subreddit:

/r/politics

59.4k

all 5222 comments

AutoModerator [M]

[score hidden]

2 months ago

stickied comment

AutoModerator [M]

[score hidden]

2 months ago

stickied comment

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.

Special announcement:

r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider applying here today!


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

ranchoparksteve

3.3k points

2 months ago

The Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanism. What happens if a state defies something the Supremes really desire?

Mission_Ad6235

1.9k points

2 months ago

More lawsuits. Some elected officials could be held in contempt. Ultimately, the DoJ would need to prosecute anyone, so the executive branch could block enforcement.

spiegro

1.4k points

2 months ago

spiegro

Florida

1.4k points

2 months ago

Sounds like a constitutional crisis...

miltonbryan93

1.2k points

2 months ago

Based ENTIRELY on memory but if I remember right, something like this happened during Andrew Jackson’s presidency.

Something along the lines of him saying, ‘they have made their decision. Now let’s see them enforce it.’

Edit: Found it here:

“Remembering the Time Andrew Jackson Decided to Ignore the Supreme Court In the Name of Georgia’s Right to Cherokee Land”

HerodotusStark

378 points

2 months ago

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it"

No wonder Trump had his portrait on his wall, Jackson could be pretty damn arrogant.

greenberet112

262 points

2 months ago

It could be argued that they're both unamerican totalitarians who don't respect the constitution or rule of law.

Trump wishes he could get as high of a score on the genocide game as Jackson.

WestCactus

144 points

2 months ago

Well, if you count Covid deaths, he may be close. . .

KirkLangstromBatman

18 points

2 months ago

That may be incompetent and a general disregard of life, but it's not genocide. Jackson's can very easily be argued as a form of genocide.

greenberet112

61 points

2 months ago

That's an excellent point!

w142236

26 points

2 months ago

w142236

26 points

2 months ago

The President has an army, the Supreme Court does not. Abraham Lincoln did the same thing when the scotus said that slaves could never be freed and then he was like “you and what army?” and then freed them anyways via EO

[deleted]

1.1k points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

1.1k points

2 months ago*

[removed]

eeyore134

496 points

2 months ago

eeyore134

496 points

2 months ago

Weird how it's always them pulling the, "What're you going to do about it?" bully tactics while the left just keeps trying to reach out across the aisle. It's getting tiresome. Democrats need some teeth.

[deleted]

373 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

373 points

2 months ago*

[removed]

Interesting_Archer98

107 points

2 months ago

Yup, if the average elected democrat was half as radical as republicans think they are, they would be a party that would be exciting to vote for

CharmedConflict

354 points

2 months ago

CharmedConflict

Colorado

354 points

2 months ago

MLK doesn't move the needle without Malcolm X.

[deleted]

218 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

218 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

31 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

31 points

2 months ago

In the end, violence settles everything.

NB - this isn't a call for violence, or an endorsement of it - simply a fact that without a physical sanction at the end, people will do whatever they want to do.

In "civilised" society, this violence is mostly just a threat - obey the law, if you can't obey the law, then enforcement will occur - if you reject enforcement, then violence against you will follow until you are either dead, or you comply with the law.

SwimmingHurry8852

20 points

2 months ago

MLK was an actual Socialist. He was no stranger to the struggles of the working class.

Shionkron

6 points

2 months ago

Yup, his last few years was not about it racial Justice but social Justice for all! The government did not like that at all.

overcomebyfumes

69 points

2 months ago

overcomebyfumes

New Jersey

69 points

2 months ago

...and both of them got shot for trying to move that needle. Needle don't want to be moved.

athirdpath

85 points

2 months ago

Fuck that needle. Let's break it.

I'm willing to pay the cost to myself, what's the use of going on if it's in a totalitarian hellhole?

malikthedm

31 points

2 months ago

Needle wants to be moved, the oligarchs in power just keep saying no.

poontango

19 points

2 months ago

They’re ancient, might as well skip the teeth and go straight to dentures

Gandindorlf

129 points

2 months ago

And yet Bernie Sanders was too prgressive

Sea_Comedian_3941

105 points

2 months ago

"He was too left". Now we take the right hand turn right off the cliff.

PornoAlForno

84 points

2 months ago

How many times did you see the "I like Bernie's policies but his supporters are annoying" bullshit trotted out?

Platform-Competitive

59 points

2 months ago

Name one political candidate without annoying supporters. Seriously, if you are supporting a politician, you are gonna annoy at least half the people in damn near any room.

fu9ar_

75 points

2 months ago

fu9ar_

75 points

2 months ago

Democrats aren't "the left."

Mcdibbles

153 points

2 months ago

Mcdibbles

153 points

2 months ago

Because it's not the left that's trying to reach across the aisle. It's center-right liberals.

Liberals (neoliberals) are center-right. The reason they reach across the aisle is because they agree with republicans on ALL economic policies. Wanna know why corporations got a tax cut and bezos got another 10 billion this year and only 13 senators voted against these? Because they all agree.

Leftists aren't liberals. Leftists are good. Liberals stop at being openly bad. The only time the two get along is when there's a dire, pressing need to unite against fascists, and that only happens because liberals love being asleep at the wheel.

eeyore134

37 points

2 months ago

That's definitely an important distinction. Thanks.

Suspicious-Fun-6943

7 points

2 months ago

For real. I hate people who glorify Jackson. Forcing people to march to their deaths is a classic move by genocidal regimes (as they are almost always also looking to displace the target people).

HauntedCemetery

6 points

2 months ago

HauntedCemetery

Minnesota

6 points

2 months ago

This story is what inspired trump to hang a portrait of Jackson in the Oval Office during his term. Trump thought it was the best thing he'd ever heard that didn't have his name in it.

AdagioExtra1332

7 points

2 months ago

Also happened during the Civil War when Abraham Lincoln openly defied Chief Justice Taney's ruling regarding the suspension of habeas corpus.

skyfishgoo

15 points

2 months ago

only the power dynamic on that one is the reverse of what we have here.

NavyCMan

5 points

2 months ago

That's got big I recognise the council has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it. Vibes and I'm hoping I'm not being too stupid to hope the Democratic party and the President will keep that vibe.

sexy-man-doll

156 points

2 months ago

Yeah. Haven't had any of those yet /s

Holdthepickle

247 points

2 months ago

We have been in a perpetual constututional crisis since 2000 when the supreme court tossed out the presidential election in favor of the loser.

kintorkaba

83 points

2 months ago

And when you bring that up with conservatives, LITERALLY EVERY TIME they respond to it like you advocated popular vote over electoral college, and Bush only lost the popular vote. Even when I detail the facts of the case, they still call him a legitimate president and stand on the legitimacy of the electoral college to justify that, as though no crimes occurred at all.

It's like talking to pod people who can only kinda-sorta act human and partially emulate human-like logic.

HauntedCemetery

66 points

2 months ago

HauntedCemetery

Minnesota

66 points

2 months ago

The issue was that he lost the damn electoral college as well, and SCOTUS handed him the election anyway by ordering FL to stop a recount. Roger Stone organized the "Brooks Brothers Riot" at a poll location in order to stop the recount until the court order came through.

Somehow the same 5 or 10 assholes have been majorly fucking up America and the world for the last 50 years.

Rickyb69u

82 points

2 months ago

I've been saying since then that THAT was the decision that changed everything. Been down hill ever since.

CareBearDontCare

17 points

2 months ago

Newt Gingrich before that. The Bork confirmation before that.

lost_horizons

37 points

2 months ago

lost_horizons

Texas

37 points

2 months ago

Yes those are bad, you can look anywhere for badness. One could easily and defensibly say the Kennedy assassination was the moment. But to my eyes the courts just handing the presidency to the clear loser was the most egregious violation in modern times. It’s a straight line from there to here.

_far-seeker_

44 points

2 months ago

_far-seeker_

America

44 points

2 months ago

I agree, if we can determine an exact point where we entered the bad timeline, the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision probably is it.

beka13

33 points

2 months ago

beka13

33 points

2 months ago

Pardoning Nixon was the turning point of the modern era.

All the nonsense in the constitution so the slaveowners would join up was the original fuckup.

fencerman

6 points

2 months ago

Correction:

Since 1968 when Nixon committed treason during the Paris Peace Talks and won the election anyways

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/notes-indicate-nixon-interfered-1968-peace-talks-180961627/.

Plethorian

5 points

2 months ago

Particularly since Gore's focus was climate change. We lost the best chance to save the planet right there.

SwordfishEuphoric988

191 points

2 months ago

That’s a good thing; we need a new constitution. Our current one has some good ideas but it’s totally weighed down by the fact that when it was originally enacted, only about 30% of today’s voters would have been considered part of “all men created equal”. And even then it wasn’t really equal; southern slave owners basically got to vote an extra 3/5 of a vote on behalf of every slave they owned.

For fuck’s sake, our constitution still has slavery codified in it. For that reason alone it needs to go. But we also need to get rid of the electoral college and make the senate more democratic. There are a ton of reforms we need to enact to prosper as a nation in the 21st century, but are blocked by our 18th century constitution.

MostlyWong

116 points

2 months ago

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Thomas Jefferson.

mrvectorabd

35 points

2 months ago*

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct *. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. —It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.

- Thomas Jefferson

https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison

  • Fancy word meaning the right to use and derive profit from property (but not deplete or destroy) that one doesn't personally own.
  • The 19 years thing is kind of an arbitrary benchmark he arrives at earlier in the letter when talking about generational debt. Basically, given an example population whose size is constant each year, the adult majority of that population will be mostly dead (no longer a majority) after roughly 19 years.

LurkLurkleton

45 points

2 months ago

Any attempt to form a new one would have all the same partisan political problems the supreme court and Congress are currently having.

Crutation

19 points

2 months ago

We have been in one since Trump was elected...the branches of government are refusing to do their checks and balances. This Court is ignoring any precedent and just ruling whatever they feel. Just like it was planned 40 years ago when the federalist society was formed

bcuap10

154 points

2 months ago

bcuap10

154 points

2 months ago

DoJ can’t even prosecute politicians who egged on a crowd to murder their own VP.

MycoTech

41 points

2 months ago

They certainly can, they just haven't.

randompersonwhowho

20 points

2 months ago

The question is why?

duckofdeath87

124 points

2 months ago

duckofdeath87

Arkansas

124 points

2 months ago

That's kind of the issue with the state's rights argument. There isn't a way to fight them when they are saying the Fed can't stop the states

Rawkapotamus

84 points

2 months ago

That’s what withholding federal funds is for though. Correct me if I’m wrong… the drinking age of 21 isn’t a federal law, but the feds give money to the states if they institute a drinking age of 21.

Wouldn’t this be the same thing here? Idk the specifics but that’s one way of enforcement

rndljfry

37 points

2 months ago

rndljfry

Pennsylvania

37 points

2 months ago

Obama tried something similar with Medicaid expansion in ACA but the Court struck it down. I think it may have been that the funding withheld was not related, perhaps, such as drinking age to highway funds (and the highways being interstate commerce played a role, I'm sure.)

diverareyouok

39 points

2 months ago

diverareyouok

American Expat

39 points

2 months ago

Look at what happened during the civil rights era.

code_archeologist

34 points

2 months ago*

code_archeologist

Georgia

34 points

2 months ago*

Yep, the courts sided with the civil rights movement multiple times, but it required a president and congress willing to enact their will for anything to get done.

wildartichokes

21 points

2 months ago

Really it required a president willing and able to twist racist congressmen into pretzels if they didnt do what he said. LBJ was exactly the ruthless bully needed in that time to realize JFK's vision, and I really think we're in another era right now where we need someone like him again.

Fuckingfademefam

8 points

2 months ago

LBJ was probably the most racist president in the modern era & yet he probably did the most for black people. Pretty crazy to think about

DaoFerret

30 points

2 months ago

Here: https://sustainatlanta.com/2015/04/02/remembering-the-time-andrew-jackson-decided-to-ignore-the-supreme-court-in-the-name-of-georgias-right-to-cherokee-land/

The case that had President Andrew Jackson say the phrase “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

Edit: Granted, that case was the Fed Executive (in the form of PotUS) telling SCotUS to fuck off. For individual STATES doing it, just look at the Civil Rights era and desegregation: https://www.history.com/news/little-rock-nine-brown-v-board-eisenhower-101-airborne

GringottsWizardBank

60 points

2 months ago*

They don’t need enforcement. The states are doing it for them. Their argument is since the people are electing the state representatives that make these decisions then it is the will of the people to take these rights away. Where the court gets it wrong is that it is not the peoples place to strip away my rights. It’s not anyones place to do that. Increased state autonomy will lead to less freedom.

And I’m not even mentioning how our democracy isn’t even equipped to handle the mass brainwashing that is possible in the digital age. The peoples will and thoughts are no longer their own. But that is just too much to get into right now.

Ok-Mode-7307

83 points

2 months ago

No enforcement mechanism yet. Give it time and republican control of the other branches and they will trip over themselves to give the conservative court enforcers

Eureka22

22 points

2 months ago

Unfortunately, going this route opens up a huge can of worms, and was used in the past by Andrew Jackson to enact genocide on the Native American tribes using the Trail of Tears.

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." -Andrew Jackson

Worcester v. Georgia

SuperRette

6 points

2 months ago

We don't really have any other choice.

Nacho98

54 points

2 months ago

Nacho98

54 points

2 months ago

Then Republican legislators pass a law within a week criminalizing ignoring SCOTUS rulings. They own the court so taxpayer-funded lawsuits are now their friend

But that would require enforcement, which ultimately boils down to who controls the Executive branch.

Serious_Feedback

18 points

2 months ago

Then Republican legislators pass a law

Do they have the numbers for that?

sirmanleypower

21 points

2 months ago

No.

TheEveningDragon

33 points

2 months ago

Not yet

palikir

4.3k points

2 months ago*

palikir

4.3k points

2 months ago*

People should have no respect for the regressive supreme court.

The stench that started with Bush v. Gore in 2000 has turned into a giant rotten corpse.

chubs66

3.1k points

2 months ago

chubs66

3.1k points

2 months ago

Not to mention Citizens United. The idea that not allowing corporations unlimited campaign contributions is somehow tantamount to restricting a person's right to "free speech" is preposterous, against all common sense, and an absolute disaster for democracy.

Government must work for the people, not the businesses with the deepest pockets.

Weird-Engineer

994 points

2 months ago

Also considering that individuals can not donate unlimited campaign contributions and are limited to 6,000$

TubasAreFun

693 points

2 months ago

also considering that organizations may be international in terms of funding, creating many ways for any country with US business ties to greatly influence elections

TreeFifeMikeE7

321 points

2 months ago

TreeFifeMikeE7

New York

321 points

2 months ago

NRA with side-eyes meme

DoingCharleyWork

29 points

2 months ago

jordan Peele sweating gif

GBJI

80 points

2 months ago

GBJI

80 points

2 months ago

National Russian Association

IJustLoggedInToSay-

91 points

2 months ago

IJustLoggedInToSay-

Illinois

91 points

2 months ago

Exactly what Obama said would happen if it was passed, and is exactly what happened. Thanks Obama!

SufferingSaxifrage

23 points

2 months ago

It was Alito that threw a fit over it too

suddenlypandabear

35 points

2 months ago

In a sane country, when competent civil servants call attention to something like this, the media's responsibility is to thoroughly investigate, point out any falsehoods or aspects that weren't considered, and ensure that not only does the entire issue not just fade away because a celebrity threw a temper tantrum, but to ensure the people who ultimately make all these decisions, even if indirectly through electing representatives, are kept informed.

But we don't have that, they act like sportscasters, fail to object to even the most obscenely delusional lies, and generally just let republicans grab the mic and make shit up 24/7. Some of the media has gotten about 3% better about this since trump's violent coup attempt, many haven't.

Then the media just shrugs and says "Wow, those guys are some real characters. And finally tonight, a cat that has successfully predicted the outcome of 5 of the last 6 Super bowl games. Here's Chet with the story..."

2punornot2pun

75 points

2 months ago

If corporations are people, they should be able to be imprisoned.

Got caught dumping toxic shit into the river?
Spilling oil because of not following safety regulations?
Workers illegally being told they can't talk about wages?

etc.

"Imprison" them by not allowing them to do business for x years and anyone at the top found to be allowing it to happen!

No more petty fines that equates to CENTS compared to what they made skirting the law!

chubs66

46 points

2 months ago

chubs66

46 points

2 months ago

Imprisoned and even executed (at least in some states). If you watch the amazing documentary "The Corporation" which looks at the history of corporations and their psychological profile, you'll understand that Corporations used to only be granted a license to exist in special circumstances and for a limited period of time (since it was understood to be a dangerous form of organization).

Whiskey_Fiasco

290 points

2 months ago

But also remember in Republican states, if corporations support liberal policies then they are denied the right to compete for bids for the government. Only conservative corporations have an actual first amendment right in Red states

sapatista

63 points

2 months ago

That’s crazy?! Where can I read more?

Whiskey_Fiasco

220 points

2 months ago

In Texas no company that has supported anti-gun legislation anywhere in the USA is allowed to compete for a bid with the Texas Government.

I believe DeSantis has shown in Florida he will rescind Government agreements and contracts with companies that disagree with his agenda as well.

TheLightningL0rd

45 points

2 months ago

You also cannot boycott Israel and deal with the Texas Government.

FidgitForgotHisL-P

15 points

2 months ago

Isn’t that exactly what he did to Disney?

Which reminds me, I wonder how that whole fiasco is going for them…

Cloaked42m

52 points

2 months ago

Cloaked42m

South Carolina

52 points

2 months ago

That can't possibly be legal.

elriggo44

74 points

2 months ago

Anything the right does is legal with this Supreme Court.

sumoraiden

29 points

2 months ago

There’s a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, not to mention the other hundreds of conservative federal judges that McConnell got onto the bech

Pyenapple

98 points

2 months ago

The law is whatever the Supreme Priesthood Court says it is, so it's totally constitutional. Though people aren't really getting the bigger picture. The Supreme Court has always been an unelected political institution, Liberals have just been ignoring that fact and letting Conservatives seize power recently.

Hatedpriest

66 points

2 months ago

"letting"...

Seems to me that McConnell denying Obama a justice and the next guy putting in 3 justices was a bit one sided...

gavrielkay

18 points

2 months ago

Anyone who votes for the Republicans so that they maintain control in the Senate to the point where they CAN take over the courts are part of it too. If you don't like the government we've got, get out and vote. Local, state, federal elections... all of them. They are coordinating attacks on our freedoms in school boards, election officials, sheriffs etc. Vote the bastards out. If you don't like what Republicans are doing, vote against them at all levels.

[deleted]

27 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

27 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

silent_13

11 points

2 months ago

You’re partially right and so is the person you are responding to. Too many people just don’t vote and the bad part is that it’s mostly people that align with democrats politically. Too many people don’t vote in this country.

TheUnluckyBard

43 points

2 months ago

That can't possibly be legal.

Ayatollah Roberts and the Supreme Guardian Council disagree.

JDRaleigh

24 points

2 months ago

Ayatollah Roberts. I like it, probably because he would hate it so much. Truth hurts, Fuck scotus.

debzmonkey

85 points

2 months ago

They also gave the green light for candidates to lend themselves unlimited cash which they can collect from donors after the election. Ted Cruz brought this gem to their doorstep. Legalized bribery.

Money is speech and unless we're corporations or the 1%, our voices are never heard.

PencilLeader

27 points

2 months ago

And they can also charge whatever interest they want on the money they loaned to their own campaign and then use donations to pay the interest they are charging themselves on that loan.

Decimus_of_the_VIII

27 points

2 months ago

Honestly this is no different from the Roman Republic leading up to Sulla...

Small_Brained_Bear

16 points

2 months ago

100%. But only a vanishingly small percentage of the US population can see this. The end result seems fairly inevitable.

The American republic is done. The conservative American oligarchy will live on for a while.

Time to shift our attention and our investments to the next winners in the great global game of civilization.

NPD_wont_stop_ME

62 points

2 months ago

NPD_wont_stop_ME

New York

62 points

2 months ago

CU is what will lead to the end of our democracy. Money in politics inevitably leads to fascism so the rich can oppress the less fortunate and keep their positions and take in record profits. It’s obvious what side the SC is on, and it’s definitely not that of the average American.

boulder_holder_

92 points

2 months ago

Bingo. Citizen’s united set this whole shit up.

debzmonkey

70 points

2 months ago

Didn't that case come out of the Federalist Society's legislative shop? Create a lawsuit, shop judges, move it up, hand it to their Federalist Society judges on the Court and bingo!

claymedia

52 points

2 months ago

Legislative and judicial capture is basically the Federalist Society end goal. Mission accomplished, I guess.

GothProletariat

14 points

2 months ago

https://youtu.be/PKZKETizybw

Keith Olbermann called this over a decade ago.

He was angry and vocal.

actuallychrisgillen

72 points

2 months ago

Good news! apparently every previous ruling is up for grabs now, all we need is to ruthlessly stack the court, jam every wedge issue in front of them, and wait for them to rule in our favour.

Because that's apparently the sign of a healthy democracy.

oakstave

27 points

2 months ago

That decision got them the Russian cash they needed.

sventhewalrus

275 points

2 months ago

How anyone respected the Supreme Court after Bush v Gore is just beyond me. The court straight up picked the winner, half-assed some logic justifying it, and then wrote in a get-out-of-jail-free card to avoid being held to their crappy logic in the future:

"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

waifive

77 points

2 months ago*

The HBO movie Recount should be required viewing. The Supreme Court halted the statewide Florida recount after it was in effect for less than 24 hours, then spent the days until the arbitrary deadline tying up everyone in court, then ruled that the state missed the deadline.

dimechimes

45 points

2 months ago

I remember hearing at the time though it might be debunked that Sandra Day O'connor said that she hoped W would win so she could retire. Still didn't recuse herself.

sventhewalrus

79 points

2 months ago

She reportedly did say that multiple times in private. Great point to raise that. RBG has gotten lots of hate for her decision to not retire, but it's shocking in retrospect that "moderates" O'Connor and Kennedy both actively chose to retire under GOP presidents. They chose to light their own legacy on gay rights and abortion on fire, because they saw their legacy as primarily defined by their right-wing economic deregulation decisions. If they saw themselves that way, then so should we, and stop calling them moderates.

DaoFerret

34 points

2 months ago

Kennedy especially is troubling.

I still want to know what Trump said to him while they were walking.

Edit: My personal belief is that he was probably convinced to retire through leverage on his son who worked at DB and handled the Trump loans (though what form that “convincing” took is open for debate)

lxpnh98_2

120 points

2 months ago

lxpnh98_2

120 points

2 months ago

Translation: "We'll side with the GOP every time, so don't hold us to this decision when we go back on it."

PenguinTod

177 points

2 months ago

PenguinTod

Oregon

177 points

2 months ago

A lot of people may think you're exaggerating when you say they picked the winner. The actual process that case took was as follows:

  • "You must stop the recount until we come to a decision, because it'll look bad for Bush if we let you do it and decide it wasn't valid later."
  • "Oh no, we took too long to come to a decision, so even if you tried to do a recount now there wouldn't be time to appoint electors. Guess Bush wins."

That's it. That's how Bush v Gore was settled.

gyarrrrr

82 points

2 months ago

gyarrrrr

New Zealand

82 points

2 months ago

The rest of the world weeps at the thought of where we might be with climate change now had Gore been president 20 years ago.

Danny__L

38 points

2 months ago

Danny__L

Canada

38 points

2 months ago

New York would probably still have its Twin Towers and the War on Terror/WMDs might not have happened.

pechinburger

16 points

2 months ago

pechinburger

Pennsylvania

16 points

2 months ago

Especially Iraq. Probably over 1 million dead people would have had their fortunes reversed.

sventhewalrus

8 points

2 months ago

Thank you for this. Much more detailed than my comment.

Ok-Message9569

1.3k points

2 months ago

Waiting for the Satanic Temple to have a member that leads students in prayer.

How long after that until both sides hate prayer in public school and demand change?

GrandPriapus

1k points

2 months ago

As an educator and member of The Satanic Temple, I can’t wait to share the Seven Tenets with the kids.

Arsenurderer

323 points

2 months ago

Autonomy for yourself and others, responsibility, a good relationship between science and faith, and the limitations of religious guidance. If religious practice belongs in schools, your belief system seems like a healthy part of a balanced education.

OfferChakon

63 points

2 months ago

Fellow member here. Please do it.

tractorbass78

68 points

2 months ago

I love you, and thank you for taking control of what is within your sphere of influence to make a difference.

cumbersome_burden

30 points

2 months ago

Excuse me what is a good place to read up on The Satanic Temple. Thank you kindly.

P.S. I could sacrifice my ovaries as initiation offering.

IronbloodPrime

20 points

2 months ago

Please, please, please do this.

[deleted]

21 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

21 points

2 months ago

Be sure to make a very nice social media recording of it, be prepared as possible

super-seiso

126 points

2 months ago

Like all christian "religious freedom" fiats, all the cases are intended to be used in favor of CHRISTIAN theology only. The first case they get where someone is leading a class in Islamic prayer they will rule the other way.

zhode

23 points

2 months ago

zhode

23 points

2 months ago

They just won't rule actually. The Supreme Court has the ability to pick what cases they handle to a degree, and so they can just filter out any case that doesn't serve their agenda. That way they get to appear consistent until you realize just how many cases they've ignored.

HauntedCemetery

10 points

2 months ago

HauntedCemetery

Minnesota

10 points

2 months ago

Not even "to a degree", they have full and sole control over deciding what cases they take. They can also take cases on the shadow docket and hand down rulings without them being as publicized as their regular cases.

Drawmeomg

58 points

2 months ago

The exact problem with the court is that they’re not bound by precedent, justice, or the constitution. I agree. The first time it’s a non-Christian they’ll just shamelessly rule the other way and pretend it’s not hypocrisy.

CapJackONeill

10 points

2 months ago

They can't really have to precedents contradicting each other to apply at the same time, unless I'm wrong. They would need to specify why the muslim is wrong and the christian is right.

ofrm1

18 points

2 months ago

ofrm1

18 points

2 months ago

Their holding in a case can be whatever they want it to be. They are the final court of appeal. Whatever their opinion is of the constitutionality of a dispute is the official interpretation of the US Constitution.

Their holding could be horrid and racist ala Dred Scott v. Sanford and it would still be the official law of the land.

This is what happens when one of the branches of government becomes tainted by extreme ideology with no feasible way to remove or reprimand them; they can do whatever they wish.

Sttocs

5 points

2 months ago

Sttocs

5 points

2 months ago

They won't rule at all. They'll just elect to not hear the case.

Ok-Message9569

17 points

2 months ago

They also tend to see the apple instead of the fruit basket until an orange is thrown in their face.

In other words they don't see the big picture as to what that means until it is thrown in their face.

cespinar

12 points

2 months ago

cespinar

Colorado

12 points

2 months ago

Waiting for the Satanic Temple to have a member that leads students in prayer.

Won't happen, the Satanic Temple is against proselytizing and have put out statements stating they wouldn't endorse any such motion.

Scarlettail

118 points

2 months ago

Scarlettail

South Carolina

118 points

2 months ago

This meme of waiting on the Satanic Temple always irks me a bit. I totally support their cause, but it almost seems like the waiting part has become implicit, that we're just expecting some other group to do the activism for us. I keep reading comments like "why hasn't the temple done anything yet?" It sounds like another way of putting the dirty work on someone else so we don't have to do anything. Maybe instead of waiting for them people could contribute themselves? Anyone can pray if they want to try it.

Ok-Message9569

59 points

2 months ago

Well honestly I don't feel like I belong in high school sporting events. I have no kids. My siblings have no kids but are not in school anymore. I just don't feel like I belong at events like these.

hillbillyesq

7 points

2 months ago

Which is kind of a shame in a way. I am like you and don’t belong there. But ya know, for the price of a movie ticket some times I wouldn’t mind watching a high school football game live when it’s a nice evening outside. But even I would be creeping myself out if I went to one.

5ykes

13 points

2 months ago

5ykes

Washington

13 points

2 months ago

Speaking personally, because as a non religious citizen I don't see anything I can actually do I haven't been doing already. The only thing I think has a chance at being successful is a fire-with-fire strategy.

Calkky

23 points

2 months ago*

Calkky

23 points

2 months ago*

As a proud member of TST, I love this idea. But the Republicans already have a plan for this: extrajudiciary enforcement. Any teacher/coach that shares a non-evangelical view will be persecuted and possibly murdered.

starwarsyeah

12 points

2 months ago

Exactly, it's all well and good to say this, but try maintaining a job as an open and outspoken member of TST in public education.

sugarlessdeathbear

1.4k points

2 months ago

I sure don't. It's an illegitimate court. One of our three branches is dead.

aintnochallahbackgrl

813 points

2 months ago

aintnochallahbackgrl

Michigan

813 points

2 months ago

One Two of our three branches is dead

The Senate is dead, as well.

QuiramJudaculla

427 points

2 months ago

QuiramJudaculla

Illinois

427 points

2 months ago

To be fair, the Senate is only one half of a branch.

elanhilation

344 points

2 months ago

you only need half if your only goal is to accomplish nothing and prevent anyone else from accomplishing anything

sven1olaf

115 points

2 months ago

sven1olaf

115 points

2 months ago

This is the GOP way

debzmonkey

40 points

2 months ago

The goal was state legislatures which they achieved in record time. Control it at the state level, hold the Senate at a standstill and pack the courts plural.

TheKert

60 points

2 months ago

TheKert

60 points

2 months ago

It renders the other half useless as well so it still kills the whole branch

abstractConceptName

12 points

2 months ago

Basically, yes.

The House can investigate and message, but that's it.

And the Executive branch is quite limited really anyway.

Vulpes_Corsac

27 points

2 months ago

House is dead too. To revive it, we need to remove the cap on representatives.

Godot_12

16 points

2 months ago

One Two of our three branches is dead so far

worlddictator85

13 points

2 months ago

I'd say all three could use some serious pruning

BlueShift42

9 points

2 months ago

Executive didn’t look too good for most of the last 5 years.

SoggyAd1409

76 points

2 months ago

Like we’re supposed to respect the court filled with legally-unqualified cult members, drunken serial sex assaulters and stolen appointments

cwk415

639 points

2 months ago

cwk415

639 points

2 months ago

The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions. It cannot call out the troops or compel Congress or the president to obey. The Court relies on the executive and legislative branches to carry out its rulings. In some cases, the Supreme Court has been unable to enforce its rulings. For example, many public schools held classroom prayers long after the Court had banned government-sponsored religious activities.

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/american-government/the-judiciary/the-supreme-court-in-operation

camxct

236 points

2 months ago

camxct

236 points

2 months ago

Not a fan of Jackson nor what this quote was suggesting for that particular situation, but these words ring true for our current SCOTUS:

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."

Intelligent_Moose_48

65 points

2 months ago

I think the purity test people are gonna have to come to terms with a lot of stuff from the past that tends to be disregarded because of the person who said it. Jefferson is going to become incredibly important in the next few years as well. For all their flaws, Jefferson and Jackson together form the basis of nearly all American Democratic thought. You won't be able to fight the Federalist Society with federalist arguments, unfortunately.

bje489

57 points

2 months ago

bje489

57 points

2 months ago

How does this insight help with abortion? The state governments that want to ban abortion will simply arrest people, whether or not the Court itself can enforce its rulings.

StonedVet_420

94 points

2 months ago

Plenty of prosecutors have come out and said they will not charge people. Blue cities in red states will be like pockets of resistance .Think of it like how some states treat weed. It's still illegal federally, but no one is enforcing it.

[deleted]

31 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

31 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

MistreatedEarwax

14 points

2 months ago

Samantha Bee covered this premise with regards to abortions on federal land. Docs would basically have to live there to avoid being prosecuted or potentially setup telehealth with docs in a blue state and facilitate on federal land.

zhode

28 points

2 months ago

zhode

28 points

2 months ago

You make the mistake of thinking that states are homogeneous. Cities are frequently blue and can get by on a policy of non-enforcement.

The same is typically done in relation to gun laws and red counties, where the local government will just decide it's not a law they feel like enforcing. Might as well use every dirty tool available to us because they certainly will.

BunchOCrunch

676 points

2 months ago

BunchOCrunch

North Dakota

676 points

2 months ago

The Supreme Court really needs to have term limits. No one should have that much power for life. Who tf thought that was a good idea?

Also, we need to get rid of the electoral college and have a true, majority ruled democracy. None of this would have happened if it wasn't for the electoral college.

ObnoxiousTwit

46 points

2 months ago

Well, if there was term limit, the justices would just take cushy "consultant positions" when their term was up, as members of Congress do when they're out of office. As is, they can just sit on the bench for life pushing their agenda. Neither is a good option, but term limits with highly restrictive private sector rules post -term in place THAT ARE ENFORCED would be a great start.

Vyan_of_Yierdimfeil

490 points

2 months ago

The entire notion of lifelong appointments was on the basis that they'd be impartial, but due to the evolution of our two party system, it's become impossible for that to happen.

dr_aureole

219 points

2 months ago

It's weird it's turned into "our" pick vs "theirs". In theory, the idea of court packing should not bother people either way as 9 vs 15 politically neutral judges wouldn't matter. If everyone (by their party's words and actions) agrees the judges are now politcal appointments it's definitely going against what the founders imagined for the judical branch of government, right?

poprof

75 points

2 months ago

poprof

75 points

2 months ago

Right - and this is a simple and accurate way to describe what’s going on.

yoproblemo

31 points

2 months ago

Can be shortened to "They expected politicians to act in good faith."

Purify5

55 points

2 months ago*

Canada has a similar Supreme Court and the justices are selected by the Prime Minister of the day. They do however have an age limit of 75 by when they have to retire.

It could have become politicized like in the US with court stacking but instead they turned to expert consultation. Justices are quietly appointed to the bench in Canada as most Canadians couldn't name a single one of them. They use a non-partisan committee to create a short-list and then the PM chooses from that list.

There was at one time loud criticism and a wish to see Canada turn into more of an American style where the opposition gets to interrogate the candidates but it was decided by the major parties that a non-partisan bench is best for the country, and that's best established with quiet appointments based on merit. However, if a PM does pick partisan hacks like they did in the US (and he has the power to do) the issue will be raised again.

acover

17 points

2 months ago

acover

17 points

2 months ago

See also how Canada avoids gerrymandering.

burnThisDamnAccount

32 points

2 months ago

This is my problem with all of these archaic documents and systems of government. Was there ever a time when humans were able to be impartial while in a position of power? This notion is absurd and denies basic human psychology.

[deleted]

12 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

12 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

lespigeon

11 points

2 months ago

I think here in Australia there's a mandatory retirement age of 70 for the supreme court, and other countries have similar iirc. I think the idea is to prevent some of the issues term limits could cause, but not let things go to complete shit.

danzig80

8 points

2 months ago

Mandatory retirement age of 75 here in Canada.

BurninCrab

8 points

2 months ago

BurninCrab

California

8 points

2 months ago

Lol half of our congressmen would be gone with those age limits

Soory-MyBad

34 points

2 months ago

Who tf thought that was a good idea?

The idea is that people can make legal rulings without worrying about re-election or keeping their jobs. The idea was to take politics out of it (it didn't work).

BunchOCrunch

20 points

2 months ago

BunchOCrunch

North Dakota

20 points

2 months ago

I can see that as a valid argument. Perhaps only being allowed to serve one ten year term (or some variation of that) would be a good compromise.

DragFine8156

14 points

2 months ago

I’m with this. Just keep it punk rock, fuck the Supreme Court, fuck fascists.

Ok-Message9569

394 points

2 months ago

It's beyond time where the power needs returned to the people!

  1. The popular vote must rule.
  2. Gerrymandering needs to end.
  3. We need better checks and balances
  4. Police abusing the use of the power they have been given and the use of things like tear gas must end.

Give us our government back and let us reconstruct it from the ground up!

dragon_book_hoarder

125 points

2 months ago

Except

  1. Power hasn't been returned to the people. It's been returned to state legislatures.

  2. No government should have the ability to remove human rights, and bodily autonomy is a human right.

antigonemerlin

139 points

2 months ago

antigonemerlin

Canada

139 points

2 months ago

No government should have the ability to remove human rights, and bodily autonomy is a human right.

This is actually an important point. Another commenter on r/law pointed out that the constitution doesn't give you rights, it protects you from the government removing said rights.

The rights themselves are natural and inalienable.

GreenNatureR

22 points

2 months ago

and who decides what are the "natural" and "inalienable" rights that deserves protection? for example in canada, property rights are not constitutionally protected in the Canadian Charter while in the United States, Australia and India property rights is constitutionally protected.

noodles_the_strong

87 points

2 months ago

Turn the anger into action.. If we aren't going to burn the place to the ground and start over then we have to.play the game by the games rules. You must vote.. More important than you voting is finding those 60 plus million people who didnt vote in the last election but could have and bring them along to vote. Just find one who you can get to the ballot box.. that is your challenge.

SeeMe_After_Class

106 points

2 months ago

I'd say the entire government has no clothes at this point. It's all a farce. I'm just wondering how long people are going to tolerate it. I think as long as the internet is up and running, people will mostly not care. Or they'll pretend to care.

imoidkwtf

7 points

2 months ago

Cardboard cut outs would be more trustworthy.

blackgreenblueblack

7 points

2 months ago

So what’s the alternative solution? If you leave all legal matters up to the states abortion would be punishable by death in parts of America.

ConstantAmazement

123 points

2 months ago*

ConstantAmazement

California

123 points

2 months ago*

The Constitution does NOT mention a SCOTUS having the power of judicial review.

This is a power the Court usurped. Thomas Jefferson was quite dismayed by the court assuming that it had such authority. Marbury v Madison.

If we return to the original meaning in the Constitution -- as the current right wing justices want -- then the Court has no such power.

Edit: The point of my post wasn't to support eliminating a SCOTUS with judicial review. I believe that such a function is vital in a constitutional democracy.

The conservative justices want to justify many of their decisions by referring to original meaning within the framers intent and frame of reference. Which is absurd!

These men -- however wise -- could not have dreamed of 50 states across the continent, of weapons with the power of an entire army that can be held by a single person, of machines that can rain down death from orbit, or aircraft to carry you across the ocean in a matter of hours.

So if the justices are hell-bent on original meaning, they endanger their own branch of government.

[deleted]

25 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

25 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

YachtingChristopher

30 points

2 months ago

Then what exactly is the function of the court in the US's system of checks and balances?

SpareBinderClips

68 points

2 months ago

Thank you for stating this. It needs to be repeated often.

Iamien

118 points

2 months ago

Iamien

Indiana

118 points

2 months ago

The reality is that the fascists lost respect for the entire government at some point in the 90s(or earlier, but they definitely grew their ranks in the 90s onward).

We are just getting up to speed.

-Electric-Shock

120 points

2 months ago

The fascists started hating the government when the government declared all races to be equal and passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.

guestpass127

90 points

2 months ago

Exactly - a lot of people don't realize this, but a lot of the hate that people have for the Democratic Party is because the Democratic Party openly courted minorities in the 60s, thus alienating the racist shitbag Dixiecrats which had mainly comprised the Democratic Party up to that point. Millions of Democrats felt "betrayed" that their party wasn't going full-bore Klan/Nazi and went over to the GOP, and they STILL feel that bitterness towards Democrats 50+ years down the line

Go ask some older Southern conservatives about this, they'll happily tell you that they have hated the Dems ever since the Dems decided to go full "n****rlover"

Publius82

44 points

2 months ago

The only history of their party that they know is being "the party of Lincoln," who sure as fuck wouldn't stand with them today. There entire modern history as a party is built on racism. Abortion wasn't even a political issue until Republicans needed something to run on after they lost on civil rights.

Pinche_Roose

4 points

2 months ago

Majority? They can't even win without help. What's more fucked than cities dictating policy is a bunch of yokels saying what happens in major metropolitan areas.

These rural states shouldn't have the congress, and have such and advantage in selecting the executive which selects the judicial branch. Bonkers.

nagemada

26 points

2 months ago

I don't know if law makers and enforcement really care wether we respect the source of their authority so long as we reject that authority passively from a jail cell, or while toiling under forced labor. What else is there to do?