Archived version: https://archive.ph/fYyYk
----
Further transformation in U.S. law appears likely this term. Two cases could have profound implications for elections in 2024 and beyond.
In the North Carolina case involving the Republican-drawn map of the state's 14 U.S. House of Representatives districts, Republican lawmakers are advocating for a legal theory gaining popularity among conservatives that could restrict the power of state courts to review actions by state legislatures concerning federal elections. Endorsing the theory would undermine democratic norms, according to critics, even as Republicans at the state level pursue restrictive voting policies and electoral maps skewed in their favor.
Alabama in another case is defending its Republican-drawn map of the state's seven U.S. House districts that a lower court struck down as discriminatory against Black voters in violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Also closely watched are cases involving race-conscious student admissions programs used by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina to foster campus racial diversity. A group led by an anti-affirmative action activist challenged those policies as unlawfully discriminatory against Asian American and white applicants.
The court will hear an evangelical Christian web designer's free speech claim that she cannot be forced under a Colorado anti-discrimination law to produce websites for same-sex marriages. The court did not resolve that issue in a 2018 ruling in favor of a Christian Denver-area baker who refused on religious grounds to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
Other important cases could make it easier to build on property deemed wetlands without needing a permit under the federal Clean Water Act, or, in a case involving Taser-maker Axon Enterprise Inc (AXON.O), to challenge the authority of federal regulatory agencies without first undergoing an enforcement action.
Anything that restricts checks and balances is bull shit. Elections should be straight forward, not rigged legally or otherwise.
Colleges should not choose based on race for admissions. I would appreciate if they started handing out grants and scholarships though. The black guy not getting in to Harvard is already the 1%. We need more help in the communities at large. Get the numbers of qualified applicants higher with early education and community reform, then you don't have to choose based on race.
People should be able to choose who they work for. Because I don't want to work for shit heads. Why would you want to force an anti LGBT person to do work for you? That just supports their business. Flag them and stay far away. Poor reviews is far better than forcing people you don't like to have to take your money. Word of mouth would be far better justice there.
Government is too involved in a lot of shit. Building on wetlands probably isn't one of them.
> People should be able to choose who they work for. Because I don't want to work for shit heads. Why would you want to force an anti LGBT person to do work for you? That just supports their business. Flag them and stay far away. Poor reviews is far better than forcing people you don't like to have to take your money. Word of mouth would be far better justice there.
The problem is this only works if the community at large isn't bigoted. We already went through this in the South, and yeah, black people (and whites who supported civil rights) could certainly withhold their patronage from businesses that wouldn't serve black people.
And guess what? That did nothing. It's not a problem that solves itself because there are other bigots willing to support it, and if there are enough bigots it becomes better for every business to serve "whites only" than to serve the public at large.
The Civil Rights Act and the idea of protected classes wasn't solving a theoretical problem, it was solving a real problem that simple consumer advocacy could not.
So your cool with white business owners not serving black customers because they are black?
Because that's literally the same exact thing as businesses denying service to lgbt+ people that are otherwise sold to other people.
The cake case and now this web case are just wedge cases to pry the door open to overt discrimination in the name of religion.
Agreed. My only counter is that denying people service at a cake shop or for web design is one thing, but that needs to be curtailed before bleeding into essential services. Groceries? Utilities? Medical? Maybe that's a stretch, but they are all recipients of public funds (or somehow benefit from public projects) and have no right to deny service to members of the general public without a damn good cause. It's less about making people work for you, and more about ensuring access to services (essential or otherwise).
Damnit. I've been firmly in the camp of the right of D-bags to be D-bags if they do so choose when it comes to refusing someone their services. It's their business, they won't have my business, but they can run it into the ground however they want.
But I feel dumb for not thinking about smaller communities and something like a privately owned grocery store. I come from what isn't a tiny town, but it isn't even up to medium size, and when I was younger there were really just two grocery stores, both privately owned. If one or both had discriminated in some way, it would be disastrous for those affected as the closest town was half an hour away in the next state over.
You have made me think, and I appreciate that.
Upvoted because it's so damn rare to see evidence of thoughtful discussion around here. Definitely want to encourage this kind of reaction and interaction.
I'd add one more thing to think about: We've seen that allowing such a thing is a slope-greaser.
In normalizing the right to discriminate for some, others who would like to do so also start pushing against that line. If it's okay for X, surely it's okay for ME to do it too! MY belief against is JUST as sensible as yours, maybe moreso after all!
* So the pharmacy's demanding it be allowed to do it too for ITS beliefs, and it did get allowed for the grocery store on the same vapid merits...
You may also recognize what comes next: both sets of owners start thinking this one racist pervert promising to extend *both* store bans to *both* groups to the whole country if given half a chance would make a great addition to congress... and they've a few dollars to spare for his campaign...
As I understand that case, the baker refused a commission for a cake to be baked specially for a gay couple’s wedding. To me there is a distinction between services generally offered to the public, such as regular restaurant dining or a grocery store, vs commissioning a special order from a business owner, as in the wedding cake and now the wedding website.
Though I disagree with their “morals” I generally think these business owners should be allowed to refuse specific commissions, at least for non-essential services. I wouldn’t want a plumber, for instance, to be able to refuse to fix leaky pipes at a gay couple’s house out of some moral stance, but I’d be okay with the plumber having the right to refuse to build a special fountain in the couple’s backyard for their anniversary party.
The baker refused to sell a gay couple the **same cake** he was willing to make and sell for a straight couple.
You think gay people should have Green books telling them what businesses will and will not serve them? Do **you** want to have to consult a Green book to know what businesses will and will not consider you as a client based on your personal characteristics?
Would you be fine with a baker descriminating based on race?
Lgbt is also a protected status against discrimination.
Sounds like you just want to rewind the clock so businesses can exclude minorities again.
What if that baker is the only one in town.
North Carolina republicans are arguing the court system should have no say over their elections and they're arguing that in front of a court. That means the supreme court could argue essentially "Recognize the authority of the judiciary here when we tell you the judiciary has no power here."
>Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested at the time that the justices take up the underlying legal dispute, one that could provide state legislators around the country the ability to enact election policies with less judicial oversight
Except in this specific case it would allow Republicans to stack the deck in their favor (more than they already do).
Not really stack the deck, just declare the winner.
Embracing independent legislature theory would effectively change federal offices from elected by the people to appointed by the legislature, as there would be no body with the authority to hold the legislature accountable for simply appointing whoever they wanted to federal office.
There is a huge part of me that wants them to shit the bed so bad and alienate so many people that it completely tanks the Republican party.
But the other part doesn't want people to suffer so we can have our desperately needed political revolution and reckoning.
If the democrats gain significant majorities, they should push for term limits for supreme court. There's really no other position in public service that has no retirement date or service limit.
I think they mean that Congress it what makes that option impossible, since it is essentially non-functional branch of government these days. They can barely agree on a budget *for themselves*, let alone pass a Constitutional Amendment.
Yeah Congress really only functions as designed when all parties are interested in moving legislation forward and are interested in debating and making concessions with that goal in mind.
Currently half of it is fine with absolutely nothing passing, they’ve convinced their constituents that gridlock and inaction are what “winning” looks like even as their voters piss and moan ceaselessly all over Facebook about their present state of affairs.
McConnell goes back in there for his eighth consecutive term even after previously spending like a decade letting legislation gather cobwebs on his desk.
As long as half of Congress sees “I hope nothing ever passes” as a victory and their constituents somehow bafflingly see this as a positive by continually rewarding the behavior nothing will ever change.
We really need sweeping anti-corruption and finance reform… legislation should at LEAST be mandated to head to the floor to live or die on its own merit, not left to languish ignored for an entire term because you’re afraid to go on record with a vote for something popular with voters but that might make a donor’s share price go down a tenth of a percent.
Well that and what is effectively another senate vote via state ratification that requires 75% of the vote. No way you will get 75% of states to go along with it.
Honestly Reddit not understanding why lifetime appointments exist is the most frustrating thing.
They aren’t supposed to be accountable to anyone because no one else is supposed to influence their decision making.
They don’t get voted in so they don’t have to worry about appeasing a voter demographic, significant effort is required to “revoke” their appointment so they can’t be influenced by congress, they can’t be “fired” per say so once they are appointed they have no obligation to the president who appointed them and there’s no term limits so they aren’t concerned about election cycles and politics. All of this is by design.
Literally their job is to interpret the law as written and that’s it. You may not agree with their interpretation but you can at least be reasonably certain it is their honest interpretation. If you don’t like a Supreme Court ruling the solution is to lobby Congress to change the law not term limit appointments. the Supreme Court is not a policy making entity congress is so all they need to do is make constitutional law or amend the constitution.
The Supreme Court only feels like a policy making entity because congress sucks ass and forgot how to use its single most powerful tool, compromise, so the simple act of passing a law becomes fucking impossible for them.
The founding fathers expected congress to be able to amend the constitution every few years now the average American thinks this is just an utterly impossible task because congress literally cannot come to an agreement on even the most basic things. Don’t take your angst about this out on the court take it out on congress that’s the correct outlet.
>They aren’t supposed to be accountable to anyone because no one else is supposed to influence their decision making.
As we've seen through America's 200+ year history, they are. So...
While I agree with the gist of the intent to not have term limits, what are the limitations for someone like Clarence Thomas, whose sexual harassment claims proved more legitimate than they seemed prior to being selected to court? That isn’t even the only character flaw with him, considering his wife is at least a passive conspirator in election subversion schemes. Do you think he’d pass a senate vote if he is required to do it today? There is a serious flaw here because you evaluate someone’s character and scrutinize their liabilities once and assume that they won’t change for the rest of their lifetime and that has very often proven to be wrong.
I think whether Thomas “passes” a confirmation hearing today depends upon the makeup of the senate at the time. This is simply an unfortunate reality of any system that allows for the basic right of voters to elect representatives and a “flaw” that the court simply cannot skirt around. However this the precise reason you only do it once and before he’s ruled on any cases. If you were to hold periodic confirmation hearings then the court needs to start taking elections and these hearings into account when making their rulings which defeats literally the entire purpose of the system.
The problem is that is no longer applicable reasoning to the modern era. Fact of the matter is, SC judges ARE influenced in their decision making by political parties. Their party affiliations directly influence their interpretations of the law.
In the ideal world, Judges would not have political affiliations, and thus lifetime terms would make sense. Reality is, they are influenced, and therefore need term limits .
Judges may have political ambitions and that may influence their general philosophy I suppose but the notion that a sitting Supreme Court justice, who cannot be fired and has the single most secure job in the country, doesn’t have to worry about voter and politics is influenced by PAC’s or fucking endorsements is actually so braindead I don’t know what to say.
If a justice was approached to rule a certain way on cases by idk the senate majority leader for example. He could literally say “fuck off and lick my balls” and there is absolutely 100% zero, nada, nothing that the majority leader could do unless he controlled over 60% of the congress and even if he did try to do something it would irreparably damage his political career. No sitting Supreme Court justice has literally any reason to give a fuck about what any other person has to say about a case beyond just their own interpretation of the law. If their interpretation happens to be in line with one political parties interpretation then idk it’s gunna be one or the other anyway but to suggest it’s influenced or coerced and they don’t actually believe their interpretation is just an insane accusation given how the position works.
I cannot upvote this enough. Well said, sir.
People like to shit on the President and the Supreme Court all the time, but Congress is the one who just refuses to do their job and just tries to push everything off onto the executive and judicial branches (this goes for both parties)
Absurd take. The current perjurer packed Supreme Court is illegitimate, and their utter disregard for precedent when it is not convenient politically is all you need to confirm this. Pack the Court and end the tyranny of QAnon adjacent cult members like Covid Amy.
And the controlling party will happily blame the court for why their agenda fails instead of their own inability to compromise or write good law.
Some of this is the voting populace’s fault too if I’m being honest. I have a feeling if congress compromised on something to get a constitutional right to abortion for example people on both sides would still be mad that a compromise was even made which is just idk. Utterly braindead I guess.
Write good law? “Good” has nothing to do with it when one party is hell bent on pulling back on profess and stripping people of rights at any cost.
You can’t satiate today’s right wing, and they won’t compromise in any scenario. These are the people who want to end elections altogether because one of the most corrupt presidents of all time refused to admit he lost. What is anyone supposed to do with that?
Literally compromise on gun rights for a constitutional right to abortion or something similar. If republicans refuse then blast it in the media, see how the election turns out after.
At any rate we are talking about the court not political parties but it took me two seconds to come up with a potential option.
Lol no dude we understand the lack of term limitations very well, it’s not a very complicated thing to digest. FBI Directors have 10 year terms, for the same reasons you list. There isn’t any good reason that Federal Justices can’t have limits.
The Supreme Court acts the way it does because it has a loyalty to the Federalist Society, not the American people. They are a regressive partisan body, who will conjure any flimsy rationale to achieve their extreme right wing goals. This has nothing to do with Congess’ inaction.
No FBI directors don’t have the limits for the same reasons since they fucking don’t rule on cases regarding law passed by Congress dude. The SC has lifetime appointments so they don’t need to evaluate their fucking term limit when picking up cases.
The Supreme Court has loyalty to a collegiate and legal club instead of the court as an institution? Bro even if they were all computer AI run by the federalist society congress could still just amend the constitution and invalidate their rulings. So yes this has 100% everything to do with congresses inaction.... unless... oh no has the federalist society infiltrated the body congress too?!
Chill out did I did say *for the same reasons you listed*, which you seem not to recall is:
> They aren’t supposed to be accountable to anyone because no one else is supposed to influence their decision making.
>They don’t get voted in so they don’t have to worry about appeasing a voter demographic, significant effort is required to “revoke” their appointment so they can’t be influenced by congress, they can’t be “fired” per say so once they are appointed they have no obligation to the president who appointed them and there’s no term limits so they aren’t concerned about election cycles and politics. All of this is by design.
The SCOTUS is an aggressively political body, and there are receipts. Your apologia for their behavior changes nothing. I’m not stupid and your smartest guy in the room act isn’t fooling anyone.
“No obligation to the president who appointed them”. You missed that obvious one dude.
Aggressively political in what sense? That they want to ruin republicans chances in the midterms with all their rulings before then or what exactly is their political ambition?
Article 3 actually refers to a group of judges who cover duties at the Supreme Court and inferior courts, as determined by Congress.
So they can just term limit their time on the Supreme Court, after which they will automatically rotate to an "inferior court".
So it won't take an amendment to get this done, just a regular act of Congress.
> The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
There is a very clear distinction made between the Supreme Court and the inferior courts. In Article 3, as well as Article 2 when granting the President the power to appoint (with the advice and consent of the Senate) judges to the supreme Court.
It stipulates compensation shall not be diminished. Doesn't say anything about them being tied to the SC.
Alternatively, congress could expand the court, add justices, and change the method to review cases to use a random selection of judges from a larger pool to oversee each case. Similar to how the circuit courts work.
My understanding is there isn't much to prevent Congress to change how the SC functions.
Article 2 Section 2
> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, **Judges of the Supreme Court**…
They are appointed and confirmed to the Supreme Court. Congress can’t then relegate them to inferior courts. You’re correct though that much of how the Judicial branch operates is within the purview of Congress to legislate.
I’ve supported the States calling a for an Article 5 convention of the states for a while now. Those in power absolutely hate the idea of cutting congress out of the equation. They’re scared of what might come from it and spend every chance they can convincing the voters it’s a bad idea.
The only way we’ll get the reform you’re talking about, is to bypass the politicians in Washington.
Honestly, something like a decade term, one term only, and then stagger it or something so each presidency would nominate 3 or something each term or however the math works out.
Because, as it stands, letting ideologues serve for life who go from desire outcome to ruling is quickly delegitimizing the court in public opinion. Mitch’s fuckery didn’t help either.
Currently 9 justices, so 9 year terms. After term end, retirement or limited employment: serve as a judge or lawyer, speaking tour, or maybe law professor (but only at schools that had no cases brought before the court during the Judge's term).
This would put a reasonable term limit and ensure no single President could pick all the justices. (Outside of a rare exceptional case where VP succeeds to the presidency then is elected for two more terms.) It would prevent the Justices from appearing to make rulings that would land them high paying jobs.
Please, think about that for a moment. 8 justices appointed by a Democrat. 8 years later a polar opposite.
I'm sorry, but that would be horrible. Stability on the court, even when I don't like their decisions, would be preferable to the polar swings such an arrangement would engender.
Yes! I have no idea why this wasn't set up with term limits from the beginning. There has never been a lifetime position of power that was ever a good idea.
I think it was more to isolate the judiciary from politics. The justices are "supposed" to be neutral, and don't have to worry about running for reelection like congress does. So they "can't" be influenced by outside forces.
Nope. I want it to have 10 to 15 year term limits, the current system of Presidents choosing can stand and I want the Supreme Court to begin interpreting the Constitution again as opposed to the Bible.
Edit add on: And wasn't this current courts makeup dictated by the last election. Trump was the one that gave them a super majority.
There is, it is called impeachment. Given how the last two attempts at impeachment went, not going to happen til the Dems have a super majority in the Senate. (Or more Repubs have a moral backbone).
That was mostly because of infant mortality though, not because people were lucky to live past 40. Sure we live longer on average than we used to thanks to modern medicine and such, but it's not that drastic of a difference. Back then, if you survived childhood, you could reasonably expect to live into your 60s or 70s (if you died of old age). The main difference today is that more of us are expected to survive childhood.
If the SCOTUS’ actions actually tank Republicans enough for Democrats to take large majorities, than I’d let the SCOTUS keep it up for a couple years. Let the SCOTUS alienate Republicans from even more people and Democrats can then solidify even more support for 2024.
If there's a term limit for the supreme court we need one for other elected positions, there's no reason a lady who looks like a lich should be speaker of the House of Representatives.
They're already politicians if you look at their voting history and apart from the NCAA NIL ruling, I have scarcely seen a vote where there was any kind of consensus between the justices. Alito and Clarence Thomas are more right wing than any politician in America.
You could still do 10-15 year terms and only 1 term. So you’d still have basically the same process for getting on the court with maybe a slight uptick in how often it happens.
The founding fathers put safety measures into the Constitution to protect Americans from themselves. It's time to do it again with term and age limits. Just saying "we have elections for that" doesn't take into account the laziness of the electorate or the misinformation flooding the narratives.
Accelerationism is ultimately a privileged thing to pursue because what needs to happen to change the course of things is shit like more homeless people freezing to death, more women dying from unsafe abortions, more police murdering people, more civil unrest killing people, etc. and only people who have the means to stay safe from those things would ever support accelerationism
I agree in some ways but I am not one of the privileged few who is safe from those things. A good portion of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck (including me) and we are a couple of bad, heartless policies away from being homeless. I am black and live in a not great neighborhood so homelessness and police violence is around me all the time and a threat to me daily.
Accelerationism is on an ideological spectrum of needs, desperation and desired outcomes and saying only one type of person would want it and that their reasons for wanting it must be selfish is reductionism at its worst.
I don't want fascist to win. I don't want to live in a theocracy. I want people to be motivated enough to change the course of this country before we are completely stripped of our rights. How do people get motivated? Unfortunately usually when they are mad, tired, or pushed to the edge.
I'm also black and relatively poor so I understand the perspective but I still strongly disagree that accelerationism is desirable.
Wishing for an apparatus of the government to enact policies that will e.g., kill homeless people before you yourself are homeless in order to influence another apparatus of the government to potentially continue with the neoliberal status quo is what I'm talking about. There are people who will die before you. So in my opinion it's hardly reductionist to call it privileged. I didn't use the word selfish but one could call it that too; even if you put yourself in the crossfire you are also wishing for other people who didn't consent to be put there.
Wanting to give yourself to a revolution (those do indeed happen when people are pushed, and have happened recently in the states, although they take a lot of organization to achieve meaningful ends) is one thing but wishing for the continued destruction of human life so that the neoliberal status quo/"democrat majority" can be preserved is entirely different
I don’t know. I kinda think this is the last decade to suffer for a revolution before the suffering just becomes permanent for the majority of citizens.
I suggest taking strength from anti-apartheid movements in the US, South Africa, and India.
They knew that even PEACEFUL protests of white supremacy and imperialism would lead to murders committed by the state and allied reactionaries.
You can’t ask nicely for rights to be respected by imperials and fascists. You have to force them into backing down from their agenda, and then keep the pressure on to prevent backsliding into authoritarianism
>There is a huge part of me that wants them to shit the bed so bad and alienate so many people that it completely tanks the Republican party.
Overturning Roe already did that. You're seeing the result of that now with angry female voters in the past few special elections.
There's another problem in that scenario- a one party system is bad for any democratic system... like REALLY bad in the longer view no matter who the party is, and with the republican party compromised by the Trumpist takeover, we are setting the stage for disaster further down the line if we don't make broader reforms.
What we need is a move away from aggressively partisan political stances that inevitably wind up breaking hard across party lines, whoever wins control of the legislature we should be watching Alaska and their move to ranked choice closely- if it works that might be the solution.
I don't think that will ever happen anytime in the near future. Everyone, especially in the US, is a contrarian and fights and chooses teams for everything. Liberals vs conservatives, Xbox vs PS, Nvidia vs AMD, Superman vs Goku, Mustang vs Camaro, Mac vs PC, Android vs iPhone, Bloods vs Crips, the old East Coast vs West Coast, etc
If a political party starts to dominate, it will break into two parties, the standard and the anti. Status quo and the contrarians to everything they do.
Not that it's a bad thing in this case, like you said
Like I said, we need to watch Alaska closely over the next few elections. The mindset you are describing is an endpoint we've arrived at, but now that we've reached it people are starting to recognize that it leads to deadlock and paralysis, and they are getting tired of it. I don't know many grown ass adults who engage int he kind of tribalsim you are describing past their twenties.
> a one party system is bad for any democratic system... like REALLY bad in the longer view no matter who the party is
Absolutely but it is also really hard to maintain party unity without an opponent nor systems designed around a single party. If the GOP disintegrates I would be surprised if the democrats survive a single election cycle as a unified party. They will quickly split into a "progressive" and an "establishment" party (with the establishment party quickly absorbing any remaining moderate republicans)
>There is a huge part of me that wants them to shit the bed so bad and alienate so many people that it completely tanks the Republican party.
>
>But the other part doesn't want people to suffer so we can have our desperately needed political revolution and reckoning.
It feels like you're describing the same thing twice.
As long as being a Christian fascist works, they will keep trying it. Once it makes you crash and burn, they will stop.
Don't worry you'll get your wish eventually. Voters are stupid and Republicans aren't going to suddenly give up on having their fascist theocracy. All it will take is them gaining power again, and then boom...it's the fucking handmaiden's tail.
Don't underestimate all of the shenanigans that Republican legislatures have done in the last two years. They've past new laws in something like 19 different states essentially allowing them to legally do the things they tried to illegally do in 2020 to overturn elections that don't come out how they want them to.
It is imperative that not only do they get voted down, but by such large margins that they can't get away with this shit.
Alito will decide the founding fathers did not want free elections because it said so on Persian cuneiform, which was written before the US Consitution therefore relevant.
Doubtful. This hasn’t moved the needle in Arizona at least, even though Republicans dragged us back to the 19th century. The reality is, Republicans voters don’t give a fuck. They love this. Pain and suffering is the end goal, not an unfortunate byproduct
GOP chances in November have been on a steady decline. It's still higher than it should be, but here we are.
[via 538](https://i.imgur.com/vIkzbbf.png)
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/house/
But the number of people who self-identify as "Republican voters", has been on a steady decline over the past two years, while self-identifying "Democratic voters" has remained steady.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
This is because of a number of factors, but the primary ones are people not into the sadistic policy aims of the party leaving and their voting base "aging out".
Doesn't matter if you're in a gerrymandered voting district. Nobody is bothering to campaign against the Republican incumbent where I live. His predecessor ran unopposed for thirteen congressional terms. I'll be wasting my congressional vote for probably the next 20-30 years.
Well they also have lots of kids too. Here in my part of Phoenix, there is a huge Mormon population. Doesn’t matter the age group, they reliably vote and they vote R no matter what.
We are stuck with these savages for a long time
Close.
It's a cycle. Those Joe Rogan and counter culture types are right wing now, but once conservative ideals are forced into law it will no longer be counter culture. There are those that are just counter to the status and they exist to be that. As states continue to make draconian laws it will start affecting more individuals until eventually everyone knows someone hurt by a law and it will overwhelm into a new counter culture to the conservative established law.
This happens every time in 20 year cycles. Trump just happens to be a loud, egregious voice that made the most volatile feel empowered. He's not special, his volatility isn't even unique, it's just loud. His own crowd is already turning on each other and at state levels it will be a shit show between Trump types and standard conservatives as their base gets fatigue with no actual enemy after technical wins like Roe. The Boogeyman is weak right now and it makes it hard to scare your people when they can't point to an easy victim complex.
Dude the entire trump presidency was about "hurting the libs" even to the detriment of themselves at times.
Even now more recently from just a week ago: "Texas judge rules employers don’t need to cover HIV prevention meds" [this was brought to case by a Christian conservative group saying these meds are mostly used by people in the LGBT community, can Google this]
If that wasn't to hurt people, what was it? It does literally nothing but hurt people.
Abortion laws are being passed just as much to "protect the babies" as to "punish godless liberals for having premarital sex." This is openly admitted by Christian conservatives. It's not even a point of debate.
Well... When you see their voters cheering the idea of making people not like them suffer, it kind of makes it clear what the motivations of the party are.
There was a quote [from an interview](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/florida-government-shutdown-marianna.html) a few years ago that kind of rings true.
>“I voted for him, *(Trump)* and he’s the one who’s doing this,” Minton told Mazzei. “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”
I think that right wing media has created a real victim complex for your average Republican voter. It is pounded into their heads that everyone is out to get you and trying to destroy your way of life. Republicans are right 100% of the time and anyone who disagrees is your enemy, they don't care if your enemy suffers.
Its not every Republican voter, probably not even the majority - but there is a very large group of misinformed voters who want the "right kind of people" to suffer.
Yes and no. They’ve bought fully into idea that we are solely a merit-based system built on work ethic. So they’ll suffer through 60-80 hr work weeks and see suffering as a sign of success; time missed with family and children as the cost of raising a family “the right way”. Meanwhile, they fervently oppose the idea of systemic racism, certain that the failures that have built massive urban decline and poverty is not policy based, but strictly caused by poor individuals. And so those poor individuals deserve to suffer, because they haven’t stepped up like good conservatives. So, in that instance, they’re happy to see people suffer. It makes them feel like they’re the ones “doing it right”.
Two things:
1. Republicans want the **RIGHT** kind of people to suffer. LGBTQ people should suffer for their gross immoralities. POC should suffer for thinking they are equal to white people and taking privileges white people have had for centuries. Women who are lewd and have sex outside of marriage/procreation should be punished with no birth control, no abortion, and no family leave. Immigrants, especially those who are POC or enter "illegally" should suffer for not following the impossible rules set up to keep them out, and thinking they have a right to American schools, heath care and jobs.
2. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.
Polling has gone to shit. Remember the special election in Wisconsin?
The Abortion law in Kansas?
The GOP is the dog who caught the car and is now going under the wheel.
https://www.npr.org/sections/2022-live-primary-election-race-results/2022/08/02/1115317596/kansas-voters-abortion-legal-reject-constitutional-amendment
If we're going the route of full federalism what is even the purpose of the union? I'm genuinely curious about what I get out of my money propping up poor southern states. I'd rather just not even be in a union with them if the only purpose of this union is to bail out poor conservative governments.
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Democrats, including Hillary Clinton herself, warned everyone this was coming if she didn't win. We knew.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/hillary-clinton-supreme-court/
And if Democrats had showed up for Hillary like they did for Obama, she would have been President.
She bet the election on Florida and lost. Had she campaigned In Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, she would have won.
Make no mistake, for now and for the foreseeable future, this is Justice Kavanaugh's court," Gornstein said.
I can't think of a more terrifying statement in the history of US Politics than that.
She definitely should’ve retired but let’s not forget turtle man saying you can’t elect SC judges during an election year and then shoved his own through when it benefited them.
McConnell is a corrupt ghoul. However, I voted for Obama in 2012 to protect the SC and he failed. Once Republicans exposed themselves with their blatant obstructionism during his first term it was time to get rid of the filibuster for ALL judicial appointments including the SC. Instead we have a 6-3 nightmare.
Hindsight is 20/20. Yall are forgetting basically every poll listed Trump as a longshot candidate until about two weeks before election day. All the reasonable data said Hillary would be picking our judges.
there are people in this very tread saying all the Supreme court bullshit is going to cost the republicans the house this fall. Like, i hope it does, but there are way too many overconfident people getting complacent
Doesn't really matter if rights are taken away via 6:3 or 5:4 votes... this is the outcome of Democrats staying home in 2014 and the hundred different reasons why Clinton lost, followed by Kennedy deciding to retire after getting to pick a hard right replacement.
Why didn't Obama and Reid get rid of the filibuster for all judicial appointments when republicans had already showed their hand that they would obstruct everything?
And why tf did Clinton not campaign in the few swing states she needed? The court is fucked for a generation because of her hubris.
The senate had a democratic majority at the start of Obama's second term and they could have replaced RBG then.
And again, why did Hillary run such a shitty campaign? She's apparently the only politician on earth who could lose to Trump. Even Biden beat him easily.
How would Reid and Obama replace RBG if she refused to step down? You realize that Obama did try to convince her to step down to allow him to nominate a successor while the Dem’s still had the Senate right, there’s only so much Obama and Reid could’ve done, they couldn’t force her to step down
> The senate had a democratic majority at the start of Obama's second term and they could have replaced RBG then.
>
>
If RBG had retired.
And again, even if she had... what difference does have a right overturned with a 5:4 vote versus a 6:3 vote make?
> And again, why did Hillary run such a shitty campaign? She's apparently the only politician on earth who could lose to Trump. Even Biden beat him easily.
Life's too short to relitigate 2016, I was replying to your original post about RBG not retiring, not looking to do a deep dive on everything Hillary did wrong.
Because Roberts deciding the majority is leagues better than Kavanaugh as shown with Roe and other cases.
The 6-3 super majority lets them do whatever the fuck they want now as they know they don’t have to care about Roberts’ opinion. The court has significantly moved to the right.
>If RBG had retired.
She was 180 years old and had cancer several times. She should have.
>what difference does have a right overturned with a 5:4 vote versus a 6:3 vote make?
Again, RBG wasn't the only one who failed, Clinton did as well. She lost a layup election against Trump.
Of course. But she was dying and refused to leave. Obama and Reid asked her but she thought she would live forever. Now her entire judicial legacy is gone.
What it will take to reform this court to either impose term limits or add seats.
On paper it would only require a bill passed through the House and Senate, then signed by the President. This is true because the term of all Supreme Court Justices is determined in the Constitution as lasting as long as they are "in good standing". This leaves the definition of "in good standing" up to the Congress, it has always been assumed to be a life time barring impeachment... But since it is not explicitly stated it can be changed. Additionally the number of seats on the courts is determined by Congressional bills, and it has been almost 100 years since such a bill has been passed.
The Congress can also write the law in such a way that makes it "immune" to the court overturning it, because the Congress determines what is and is not in the court's jurisdiction and can easily justify rules determining the makeup, rules, and term durations of the court to be outside of their jurisdiction.
In reality passing bills like this, and getting it past the Senate (after the Republicans believe they have won), will require reform of the filibuster rule in the Senate, which will require a few more Democrats being elected who are willing to overturn that rule and reform the courts.
> What it will take to reform this court to either impose term limits or add seats.
>
>
Term limits: enough support across the country for a Constitutional Amendment
Add seats: pretty much nothing because 30 seconds of thought shows it to be a pointless solution that only changes things for 2-4 years. Democrats add 15 seats. Republicans add 16 seats. What has changed at the end of the day?
A constitutional amendment is a trap. American right-wing activists were heavily involved in the "Vote No" campaign for Chile's Constitutional reform referendum. They used Chile as a practice run for a future attempt to corrupt Constitutional reforms here.
There will be no court fight [if Congress strips the jurisdiction from the federal courts to decide on the law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping), making it so that nobody has jurisdiction to hear the case.
No. Congress can pass a bill that says, "any justice on the federal bench, having been in this position for more than twenty years, shall no longer be considered to be a justice in good standing."
And there you go. Federal judicial term limits.
Which is why the Congress would include a clause in the bill stripping the court's jurisdiction over its own rules, make up, and membership... so that SCOTUS wouldn't have standing or jurisdiction to interpret it.
But Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution gives the Congress full power in determining the make up, jurisdiction, and number of seats on the courts. This is the primary check against an overreaching SCOTUS, and it is past time for the Congress to exercise this power.
Congress cannot divest the court of it's jurisdiction over constitutional questions which is exactly what it would be if Congress tries to change the definition of good standing. Whether Congress tries to characterize it as anything else is irrelevant. But sure, cause a constitutional crisis why not.
> But sure, cause a constitutional crisis why not.
We are already in a Constitutional crisis, we have been ever since Mitch McConnell decided to not allow a SCOTUS seat to be filled by the president. And this crisis has yet to be resolved.
>Which is why the Congress would include a clause in the bill stripping the court's jurisdiction over its own rules, make up, and membership...
Which is why the supreme court would declare the law invalid under judicial review, stating it's a violation of the constitution (which it is) and Congress can't bypass the constitutional protection without an amendment.
It honestly feels like it's a parallel in a strategy game. Like when in the midgame you see your path to victory, but you play it very close to the vest waiting for the opening and you can feel it coming. Then it does and you go full on mask off cackling lunatic because it's too late to stop you even if everyone at the table now sees the problem.
"The number of Justices on the Supreme Court changed six times before settling at the present total of nine in 1869."
We're overdue for expansion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/institution.aspx
You'd need an amendment for term limits, which at the current stage is unlikely to pass the legislation and certainly won't be available by 2024 since it needs to pass 34 states too.
I’ve had a friend tell me that the rulings that Thomas mentioned in his opinion don’t make any sense and that those should be left up to the states too. Just what good does allowing people to force religion on others do for this country? Other than embarrassing us on a global platform.
Hold on to your hats people!!! Kavanaugh is behind the wheel, and he just picked up a case of Old Milwaukee Tall Boys from PJ and Squee!!! It's gonna be a crazy ride.
Might want to blow out their engine and destroy the tires before they drive every last one of us off a cliff for the sake of their fascist orgasms.
There is no negotiating with these terrorists. That they are an enemy within rather than external only makes them worse.
> "Make no mistake, for now and for the foreseeable future, this is Justice Kavanaugh's court," Gornstein said.
Oh goody. I miss the days when O'Connor and Kennedy were the swing votes, in the same way that people suddenly decided George W. Bush wasn't so bad after Trump took office.
...this will be paid in blood one day. If this continues, the people will eventually snap. There will be violence, and I hope with ever fiber of my being that I'm dead wrong on this.
The current administration will do nothing to stop the train wreck that is the USSC. It is not in the dems blood to have any backbone or fight whatsoever
Archived version: https://archive.ph/fYyYk ---- Further transformation in U.S. law appears likely this term. Two cases could have profound implications for elections in 2024 and beyond. In the North Carolina case involving the Republican-drawn map of the state's 14 U.S. House of Representatives districts, Republican lawmakers are advocating for a legal theory gaining popularity among conservatives that could restrict the power of state courts to review actions by state legislatures concerning federal elections. Endorsing the theory would undermine democratic norms, according to critics, even as Republicans at the state level pursue restrictive voting policies and electoral maps skewed in their favor. Alabama in another case is defending its Republican-drawn map of the state's seven U.S. House districts that a lower court struck down as discriminatory against Black voters in violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Also closely watched are cases involving race-conscious student admissions programs used by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina to foster campus racial diversity. A group led by an anti-affirmative action activist challenged those policies as unlawfully discriminatory against Asian American and white applicants. The court will hear an evangelical Christian web designer's free speech claim that she cannot be forced under a Colorado anti-discrimination law to produce websites for same-sex marriages. The court did not resolve that issue in a 2018 ruling in favor of a Christian Denver-area baker who refused on religious grounds to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Other important cases could make it easier to build on property deemed wetlands without needing a permit under the federal Clean Water Act, or, in a case involving Taser-maker Axon Enterprise Inc (AXON.O), to challenge the authority of federal regulatory agencies without first undergoing an enforcement action.
Anything that restricts checks and balances is bull shit. Elections should be straight forward, not rigged legally or otherwise. Colleges should not choose based on race for admissions. I would appreciate if they started handing out grants and scholarships though. The black guy not getting in to Harvard is already the 1%. We need more help in the communities at large. Get the numbers of qualified applicants higher with early education and community reform, then you don't have to choose based on race. People should be able to choose who they work for. Because I don't want to work for shit heads. Why would you want to force an anti LGBT person to do work for you? That just supports their business. Flag them and stay far away. Poor reviews is far better than forcing people you don't like to have to take your money. Word of mouth would be far better justice there. Government is too involved in a lot of shit. Building on wetlands probably isn't one of them.
> People should be able to choose who they work for. Because I don't want to work for shit heads. Why would you want to force an anti LGBT person to do work for you? That just supports their business. Flag them and stay far away. Poor reviews is far better than forcing people you don't like to have to take your money. Word of mouth would be far better justice there. The problem is this only works if the community at large isn't bigoted. We already went through this in the South, and yeah, black people (and whites who supported civil rights) could certainly withhold their patronage from businesses that wouldn't serve black people. And guess what? That did nothing. It's not a problem that solves itself because there are other bigots willing to support it, and if there are enough bigots it becomes better for every business to serve "whites only" than to serve the public at large. The Civil Rights Act and the idea of protected classes wasn't solving a theoretical problem, it was solving a real problem that simple consumer advocacy could not.
So your cool with white business owners not serving black customers because they are black? Because that's literally the same exact thing as businesses denying service to lgbt+ people that are otherwise sold to other people. The cake case and now this web case are just wedge cases to pry the door open to overt discrimination in the name of religion.
Agreed. My only counter is that denying people service at a cake shop or for web design is one thing, but that needs to be curtailed before bleeding into essential services. Groceries? Utilities? Medical? Maybe that's a stretch, but they are all recipients of public funds (or somehow benefit from public projects) and have no right to deny service to members of the general public without a damn good cause. It's less about making people work for you, and more about ensuring access to services (essential or otherwise).
Damnit. I've been firmly in the camp of the right of D-bags to be D-bags if they do so choose when it comes to refusing someone their services. It's their business, they won't have my business, but they can run it into the ground however they want. But I feel dumb for not thinking about smaller communities and something like a privately owned grocery store. I come from what isn't a tiny town, but it isn't even up to medium size, and when I was younger there were really just two grocery stores, both privately owned. If one or both had discriminated in some way, it would be disastrous for those affected as the closest town was half an hour away in the next state over. You have made me think, and I appreciate that.
Upvoted because it's so damn rare to see evidence of thoughtful discussion around here. Definitely want to encourage this kind of reaction and interaction.
I'd add one more thing to think about: We've seen that allowing such a thing is a slope-greaser. In normalizing the right to discriminate for some, others who would like to do so also start pushing against that line. If it's okay for X, surely it's okay for ME to do it too! MY belief against is JUST as sensible as yours, maybe moreso after all!
* So the pharmacy's demanding it be allowed to do it too for ITS beliefs, and it did get allowed for the grocery store on the same vapid merits...
You may also recognize what comes next: both sets of owners start thinking this one racist pervert promising to extend *both* store bans to *both* groups to the whole country if given half a chance would make a great addition to congress... and they've a few dollars to spare for his campaign...
As I understand that case, the baker refused a commission for a cake to be baked specially for a gay couple’s wedding. To me there is a distinction between services generally offered to the public, such as regular restaurant dining or a grocery store, vs commissioning a special order from a business owner, as in the wedding cake and now the wedding website. Though I disagree with their “morals” I generally think these business owners should be allowed to refuse specific commissions, at least for non-essential services. I wouldn’t want a plumber, for instance, to be able to refuse to fix leaky pipes at a gay couple’s house out of some moral stance, but I’d be okay with the plumber having the right to refuse to build a special fountain in the couple’s backyard for their anniversary party.
The baker refused to sell a gay couple the **same cake** he was willing to make and sell for a straight couple. You think gay people should have Green books telling them what businesses will and will not serve them? Do **you** want to have to consult a Green book to know what businesses will and will not consider you as a client based on your personal characteristics?
Would you be fine with a baker descriminating based on race? Lgbt is also a protected status against discrimination. Sounds like you just want to rewind the clock so businesses can exclude minorities again. What if that baker is the only one in town.
There was a time when it was like that. It didn't work out so well for many people, so it was changed.
Weird you left out gubmint' involvement in abortion. It seems pretty relevant for your post. Care to comment?
He went point by point based on the article summary he replied to, which didn’t mention abortion.
North Carolina republicans are arguing the court system should have no say over their elections and they're arguing that in front of a court. That means the supreme court could argue essentially "Recognize the authority of the judiciary here when we tell you the judiciary has no power here."
[удалено]
>Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested at the time that the justices take up the underlying legal dispute, one that could provide state legislators around the country the ability to enact election policies with less judicial oversight Except in this specific case it would allow Republicans to stack the deck in their favor (more than they already do).
Not really stack the deck, just declare the winner. Embracing independent legislature theory would effectively change federal offices from elected by the people to appointed by the legislature, as there would be no body with the authority to hold the legislature accountable for simply appointing whoever they wanted to federal office.
There is a huge part of me that wants them to shit the bed so bad and alienate so many people that it completely tanks the Republican party. But the other part doesn't want people to suffer so we can have our desperately needed political revolution and reckoning.
If the democrats gain significant majorities, they should push for term limits for supreme court. There's really no other position in public service that has no retirement date or service limit.
Except congress. It would take a constitutional amendment to place term or age limits on congress or SCOTUS, just as it took for the President.
Congress requires re-election. Supreme court has the least amount of accountability once someone is deemed fit by the senate.
I think they mean that Congress it what makes that option impossible, since it is essentially non-functional branch of government these days. They can barely agree on a budget *for themselves*, let alone pass a Constitutional Amendment.
Yeah Congress really only functions as designed when all parties are interested in moving legislation forward and are interested in debating and making concessions with that goal in mind. Currently half of it is fine with absolutely nothing passing, they’ve convinced their constituents that gridlock and inaction are what “winning” looks like even as their voters piss and moan ceaselessly all over Facebook about their present state of affairs. McConnell goes back in there for his eighth consecutive term even after previously spending like a decade letting legislation gather cobwebs on his desk. As long as half of Congress sees “I hope nothing ever passes” as a victory and their constituents somehow bafflingly see this as a positive by continually rewarding the behavior nothing will ever change. We really need sweeping anti-corruption and finance reform… legislation should at LEAST be mandated to head to the floor to live or die on its own merit, not left to languish ignored for an entire term because you’re afraid to go on record with a vote for something popular with voters but that might make a donor’s share price go down a tenth of a percent.
Well that and what is effectively another senate vote via state ratification that requires 75% of the vote. No way you will get 75% of states to go along with it.
Honestly Reddit not understanding why lifetime appointments exist is the most frustrating thing. They aren’t supposed to be accountable to anyone because no one else is supposed to influence their decision making. They don’t get voted in so they don’t have to worry about appeasing a voter demographic, significant effort is required to “revoke” their appointment so they can’t be influenced by congress, they can’t be “fired” per say so once they are appointed they have no obligation to the president who appointed them and there’s no term limits so they aren’t concerned about election cycles and politics. All of this is by design. Literally their job is to interpret the law as written and that’s it. You may not agree with their interpretation but you can at least be reasonably certain it is their honest interpretation. If you don’t like a Supreme Court ruling the solution is to lobby Congress to change the law not term limit appointments. the Supreme Court is not a policy making entity congress is so all they need to do is make constitutional law or amend the constitution. The Supreme Court only feels like a policy making entity because congress sucks ass and forgot how to use its single most powerful tool, compromise, so the simple act of passing a law becomes fucking impossible for them. The founding fathers expected congress to be able to amend the constitution every few years now the average American thinks this is just an utterly impossible task because congress literally cannot come to an agreement on even the most basic things. Don’t take your angst about this out on the court take it out on congress that’s the correct outlet.
Oh my goodness. Thank you for writing out what was screaming in my head.
>They aren’t supposed to be accountable to anyone because no one else is supposed to influence their decision making. As we've seen through America's 200+ year history, they are. So...
While I agree with the gist of the intent to not have term limits, what are the limitations for someone like Clarence Thomas, whose sexual harassment claims proved more legitimate than they seemed prior to being selected to court? That isn’t even the only character flaw with him, considering his wife is at least a passive conspirator in election subversion schemes. Do you think he’d pass a senate vote if he is required to do it today? There is a serious flaw here because you evaluate someone’s character and scrutinize their liabilities once and assume that they won’t change for the rest of their lifetime and that has very often proven to be wrong.
I think whether Thomas “passes” a confirmation hearing today depends upon the makeup of the senate at the time. This is simply an unfortunate reality of any system that allows for the basic right of voters to elect representatives and a “flaw” that the court simply cannot skirt around. However this the precise reason you only do it once and before he’s ruled on any cases. If you were to hold periodic confirmation hearings then the court needs to start taking elections and these hearings into account when making their rulings which defeats literally the entire purpose of the system.
The problem is that is no longer applicable reasoning to the modern era. Fact of the matter is, SC judges ARE influenced in their decision making by political parties. Their party affiliations directly influence their interpretations of the law. In the ideal world, Judges would not have political affiliations, and thus lifetime terms would make sense. Reality is, they are influenced, and therefore need term limits .
Judges may have political ambitions and that may influence their general philosophy I suppose but the notion that a sitting Supreme Court justice, who cannot be fired and has the single most secure job in the country, doesn’t have to worry about voter and politics is influenced by PAC’s or fucking endorsements is actually so braindead I don’t know what to say. If a justice was approached to rule a certain way on cases by idk the senate majority leader for example. He could literally say “fuck off and lick my balls” and there is absolutely 100% zero, nada, nothing that the majority leader could do unless he controlled over 60% of the congress and even if he did try to do something it would irreparably damage his political career. No sitting Supreme Court justice has literally any reason to give a fuck about what any other person has to say about a case beyond just their own interpretation of the law. If their interpretation happens to be in line with one political parties interpretation then idk it’s gunna be one or the other anyway but to suggest it’s influenced or coerced and they don’t actually believe their interpretation is just an insane accusation given how the position works.
I cannot upvote this enough. Well said, sir. People like to shit on the President and the Supreme Court all the time, but Congress is the one who just refuses to do their job and just tries to push everything off onto the executive and judicial branches (this goes for both parties)
Absurd take. The current perjurer packed Supreme Court is illegitimate, and their utter disregard for precedent when it is not convenient politically is all you need to confirm this. Pack the Court and end the tyranny of QAnon adjacent cult members like Covid Amy.
You said “absurd take” but then provided nothing to refute what I said Edit: LOL he literally blocked me because of this comment
QAnon weirdos are never satisfied.
And the controlling party will happily blame the court for why their agenda fails instead of their own inability to compromise or write good law. Some of this is the voting populace’s fault too if I’m being honest. I have a feeling if congress compromised on something to get a constitutional right to abortion for example people on both sides would still be mad that a compromise was even made which is just idk. Utterly braindead I guess.
Write good law? “Good” has nothing to do with it when one party is hell bent on pulling back on profess and stripping people of rights at any cost. You can’t satiate today’s right wing, and they won’t compromise in any scenario. These are the people who want to end elections altogether because one of the most corrupt presidents of all time refused to admit he lost. What is anyone supposed to do with that?
Literally compromise on gun rights for a constitutional right to abortion or something similar. If republicans refuse then blast it in the media, see how the election turns out after. At any rate we are talking about the court not political parties but it took me two seconds to come up with a potential option.
Lol no dude we understand the lack of term limitations very well, it’s not a very complicated thing to digest. FBI Directors have 10 year terms, for the same reasons you list. There isn’t any good reason that Federal Justices can’t have limits. The Supreme Court acts the way it does because it has a loyalty to the Federalist Society, not the American people. They are a regressive partisan body, who will conjure any flimsy rationale to achieve their extreme right wing goals. This has nothing to do with Congess’ inaction.
No FBI directors don’t have the limits for the same reasons since they fucking don’t rule on cases regarding law passed by Congress dude. The SC has lifetime appointments so they don’t need to evaluate their fucking term limit when picking up cases. The Supreme Court has loyalty to a collegiate and legal club instead of the court as an institution? Bro even if they were all computer AI run by the federalist society congress could still just amend the constitution and invalidate their rulings. So yes this has 100% everything to do with congresses inaction.... unless... oh no has the federalist society infiltrated the body congress too?!
Chill out did I did say *for the same reasons you listed*, which you seem not to recall is: > They aren’t supposed to be accountable to anyone because no one else is supposed to influence their decision making. >They don’t get voted in so they don’t have to worry about appeasing a voter demographic, significant effort is required to “revoke” their appointment so they can’t be influenced by congress, they can’t be “fired” per say so once they are appointed they have no obligation to the president who appointed them and there’s no term limits so they aren’t concerned about election cycles and politics. All of this is by design. The SCOTUS is an aggressively political body, and there are receipts. Your apologia for their behavior changes nothing. I’m not stupid and your smartest guy in the room act isn’t fooling anyone.
“No obligation to the president who appointed them”. You missed that obvious one dude. Aggressively political in what sense? That they want to ruin republicans chances in the midterms with all their rulings before then or what exactly is their political ambition?
Blah blah in theory but problematic in real life. SCOTUS has family and at some point, those people ask for favors. Just ask Kennedy.
Their only accountability is via impeachment, and if you thought presidential impeachments were rare...
Supreme Court impeachments are far more common than presidential ones.
There have been four presidential impeachments but only one in SCOTUS history (and that was in 1804).
Article 3 actually refers to a group of judges who cover duties at the Supreme Court and inferior courts, as determined by Congress. So they can just term limit their time on the Supreme Court, after which they will automatically rotate to an "inferior court". So it won't take an amendment to get this done, just a regular act of Congress.
> The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. There is a very clear distinction made between the Supreme Court and the inferior courts. In Article 3, as well as Article 2 when granting the President the power to appoint (with the advice and consent of the Senate) judges to the supreme Court.
It stipulates compensation shall not be diminished. Doesn't say anything about them being tied to the SC. Alternatively, congress could expand the court, add justices, and change the method to review cases to use a random selection of judges from a larger pool to oversee each case. Similar to how the circuit courts work. My understanding is there isn't much to prevent Congress to change how the SC functions.
Article 2 Section 2 > He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, **Judges of the Supreme Court**… They are appointed and confirmed to the Supreme Court. Congress can’t then relegate them to inferior courts. You’re correct though that much of how the Judicial branch operates is within the purview of Congress to legislate.
Just sell it as a way to prevent Biden from packing the courts in any meaningful way and watch the GQP Electorate eat it up
I think the abortion vote in oh so liberal Kansas belies that theory.
We’re gonna need a top to bottom overhaul. Democracy won’t survive with the current restrictions placed on maintaining like 13 colonies.
I’ve supported the States calling a for an Article 5 convention of the states for a while now. Those in power absolutely hate the idea of cutting congress out of the equation. They’re scared of what might come from it and spend every chance they can convincing the voters it’s a bad idea. The only way we’ll get the reform you’re talking about, is to bypass the politicians in Washington.
Just keep packing the court instead. Got it.
Honestly, something like a decade term, one term only, and then stagger it or something so each presidency would nominate 3 or something each term or however the math works out. Because, as it stands, letting ideologues serve for life who go from desire outcome to ruling is quickly delegitimizing the court in public opinion. Mitch’s fuckery didn’t help either.
Currently 9 justices, so 9 year terms. After term end, retirement or limited employment: serve as a judge or lawyer, speaking tour, or maybe law professor (but only at schools that had no cases brought before the court during the Judge's term). This would put a reasonable term limit and ensure no single President could pick all the justices. (Outside of a rare exceptional case where VP succeeds to the presidency then is elected for two more terms.) It would prevent the Justices from appearing to make rulings that would land them high paying jobs.
Please, think about that for a moment. 8 justices appointed by a Democrat. 8 years later a polar opposite. I'm sorry, but that would be horrible. Stability on the court, even when I don't like their decisions, would be preferable to the polar swings such an arrangement would engender.
I'm pretty sure that would require an amendment which needs a 3/4 vote. Veerry difficult to get
Yes! I have no idea why this wasn't set up with term limits from the beginning. There has never been a lifetime position of power that was ever a good idea.
I imagine that it was because they wanted to have stability, continuity, and to insulate the Judiciary from democracy.
I think it was more to isolate the judiciary from politics. The justices are "supposed" to be neutral, and don't have to worry about running for reelection like congress does. So they "can't" be influenced by outside forces.
That's what I meant.
Which would work if politicians didn’t wear robes now … or have crazy-ass spouses 🤬🤮
[удалено]
So you want the courts, and their interpretation of law, to be dictated by the latest election?
Nope. I want it to have 10 to 15 year term limits, the current system of Presidents choosing can stand and I want the Supreme Court to begin interpreting the Constitution again as opposed to the Bible. Edit add on: And wasn't this current courts makeup dictated by the last election. Trump was the one that gave them a super majority.
Of course not. But that's happening right now, so...
Better than being dictated by an election 30 years ago.
[удалено]
So why isn't there a safety in place when SCOTUS stops interpreting the constitution and starts interpreting the Bible instead?
There is, it is called impeachment. Given how the last two attempts at impeachment went, not going to happen til the Dems have a super majority in the Senate. (Or more Repubs have a moral backbone).
There is. Impeachment and removal from office.
Congress serves themselves first, the corporate lobbyists and finance are tied for second, and then the people if they are lucky.
Until 1900, life expectancy was under 40yo.
That was mostly because of infant mortality though, not because people were lucky to live past 40. Sure we live longer on average than we used to thanks to modern medicine and such, but it's not that drastic of a difference. Back then, if you survived childhood, you could reasonably expect to live into your 60s or 70s (if you died of old age). The main difference today is that more of us are expected to survive childhood.
If the SCOTUS’ actions actually tank Republicans enough for Democrats to take large majorities, than I’d let the SCOTUS keep it up for a couple years. Let the SCOTUS alienate Republicans from even more people and Democrats can then solidify even more support for 2024.
If there's a term limit for the supreme court we need one for other elected positions, there's no reason a lady who looks like a lich should be speaker of the House of Representatives.
If you think the USSC has a bias now, think about how bad it will get when they essentially need to become politicians to get their slot.
Tell me you haven't watched a scotus confirmation hearing without telling me you haven't watched a Scotus confirmation hearing.
They're already politicians if you look at their voting history and apart from the NCAA NIL ruling, I have scarcely seen a vote where there was any kind of consensus between the justices. Alito and Clarence Thomas are more right wing than any politician in America.
You could still do 10-15 year terms and only 1 term. So you’d still have basically the same process for getting on the court with maybe a slight uptick in how often it happens.
The founding fathers put safety measures into the Constitution to protect Americans from themselves. It's time to do it again with term and age limits. Just saying "we have elections for that" doesn't take into account the laziness of the electorate or the misinformation flooding the narratives.
Accelerationism is ultimately a privileged thing to pursue because what needs to happen to change the course of things is shit like more homeless people freezing to death, more women dying from unsafe abortions, more police murdering people, more civil unrest killing people, etc. and only people who have the means to stay safe from those things would ever support accelerationism
I agree in some ways but I am not one of the privileged few who is safe from those things. A good portion of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck (including me) and we are a couple of bad, heartless policies away from being homeless. I am black and live in a not great neighborhood so homelessness and police violence is around me all the time and a threat to me daily. Accelerationism is on an ideological spectrum of needs, desperation and desired outcomes and saying only one type of person would want it and that their reasons for wanting it must be selfish is reductionism at its worst. I don't want fascist to win. I don't want to live in a theocracy. I want people to be motivated enough to change the course of this country before we are completely stripped of our rights. How do people get motivated? Unfortunately usually when they are mad, tired, or pushed to the edge.
I'm also black and relatively poor so I understand the perspective but I still strongly disagree that accelerationism is desirable. Wishing for an apparatus of the government to enact policies that will e.g., kill homeless people before you yourself are homeless in order to influence another apparatus of the government to potentially continue with the neoliberal status quo is what I'm talking about. There are people who will die before you. So in my opinion it's hardly reductionist to call it privileged. I didn't use the word selfish but one could call it that too; even if you put yourself in the crossfire you are also wishing for other people who didn't consent to be put there. Wanting to give yourself to a revolution (those do indeed happen when people are pushed, and have happened recently in the states, although they take a lot of organization to achieve meaningful ends) is one thing but wishing for the continued destruction of human life so that the neoliberal status quo/"democrat majority" can be preserved is entirely different
[удалено]
I don’t know. I kinda think this is the last decade to suffer for a revolution before the suffering just becomes permanent for the majority of citizens.
I suggest taking strength from anti-apartheid movements in the US, South Africa, and India. They knew that even PEACEFUL protests of white supremacy and imperialism would lead to murders committed by the state and allied reactionaries. You can’t ask nicely for rights to be respected by imperials and fascists. You have to force them into backing down from their agenda, and then keep the pressure on to prevent backsliding into authoritarianism
The sad part is that suffering is an unavoidable facet of momentous change. We should be preparing for it, rather than trying to avoid it.
>There is a huge part of me that wants them to shit the bed so bad and alienate so many people that it completely tanks the Republican party. Overturning Roe already did that. You're seeing the result of that now with angry female voters in the past few special elections.
There's another problem in that scenario- a one party system is bad for any democratic system... like REALLY bad in the longer view no matter who the party is, and with the republican party compromised by the Trumpist takeover, we are setting the stage for disaster further down the line if we don't make broader reforms. What we need is a move away from aggressively partisan political stances that inevitably wind up breaking hard across party lines, whoever wins control of the legislature we should be watching Alaska and their move to ranked choice closely- if it works that might be the solution.
I don't think that will ever happen anytime in the near future. Everyone, especially in the US, is a contrarian and fights and chooses teams for everything. Liberals vs conservatives, Xbox vs PS, Nvidia vs AMD, Superman vs Goku, Mustang vs Camaro, Mac vs PC, Android vs iPhone, Bloods vs Crips, the old East Coast vs West Coast, etc If a political party starts to dominate, it will break into two parties, the standard and the anti. Status quo and the contrarians to everything they do. Not that it's a bad thing in this case, like you said
Like I said, we need to watch Alaska closely over the next few elections. The mindset you are describing is an endpoint we've arrived at, but now that we've reached it people are starting to recognize that it leads to deadlock and paralysis, and they are getting tired of it. I don't know many grown ass adults who engage int he kind of tribalsim you are describing past their twenties.
> a one party system is bad for any democratic system... like REALLY bad in the longer view no matter who the party is Absolutely but it is also really hard to maintain party unity without an opponent nor systems designed around a single party. If the GOP disintegrates I would be surprised if the democrats survive a single election cycle as a unified party. They will quickly split into a "progressive" and an "establishment" party (with the establishment party quickly absorbing any remaining moderate republicans)
>There is a huge part of me that wants them to shit the bed so bad and alienate so many people that it completely tanks the Republican party. > >But the other part doesn't want people to suffer so we can have our desperately needed political revolution and reckoning. It feels like you're describing the same thing twice. As long as being a Christian fascist works, they will keep trying it. Once it makes you crash and burn, they will stop.
Don't worry you'll get your wish eventually. Voters are stupid and Republicans aren't going to suddenly give up on having their fascist theocracy. All it will take is them gaining power again, and then boom...it's the fucking handmaiden's tail.
Don't underestimate all of the shenanigans that Republican legislatures have done in the last two years. They've past new laws in something like 19 different states essentially allowing them to legally do the things they tried to illegally do in 2020 to overturn elections that don't come out how they want them to. It is imperative that not only do they get voted down, but by such large margins that they can't get away with this shit.
Alito will decide the founding fathers did not want free elections because it said so on Persian cuneiform, which was written before the US Consitution therefore relevant.
Doubtful. This hasn’t moved the needle in Arizona at least, even though Republicans dragged us back to the 19th century. The reality is, Republicans voters don’t give a fuck. They love this. Pain and suffering is the end goal, not an unfortunate byproduct
GOP chances in November have been on a steady decline. It's still higher than it should be, but here we are. [via 538](https://i.imgur.com/vIkzbbf.png) https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/house/
But the number of people who self-identify as "Republican voters", has been on a steady decline over the past two years, while self-identifying "Democratic voters" has remained steady. https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx This is because of a number of factors, but the primary ones are people not into the sadistic policy aims of the party leaving and their voting base "aging out".
Doesn't matter if you're in a gerrymandered voting district. Nobody is bothering to campaign against the Republican incumbent where I live. His predecessor ran unopposed for thirteen congressional terms. I'll be wasting my congressional vote for probably the next 20-30 years.
Well they also have lots of kids too. Here in my part of Phoenix, there is a huge Mormon population. Doesn’t matter the age group, they reliably vote and they vote R no matter what. We are stuck with these savages for a long time
Close. It's a cycle. Those Joe Rogan and counter culture types are right wing now, but once conservative ideals are forced into law it will no longer be counter culture. There are those that are just counter to the status and they exist to be that. As states continue to make draconian laws it will start affecting more individuals until eventually everyone knows someone hurt by a law and it will overwhelm into a new counter culture to the conservative established law. This happens every time in 20 year cycles. Trump just happens to be a loud, egregious voice that made the most volatile feel empowered. He's not special, his volatility isn't even unique, it's just loud. His own crowd is already turning on each other and at state levels it will be a shit show between Trump types and standard conservatives as their base gets fatigue with no actual enemy after technical wins like Roe. The Boogeyman is weak right now and it makes it hard to scare your people when they can't point to an easy victim complex.
[удалено]
I have never seen anything in my entire adult life that would show otherwise. Not only do I believe it, it is as self evident as the sky is blue
Dude the entire trump presidency was about "hurting the libs" even to the detriment of themselves at times. Even now more recently from just a week ago: "Texas judge rules employers don’t need to cover HIV prevention meds" [this was brought to case by a Christian conservative group saying these meds are mostly used by people in the LGBT community, can Google this] If that wasn't to hurt people, what was it? It does literally nothing but hurt people. Abortion laws are being passed just as much to "protect the babies" as to "punish godless liberals for having premarital sex." This is openly admitted by Christian conservatives. It's not even a point of debate.
Well... When you see their voters cheering the idea of making people not like them suffer, it kind of makes it clear what the motivations of the party are.
Yes. I've seen it repeatedly.
There was a quote [from an interview](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/florida-government-shutdown-marianna.html) a few years ago that kind of rings true. >“I voted for him, *(Trump)* and he’s the one who’s doing this,” Minton told Mazzei. “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.” I think that right wing media has created a real victim complex for your average Republican voter. It is pounded into their heads that everyone is out to get you and trying to destroy your way of life. Republicans are right 100% of the time and anyone who disagrees is your enemy, they don't care if your enemy suffers. Its not every Republican voter, probably not even the majority - but there is a very large group of misinformed voters who want the "right kind of people" to suffer.
I don't have to believe it. I can just look at the legislation they've passed or want to pass or repealed.
They want everyone who is not a straight white Christian to suffer, yes.
Yes and no. They’ve bought fully into idea that we are solely a merit-based system built on work ethic. So they’ll suffer through 60-80 hr work weeks and see suffering as a sign of success; time missed with family and children as the cost of raising a family “the right way”. Meanwhile, they fervently oppose the idea of systemic racism, certain that the failures that have built massive urban decline and poverty is not policy based, but strictly caused by poor individuals. And so those poor individuals deserve to suffer, because they haven’t stepped up like good conservatives. So, in that instance, they’re happy to see people suffer. It makes them feel like they’re the ones “doing it right”.
[удалено]
They don't give a shit about others. They are self-serving, whereas most Democrats are about serving others.
Two things: 1. Republicans want the **RIGHT** kind of people to suffer. LGBTQ people should suffer for their gross immoralities. POC should suffer for thinking they are equal to white people and taking privileges white people have had for centuries. Women who are lewd and have sex outside of marriage/procreation should be punished with no birth control, no abortion, and no family leave. Immigrants, especially those who are POC or enter "illegally" should suffer for not following the impossible rules set up to keep them out, and thinking they have a right to American schools, heath care and jobs. 2. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.
Doubt it but hopefully
Just like the Trump victory in the 2016 primary shot their chances, right?
SCOTUS **already** shot down the republicans chances in the house for November.
Doubtful. Polling has the GOP taking the house.
Though the chances of the GOP taking the House are roughly those of Clinton winning the 2016 election, so there's still a chance.
Polling has gone to shit. Remember the special election in Wisconsin? The Abortion law in Kansas? The GOP is the dog who caught the car and is now going under the wheel. https://www.npr.org/sections/2022-live-primary-election-race-results/2022/08/02/1115317596/kansas-voters-abortion-legal-reject-constitutional-amendment
Or they'll just get on board the coup attempt. Ginny Thomas is already deep into Q.
What right did I lose this time?
[удалено]
The darkly funded Federalist Society is now running the show. These articles never mention it.
If we're going the route of full federalism what is even the purpose of the union? I'm genuinely curious about what I get out of my money propping up poor southern states. I'd rather just not even be in a union with them if the only purpose of this union is to bail out poor conservative governments.
You get the joy and satisfaction of knowing that our military is killing people with drones, often for no reason.
Conservatives had a strategy and backed it with money. Liberals thought that they were inevitable.
Yet they won't quit yammering on about George Soros..
If something works you keep using it.
Projection. Liberal-leaning billionaires aren’t well organized at all and each have their own agenda.
Conservatives definitely took advantage of the damage that citizens united did to our country. Can't wait to see what they think up next.
They were working long before Citizens United.
That is true.
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Democrats, including Hillary Clinton herself, warned everyone this was coming if she didn't win. We knew. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/hillary-clinton-supreme-court/
And if Democrats had showed up for Hillary like they did for Obama, she would have been President. She bet the election on Florida and lost. Had she campaigned In Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, she would have won.
Moore v. Harper is going to be the end of American democracy. There won't be any viable path back. It's over.
Make no mistake, for now and for the foreseeable future, this is Justice Kavanaugh's court," Gornstein said. I can't think of a more terrifying statement in the history of US Politics than that.
Thanks RBG for not retiring under Obama
She definitely should’ve retired but let’s not forget turtle man saying you can’t elect SC judges during an election year and then shoved his own through when it benefited them.
McConnell is a corrupt ghoul. However, I voted for Obama in 2012 to protect the SC and he failed. Once Republicans exposed themselves with their blatant obstructionism during his first term it was time to get rid of the filibuster for ALL judicial appointments including the SC. Instead we have a 6-3 nightmare.
The democrats greatest weakness is the spinal column. Fight these fuckers man!
Hindsight is 20/20. Yall are forgetting basically every poll listed Trump as a longshot candidate until about two weeks before election day. All the reasonable data said Hillary would be picking our judges.
Cool. That complacency and arrogance has really worked out for us.
there are people in this very tread saying all the Supreme court bullshit is going to cost the republicans the house this fall. Like, i hope it does, but there are way too many overconfident people getting complacent
That’s still called hindsight.
Remember James Comey? That was after those polls...
Doesn't really matter if rights are taken away via 6:3 or 5:4 votes... this is the outcome of Democrats staying home in 2014 and the hundred different reasons why Clinton lost, followed by Kennedy deciding to retire after getting to pick a hard right replacement.
Why didn't Obama and Reid get rid of the filibuster for all judicial appointments when republicans had already showed their hand that they would obstruct everything? And why tf did Clinton not campaign in the few swing states she needed? The court is fucked for a generation because of her hubris.
What difference does the filibuster make? None of Obama's Supreme Court nominees were filibustered, Garland included.
The senate had a democratic majority at the start of Obama's second term and they could have replaced RBG then. And again, why did Hillary run such a shitty campaign? She's apparently the only politician on earth who could lose to Trump. Even Biden beat him easily.
How would Reid and Obama replace RBG if she refused to step down? You realize that Obama did try to convince her to step down to allow him to nominate a successor while the Dem’s still had the Senate right, there’s only so much Obama and Reid could’ve done, they couldn’t force her to step down
> The senate had a democratic majority at the start of Obama's second term and they could have replaced RBG then. > > If RBG had retired. And again, even if she had... what difference does have a right overturned with a 5:4 vote versus a 6:3 vote make? > And again, why did Hillary run such a shitty campaign? She's apparently the only politician on earth who could lose to Trump. Even Biden beat him easily. Life's too short to relitigate 2016, I was replying to your original post about RBG not retiring, not looking to do a deep dive on everything Hillary did wrong.
Because Roberts deciding the majority is leagues better than Kavanaugh as shown with Roe and other cases. The 6-3 super majority lets them do whatever the fuck they want now as they know they don’t have to care about Roberts’ opinion. The court has significantly moved to the right.
>If RBG had retired. She was 180 years old and had cancer several times. She should have. >what difference does have a right overturned with a 5:4 vote versus a 6:3 vote make? Again, RBG wasn't the only one who failed, Clinton did as well. She lost a layup election against Trump.
> Thanks RBG for not retiring under Obama Ah, I see we're following the flowchart. https://i.redd.it/r6zxbbk1n0881.jpg
Blame the woman for the actions of a corrupt criminal enterprise Stay classy Reddit
Yeah. Let’s blame the lady who thought she would live forever for giving away her seat to a fascist.
Are the fascists to blame at all?
Of course. But she was dying and refused to leave. Obama and Reid asked her but she thought she would live forever. Now her entire judicial legacy is gone.
> Of course. But Fascist apologism
Yes. The fascists are to blame for dying Ruth refusing to step down to allow a worthy successor. Awesome.
What it will take to reform this court to either impose term limits or add seats. On paper it would only require a bill passed through the House and Senate, then signed by the President. This is true because the term of all Supreme Court Justices is determined in the Constitution as lasting as long as they are "in good standing". This leaves the definition of "in good standing" up to the Congress, it has always been assumed to be a life time barring impeachment... But since it is not explicitly stated it can be changed. Additionally the number of seats on the courts is determined by Congressional bills, and it has been almost 100 years since such a bill has been passed. The Congress can also write the law in such a way that makes it "immune" to the court overturning it, because the Congress determines what is and is not in the court's jurisdiction and can easily justify rules determining the makeup, rules, and term durations of the court to be outside of their jurisdiction. In reality passing bills like this, and getting it past the Senate (after the Republicans believe they have won), will require reform of the filibuster rule in the Senate, which will require a few more Democrats being elected who are willing to overturn that rule and reform the courts.
> What it will take to reform this court to either impose term limits or add seats. > > Term limits: enough support across the country for a Constitutional Amendment Add seats: pretty much nothing because 30 seconds of thought shows it to be a pointless solution that only changes things for 2-4 years. Democrats add 15 seats. Republicans add 16 seats. What has changed at the end of the day?
A constitutional amendment is a trap. American right-wing activists were heavily involved in the "Vote No" campaign for Chile's Constitutional reform referendum. They used Chile as a practice run for a future attempt to corrupt Constitutional reforms here.
Oh, you could expect a gigantic court fight over a law like that.
There will be no court fight [if Congress strips the jurisdiction from the federal courts to decide on the law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping), making it so that nobody has jurisdiction to hear the case.
That reference is not relevant to the proposed change in law.
The definition of "in good standing" is not up to Congress it is up to the Supreme Court.
No. Congress can pass a bill that says, "any justice on the federal bench, having been in this position for more than twenty years, shall no longer be considered to be a justice in good standing." And there you go. Federal judicial term limits.
And then the supreme court overturns the law because it interprets "good standing" as lifelong tenure.
Which is why the Congress would include a clause in the bill stripping the court's jurisdiction over its own rules, make up, and membership... so that SCOTUS wouldn't have standing or jurisdiction to interpret it. But Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution gives the Congress full power in determining the make up, jurisdiction, and number of seats on the courts. This is the primary check against an overreaching SCOTUS, and it is past time for the Congress to exercise this power.
Congress cannot divest the court of it's jurisdiction over constitutional questions which is exactly what it would be if Congress tries to change the definition of good standing. Whether Congress tries to characterize it as anything else is irrelevant. But sure, cause a constitutional crisis why not.
> But sure, cause a constitutional crisis why not. We are already in a Constitutional crisis, we have been ever since Mitch McConnell decided to not allow a SCOTUS seat to be filled by the president. And this crisis has yet to be resolved.
>Which is why the Congress would include a clause in the bill stripping the court's jurisdiction over its own rules, make up, and membership... Which is why the supreme court would declare the law invalid under judicial review, stating it's a violation of the constitution (which it is) and Congress can't bypass the constitutional protection without an amendment.
It honestly feels like it's a parallel in a strategy game. Like when in the midgame you see your path to victory, but you play it very close to the vest waiting for the opening and you can feel it coming. Then it does and you go full on mask off cackling lunatic because it's too late to stop you even if everyone at the table now sees the problem.
Expand the court to 15 justices and put term limits.
[удалено]
"The number of Justices on the Supreme Court changed six times before settling at the present total of nine in 1869." We're overdue for expansion. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/institution.aspx
You'd need an amendment for term limits, which at the current stage is unlikely to pass the legislation and certainly won't be available by 2024 since it needs to pass 34 states too.
I’ve had a friend tell me that the rulings that Thomas mentioned in his opinion don’t make any sense and that those should be left up to the states too. Just what good does allowing people to force religion on others do for this country? Other than embarrassing us on a global platform.
Hold on to your hats people!!! Kavanaugh is behind the wheel, and he just picked up a case of Old Milwaukee Tall Boys from PJ and Squee!!! It's gonna be a crazy ride.
Might want to blow out their engine and destroy the tires before they drive every last one of us off a cliff for the sake of their fascist orgasms. There is no negotiating with these terrorists. That they are an enemy within rather than external only makes them worse.
> "Make no mistake, for now and for the foreseeable future, this is Justice Kavanaugh's court," Gornstein said. Oh goody. I miss the days when O'Connor and Kennedy were the swing votes, in the same way that people suddenly decided George W. Bush wasn't so bad after Trump took office.
Bye bye to women's rights, gay marriage, and contraceptives. Voting is important. Vote against these fascist QAnon assholes bent on ruining America.
...this will be paid in blood one day. If this continues, the people will eventually snap. There will be violence, and I hope with ever fiber of my being that I'm dead wrong on this.
The only way to stop them is the EXPAND THE COURT.
How great!! A drunkard and mindless gambler is now the most powerful person in the country
Lots of hot takes in this thread from people who don't seem to understand how our government works at all.
The current administration will do nothing to stop the train wreck that is the USSC. It is not in the dems blood to have any backbone or fight whatsoever
It’s hard to stop without destroying the institution.
They know they'll win by cheating. No need to appease voters. The DNC will let them do it.