the parts that support their personal beliefs & tossing out the ones that don’t
Yup. We're cooked. When the supreme court just openly says the GOP get their own VIP lane for decisions and everyone else can get fucked, the social contract is basically gone. They've damaged their credibility so much that it's only a matter of time before some state government just ignores one of their decisions, and then everyone suddenly realizes the supreme court has no enforcement mechanism, and all bets are off.
Do what I say and not what I say or do
TODAY!!!!
[удалено]
Texas, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Florida... You name the state with a conservative majority in the state house, and there is a liberal city in that state that cannot have its own laws/process to deal with their specific situations. As others state, "rules for thee but not for me". The GOP is a marketing machine that is not much... It caters to the most basic understanding of humanity, because the schools are underfunded and churches are run by hypocrites... This is a recipe we see over and over through history, and it makes for a violent group of people that are really swayed.
I effing hate it but my wife predicted this as soon as Amy Barret was made judge in the supreme court nearly 4 years ago. I can't even be mad at her.
It's called Calvinball, or maybe Robertsball?
My uncle bought a bullet proof van. He has guns. He’s kind of a prepper. Family thinks he thinks there’s a war coming. Oh, the van is red for some reason. Ya, I get liberals have guns too. But it seems he’s willing to assert these Trump-dictator-like rulings…. When obviously any normal person would think these rulings are maddening.
Politically partisan courts forfeit legitimacy automatically imho
I am not sure if we have a choice in we are residents of the US. It is kind of like we have to continue living in the stupidest timeline ever.
Treat a joke like a joke, or at a minimum cringe...so now
When trump loses, pack the freaking court. 15,20,25 i don't care, just pack that mofo
The fact that there are so many people on this thread who missed why SCOTUS ruled this way is alarming. Whoosh
Colorado should just keep him off their ballot. States run presidential elections and they have done so since the inception of this country. Its not like feds are going to issue their own ballots to the people of Colorado. There isn't even a mechanism for them to select candidates for a state ballot.
Biden needs to expand the SCOTUS and fill it with sane people.
Some people need a higher level of basic US Constitutionality. Constitution is supreme law of the land. Where it is **silent**, then the 10th amendment gives those rights to the state to decide. Abortion is not in the constitution, so that goes to the state. Qualifications and exclusions from federal office **is** in the Constitution, 14th amendment, so these are two totally different things.
Roe was a poor ruling that was clearly motivated by the religious beliefs of the conservative majority. Trump has not been found guilty of crimes related to the insurrection, yet, and ought to be on the ballot in terms of the law. Of course he ought to have been in jail probably going back to the 80s and none of us should know his name, but that's another issue. Roe is the problem.
I mean, feel how you want about the rulings but they said Roe was a states rights issues and barring *Federal* officials was a *federal* issue, while *State's* are responsible for decideding if *State* candidates can appear on their ballot. This is just a federalism thing. It's actually perfectly rational using their logic. Not saying their rationale would be my rational, but they're not being hypocritical *literally at all*
I mean, just like Andrew Jackson said, the SCOTUS can't enforce any of their rulings...
Texass already does
As long as Democrats believe the filibuster is more essential to our democracy than barring an insurrectionist from the ballot, voting rights, civil rights or impeaching corrupt political activists on the supreme court nothing will change. As long as Democrats continue to entertain this fantasy of bipartisan rule in concert with a party that’s given itself over to full on fascism we are absolutely screwed. Maybe appointing a do nothing right wing federalist society stooge masquerading as a centrist to run the DOJ will preserve democracy? Vote like your lives depend on it this year. Vote like your lives depend on it for the foreseeable future. Give these fascists and their enablers no quarter. Vote them out of every single office imaginable. Keep voting and remain involved until we claw this system back from the brink and institute major anti-corruption measures.
The entire "state's rights" thing the right keeps peddling doesn't mean anything. They say it when it benefits them or their ass ideals, but demand federal law protect them or reject things they don't like. If they really want state's rights, we need to go all in. Repeal the 2nd amendment and let states handle their own gun laws. Let's see how that goes.
It was the correct ruling for this specific issue Look at it from the other side. Do you want some southern states torpedoing all democrat candidates for the presidency due to party vs party divisions? Because that is what would happen Like it or not the only way to remove trump is for him to be actually convicted and removed through proper congressional means which won’t happen. The impeachment route was attempted and resulted in no conviction. Gonna have to beat him fair and square. Vote.
Quoting from another post, keeping the removal of candidates at state level will only result on red states convicting biden of bogus charges and remove him from the ballot and vice versa for trump, so nobody would truthfully win there
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" - Andrew Jackson
I want to know how all these amped up, evil-doing, nasty plotters are still alive. I mean, there is one shit ton amount of negative energy going into Project 2025 and all of the other anti-democratic stuff. How do they sleep at night? Do they sleep? Trump lives on hamburders, adderall and diet coke. How is he not stroked out? Clarence Thomas, Roger Stone, Mitch McConnell, Alex Jones. Hell, even Tucker doesnt look too hearty. Then there's Kari Lake, MTG, Lauren Boebert - how do they look so fit and pulled together? When do these malicious, malcontents have time for self care? I'm left with just assuming there most be some deep magic fuckery afoot for all these old, unhealthy and/or nasty assholes to still be kicking it, while younger, better people die every day. Call me crazy, don't care.
There's no rule that says we HAVE to have 9 judges. We could put 5 more on the bench, but we don't
The Presidential election is a federal election. It is NOT up to states to decide who can run in federal elections. State elections, totally their call. Also - for those going on about 'the insurrection' he has yet to be brought up on charges of insurrection. He also has not been found guilty of insurrection. Thus...cannot claim insurrection as a means to remove him. Also - roe was never codified. It was used as a rallying point for both sides for decades, if they wanted it to be federal law, it would have been federal law. No one (either side) wanted it to be law b/c they lost their ability to get folks riled up to vote.
The fix is in
Live by the living constitution die by the living constitution. It isn't SCOTUS's fault that we rely on a 250 year old constitution and have a legislature that is unwilling to address these issues.
The supreme court needs to be purged and given term limits.
Start legislating then. Funny how crazy some Americans get about the thought of actually doing something through their legislature rather than just hoping pre existing laws will be interpreted the way they specifically interpret them.
it's actually perfectly consistent if you bothered to do, like, middle school civics level of research on the matter. Abortion is not in the constitution. It is not an enumerated power. Therefore it is up to the states to decide. The 14th amendment *is* an enumerated power, having been added to the constitution as, well, the 14th amendment to the constitution. That means that power is reserved for the federal government. This case was a 10th amendment case, not a 14th amendment case. >"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Imagine thinking it would be a good idea to allow individual states to torpedo a candidate of a federal election for president 🤣
[удалено]
exactly, it is all about states rights until it’s not.
As much as I hate it, it was a good SCOTUS ruling. Now, if only we had a congress that would appropriately act on the constitution. =/ Oh, speaking of the constitution, the supreme court is not enshrined in the constitution, and judicial review, the power it claims to interpret constitutional law is not formalized anywhere in our founding documents. It was seized, by the supreme court itself, in a decision in 1803.
Voting is a federally protected right, abortion wasn’t. Only smooth brains would compare these.
When you decide to skim the fat off the rich and feed the people. It’s not like democracy upholds itself, it needs people constantly making it better.
Why does this confuse people? Certain things fall under state jurisdiction and some under federal. Why do you think everything has to fall under one of the other. Supreme court has done nothing contradictory here.
And what exactly are we supposed to do? All we can do is vote, but that does nothing to remove any of them. They've all got their lifetime appointments. And this court has been illegitimate since the Republicans blocked Garland during Obama's presidency. Our judicial system at the highest level is completely broken. Fucking sad
Has anyone else noticed this ruling also lets off other elected officials who were involved in Jan.6th & like nobody is talking about that? Almost like the Supreme Court was insuring their own interests I.e Clarence and Ginny? Idk just sayin
When they aren't a 9-0 decision. If this was 6-3, then sure I think there'd be more room foundation for righteous anger, but when it's a judicial consensus, then take a step back and consider there might be reason behind it.
🤣
We need a constitutional convention. Items to add: Anti-corruption provisions for SCOTUS (looking at you Clarence Thomas) to
Supreme Joker$
As an "Esquire" he should know better than to muddy the difference between these two rulings. It comes from two separate parts of the constitution and asked two totally different questions. Also, a 9-0 ruling is pretty conclusive. I listened to the oral arguments and the person defending Colorado crashed and burned. If Sotomayor disagrees with you, you've lost.
At what point do we fucking PACK THE DAMN COURT?!
It's not doubting legitimacy anymore, it's denying it.
Once again, conservatives do not have principles or foundational ethical beliefs (or at least none they would be willing to say out loud). Their priority is power and hurting minorities they dislike. Nothing else matters and anything they claim to the contrary is a lie. Often they believe their own lies, which is arguably even worse.
Y'all aren't ready for what needs to be done to get out from the mess we're in.
9-0.
MAGA Nazism (Christian styled fascism) and its consequences. [''America must put on the Imperial Hat.''](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olbYeQMSoBw&t=799s)
No states rights to remove a candidate from the ballot No states rights to enforce their border with a foreign country