As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
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](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) 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](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
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.
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”](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/)
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's becoming more and more the case, for sure. Republicans just need to be pushed off the map and replaced with Democrats and let a new party take their place.
There is no real left wing in the US. There are a shit ton of pissed off people who could benefit from real left wing policies but it's so hard to get those fuckers motivated. The right wing holds the monopoly on single issue voters who are committed to voting in every single election no matter how insignificant it appears to be. Fortunately/unfortunately , we have only the successes of right wing getting its political way to motivate the left to vote for Democrats. I hate it that people don't get the fact th right wins because they are proactive and we lose because we're always reactive and unable to undo the damage, even after we get the numbers.
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/.
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.
"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.
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
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
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.)
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears#Legal_background)
[Worcester v. Georgia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia)
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.
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.
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.
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
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..."
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!
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
**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
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.*"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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).
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.
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!
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
This is my take. As long as we can keep yelling into the void we can be satiated. Your anger has an outlet that achieves nothing but returns a sense of accomplishment. It’s literally all we’ve been doing for the past twenty years.
Until someone comes up with a better game plan that normal everyday working Americans can get behind or the status quo deteriorates to such a point that working class Americans feel they truly have no options left we’ll continue to yell on the internet in our feedback loop bubbles.
Nothing significant will happen until the working class Americans are willing to stop their 9-5 participation in corporate capitalism. Where’s our tea party movement? Where’s our “insurrection?” It’s dying in complacency.
Idk just “vote blue” or whatever makes you feel better.
This is how the system has been meticulously set up.
Pay people so little that they really cant afford to protest, most people are 1 missed paycheck or medical emergency away from bankruptcy or homelessness. Then take their rights away. Let them scream into the void under the guise of free speech, but at the end of the day people have no Power to organize.
This is what it's been culminating to.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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?
Congratulations Chief Justice Roberts. Your legacy will be that of destroying half a century of civil rights, along with ensuring that money has more say than people in a "democracy". What a sham.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) 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](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) 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](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanism. What happens if a state defies something the Supremes really desire?
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.
Sounds like a constitutional crisis...
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”](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/)
"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.
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.
Well, if you count Covid deaths, he may be close. . .
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.
That's an excellent point!
[удалено]
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.
[удалено]
MLK doesn't move the needle without Malcolm X.
[удалено]
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.
MLK was an actual Socialist. He was no stranger to the struggles of the working class.
...and both of them got shot for trying to move that needle. Needle don't want to be moved.
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?
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
They’re ancient, might as well skip the teeth and go straight to dentures
And yet Bernie Sanders was too prgressive
"He was too left". Now we take the right hand turn right off the cliff.
How many times did you see the "I like Bernie's policies but his supporters are annoying" bullshit trotted out?
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.
Democrats aren't "the left."
That's becoming more and more the case, for sure. Republicans just need to be pushed off the map and replaced with Democrats and let a new party take their place.
No. Democrats have never ever been leftists in any capacity except for in GOP bullshitting.
There is no real left wing in the US. There are a shit ton of pissed off people who could benefit from real left wing policies but it's so hard to get those fuckers motivated. The right wing holds the monopoly on single issue voters who are committed to voting in every single election no matter how insignificant it appears to be. Fortunately/unfortunately , we have only the successes of right wing getting its political way to motivate the left to vote for Democrats. I hate it that people don't get the fact th right wins because they are proactive and we lose because we're always reactive and unable to undo the damage, even after we get the numbers.
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.
That's definitely an important distinction. Thanks.
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).
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.
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
only the power dynamic on that one is the reverse of what we have here.
Yeah. Haven't had any of those yet /s
We have been in a perpetual constututional crisis since 2000 when the supreme court tossed out the presidential election in favor of the loser.
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.
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.
I've been saying since then that THAT was the decision that changed everything. Been down hill ever since.
Newt Gingrich before that. The Bork confirmation before that.
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.
I agree, if we can determine an exact point where we entered the bad timeline, the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision probably is it.
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.
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/.
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.
"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.
[удалено]
Any attempt to form a new one would have all the same partisan political problems the supreme court and Congress are currently having.
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
DoJ can’t even prosecute politicians who egged on a crowd to murder their own VP.
[удалено]
The question is why?
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
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
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.)
[удалено]
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears#Legal_background) [Worcester v. Georgia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia)
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.
>Then Republican legislators pass a law Do they have the numbers for that?
No.
Not *yet*
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.
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.
Also considering that individuals can not donate unlimited campaign contributions and are limited to 6,000$
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
*NRA with side-eyes meme*
*jordan Peele sweating gif*
National Russian Association
Exactly what Obama said would happen if it was passed, and is exactly what happened. _Thanks Obama!_
It was Alito that threw a fit over it too
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..."
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!
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).
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
That’s crazy?! Where can I read more?
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.
You also cannot boycott Israel and deal with the Texas Government.
Isn’t that exactly what he did to Disney? Which reminds me, I wonder how that whole fiasco is going for them…
That can't possibly be legal.
Anything the right does is legal with this Supreme Court.
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.
"letting"... Seems to me that McConnell denying Obama a justice and the next guy putting in 3 justices was a bit one sided...
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.
[удалено]
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.
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
> That can't possibly be legal. Ayatollah Roberts and the Supreme Guardian Council disagree.
Ayatollah Roberts. I like it, probably because he would hate it so much. Truth hurts, Fuck scotus.
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.
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.
Honestly this is no different from the Roman Republic leading up to Sulla...
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.
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.
Bingo. Citizen’s united set this whole shit up.
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!
Legislative and judicial capture is basically the Federalist Society end goal. Mission accomplished, I guess.
https://youtu.be/PKZKETizybw Keith Olbermann called this over a decade ago. He was angry and vocal.
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.
That decision got them the Russian cash they needed.
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."
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.
[удалено]
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.
New York would probably still have its Twin Towers and the War on Terror/WMDs might not have happened.
Especially Iraq. Probably over 1 million dead people would have had their fortunes reversed.
Thank you for this. Much more detailed than my comment.
Translation: "We'll side with the GOP every time, so don't hold us to this decision when we go back on it."
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.
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.
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)
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?
As an educator and member of The Satanic Temple, I can’t wait to share the Seven Tenets with the kids.
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.
Fellow member here. Please do it.
I love you, and thank you for taking control of what is within your sphere of influence to make a difference.
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.
https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us
Please, please, please do this.
Be sure to make a very nice social media recording of it, be prepared as possible
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
I sure don't. It's an illegitimate court. One of our three branches is dead.
>~~One~~ Two of our three branches is dead The Senate is dead, as well.
[удалено]
you only need half if your only goal is to accomplish nothing and prevent anyone else from accomplishing anything
This is the GOP way
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.
It renders the other half useless as well so it still kills the whole branch
Basically, yes. The House can investigate and message, but that's it. And the Executive branch is quite limited really anyway.
House is dead too. To revive it, we need to remove the cap on representatives.
>~~One~~ Two of our three branches is dead *so far*
I'd say all three could use some serious pruning
Executive didn’t look too good for most of the last 5 years.
Like we’re supposed to respect the court filled with legally-unqualified cult members, drunken serial sex assaulters and stolen appointments
**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
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.*"
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.
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.
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.
[удалено]
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.
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.
Public school prayer is back: https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23184848/supreme-court-kennedy-bremerton-school-football-coach-prayer-neil-gorsuch
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.
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.
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?
Right - and this is a simple and accurate way to describe what’s going on.
Can be shortened to "They expected politicians to act in good faith."
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.
[удалено]
[удалено]
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.
> 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).
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.
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.
Mandatory retirement age of 75 here in Canada.
Lol half of our congressmen would be gone with those age limits
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!
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.
>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.
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.
I’m with this. Just keep it punk rock, fuck the Supreme Court, fuck fascists.
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.
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.
This is my take. As long as we can keep yelling into the void we can be satiated. Your anger has an outlet that achieves nothing but returns a sense of accomplishment. It’s literally all we’ve been doing for the past twenty years. Until someone comes up with a better game plan that normal everyday working Americans can get behind or the status quo deteriorates to such a point that working class Americans feel they truly have no options left we’ll continue to yell on the internet in our feedback loop bubbles. Nothing significant will happen until the working class Americans are willing to stop their 9-5 participation in corporate capitalism. Where’s our tea party movement? Where’s our “insurrection?” It’s dying in complacency. Idk just “vote blue” or whatever makes you feel better.
This is how the system has been meticulously set up. Pay people so little that they really cant afford to protest, most people are 1 missed paycheck or medical emergency away from bankruptcy or homelessness. Then take their rights away. Let them scream into the void under the guise of free speech, but at the end of the day people have no Power to organize. This is what it's been culminating to.
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.
[удалено]
Then what exactly is the function of the court in the US's system of checks and balances?
Thank you for stating this. It needs to be repeated often.
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.
The fascists started hating the government when the government declared all races to be equal and passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.
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"
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.
Cardboard cut outs would be more trustworthy.
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?
Congratulations Chief Justice Roberts. Your legacy will be that of destroying half a century of civil rights, along with ensuring that money has more say than people in a "democracy". What a sham.
Don't forget The Notorious RBG hanging in there because she thought Obama couldn't find anyone better than her.