85 points

Say it with me

Pack the fucking court

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/packing-the-supreme-court-explained

We’ve done it before, we can do it again.

permalink
report
reply
29 points

Go in reverse of so much that’s come before the court should be grounds for most of them coming under impeachment.

Like that should kind of be a rule. If any court made up of at least 40% the prior overturns case law more than 50 years old absent a constitutional amendment or Federal law laying the foundation for such an overturn, should be brought before the Congress on impeachment inquiry.

Like the whole way they’ve redefined the 2nd within the last ten years that overturned 200 years of prior understanding, that alone should have most of them barred from federal office for the rest of their lives. And how they redefined it without so much as a Federal law to point to or a hint of a Constitutional amendment suggesting the way they’ve made it now.

A literal garbage court sits the bench. What’s worse is that one day the lean in the court will change and Republicans will cry about judges legislating from the bench.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Dems will need to run the table on Senate races, in addition to keeping the White House, for that to happen. If not, Alito and Thomas get to pick their hard right replacements and all but the youngest of us will wither and die with a conservative SCOTUS supermajority.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yes, to increase the number of justices we’ll need a congressional and executive branch to push the appointments through.

It won’t matter who Alito or Thomas pick as their replacements if there’s 5 new left leaning justices on the bench.

It’s sad to see the Supreme Court as such an overt political structure now. It’s always been political but this is egregious.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Could we thin the court instead? Fire the four most corrupt?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

Won’t work. Gotta use another amendment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
71 points

Boys and girls, I hope you are ready to either fight or flight from the US. It’s coming and people are apathetic to what is happening.

“Why would the Germans allow Nazis to take over?” Well here it is. History will repeat itself thanks to the Nazis allowed to move to the US and the racists.

permalink
report
reply
23 points

Regarding flight: where to? Of similar “democracies” Europe and Canada have similarly troubling trends. Scandinavia? Australia? SE Asia? Are they any better, really?

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Fight it is. Would still recommend flight for the young and old that can’t fight. I know my only option and my wife knows the plans in place. As a vet, I know what I need to protect and that’s no man/woman in the white house, but the constitution that has given so much to my family.

Never thought growing up that I would need to do such a thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Fellow vet, hoped to be done fighting, but this country is devolving into madness, and I’m prepared to fight for the constitution. I took an oath, as all that served did, to defend this country from all enemies, foreign or domestic, and I took that oath to heart. Hope for the best, prepared for the worst.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

And we have a hell of a lot better system for fighting back than the Germans did. And a lot better precedent to shed light on why to resist it. And, the Nazis were famously sort of clownish and incompetent especially in the early days but compared with Rudy Giuliani and Mike Lindell they were fuckin Seal Team 6.

If the MAGA folks bring fascism for real to the US, it will be the Americans’ fault that they let it happen.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The party that is supposed to be fighting nazis is so devoted to incrementalism that they won’t do enough until it’s too late.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

If there’s one thing Milton Mayer keeps coming back to, it’s how it was all the fault of the establishment German political parties of the early 1930s for not being more motivating of people to vote for them, and no one on an individual level needs to do anything until they do first. He keeps harping on that central point: If a dangerous political movement arises in your country, it’s okay to hang out and wait and not resist it until the alternative is sufficiently awesome for your tastes. It’s pretty much the central theme of his whole book.

(I mean, honestly, I don’t disagree with you that the general crappiness of most of the Democrats from about 1992 up to and including 2016 laid some abundant groundwork for the rise of Trump. That doesn’t mean it is safe for anyone in the world to let Trump come to power again this year.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

nobody is going to fight and very few if any will leave

permalink
report
parent
reply
56 points

I had heard about this case basically removing a powerful tool for the SEC and effectively requiring them to spend way more money trying cases in front of a jury, but I didn’t know there were so many other agencies that aren’t even allowed to bring jury trial cases and are only allowed to bring the type of case that the SCOTUS basically just eliminated. More and more I’m having trouble not seeing the actions of the SCOTUS majority as a deliberate attack on the US government itself rather than “correcting” earlier rulings that have been precedent for decades.

permalink
report
reply
24 points

Someone pointed out to me that the majority of what we consider “good” SCOTUS decisions came from the Warren court. Nearly every other case you could name you only know because of its detrimental effect on American progress. In that light, Roberts is just course-correcting SCOTUS: a branch of the government that historically keeps citizens from being too free.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Yes, I agree with that reading of history, but just because things have been a certain way, doesn’t mean they have to be that way. I concur that the historical precedent for the SCOTUS is to stand in the way of progress, or often to cause regression, but that doesn’t mean we have to quietly accept it. Especially if and when there have been historical departures from that trend that demonstrate things can work differently, and work well.

(Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to prevent a nihilistic reading of your comment.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

You’re arguing for things to be worse, tho.

Smh…

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points
*

Idk overall more jury trials sounds better than judges just getting to decide. I know it’s less efficient and longer, but seems to increase the chances of decisions being made with some humanity, rather than political bias in terms of appointments

(Not that I really know what I’m talking about)

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Idk overall more jury trials sounds better than judges just getting to decide.

I don’t have enough information on the topic to form an opinion about whether trial by jury for these cases is better overall for society. But I do know this is not the right way to make this change. This was a case between a hedge fund manager and the SEC, and now as a result OSHA can no longer enforce anything? And with no prior warning for anyone to make any preparations. How could that possibly be the right way to make this change?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Well im kinda opposed to the supreme court as a concept, it didn’t even exist early on in American history, but it is what it is. The other laws will have to fall in like or Congress will have to act

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

This is one of their Project 2025 goals.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 15K

    Posts

  • 438K

    Comments