The chief justice doesn’t like his conservative Supreme Court colleagues getting called out for judicial overreach.
SCOTUS is not held to any ethical standards and have appointments that last for life. The conservative court has gone off the rails on their latest rulings, arguably making discrimination legal, even on protected groups. This upends decades of protections for vulnerable groups that were targeted by fascist groups.
While Roberts is whining about criticism on what his court has done, the main topic of criticism is newsworthy in that it has real consequences.
The same groups that lean toward authoritarianism, also lean toward Putin being allowed to take Ukraine. This fight spills over to the rest of the world.
We do not care!
This is not news material. Keep it for USPolitics, or Politicus, or nonpartisan, or whatever political magazine is fit for. This is not newsworthy.
I’m thinking you should probably stop speaking on behalf of everyone. I am not American but I do care that millions of Americans are losing their rights. I care that US businesses got over a trillion in PPP loan forgiveness but that the same can’t be extended to 40 million individuals and their student loans for education they are almost forced to have if they want a shot at making more than minimum wage and even then, it’s not a guarantee.
I’m not a refugee but I care that the Greek government effectively let hundreds die rather than assist them.
I’m not French but I am interested in the riots happening there.
I’m not Russian, Ukrainian, or even European but I want to know what is happening with the occupation of Ukraine, the coup attempt, and what other countries are doing to ensure the Russia doesn’t violate NATO and the repercussions if they do.
Why do you believe you get to narrow the scope of what is news on behalf of everyone else?
Is this really the content that we want for @news ?
There is an up/down vote button for you to express that POV on the post itself. I get what you’re attempting to do, but as someone mentioned, this isn’t Reddit you have open the ability to create your own @news. Hell, I encourage you to. A nonhomogeneous mix is actually healthier in the long run. And, at least for my part, now you have the answer to why someone down voted you.
Also, no one likes the explicitly @-ing folks who down voted you. Yes, you can see who down votes you but I feel, you should perhaps use the saying of “with great power comes great responsibility.” Maybe ask “openly” why you’re being down voted. @-ing the folks, and remember this is solely my subjective opinion, that’s not cool.
Also, no one owes you an explanation of jack crap. And that applies “in general.” Yes, it’s better when someone explains their position to you and what not. But no one OWES you an explanation. I think that’s what rubs me with the @-ing folks wrong here. None of those people HAVE TO explain themselves, it’d be great if they did, but you are not owed it and that is a very important distinction.
There is an up/down vote button for you to express that POV on the post itself.
NO.
There is a reason why we have different magazines with different names. Got to @USpolitics or @politicus. How many more political subs do you need? When we register for @news it’s not to get yet another american political shenanigans. You really think that someone from Italy registered to @news to hear about what your governor or potus or whatever wizard said to his king? Use your magazines! What is wrong with you? We are not your audience.
Let’s invite some people from lemmy.ml and see if you agree to follow their votes. They have news too, do you want to hear from them? Of course not! So change your tone.
Also, no one owes you an explanation of jack crap. And that applies “in general.”
I don’t care, I will keep callout you out on your bullshit. block me if you want. After all, you said yourself that there is an upvote/downvote button, well there is also a block button, please use it, but I will keep calling you out anyway. Post your political soap opera to your political magazine, end of the story.
@news describes itself as
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
America is in the world. As is Africa, Asia, South America, etc. Perhaps you should talk to the mods of @news and see if they won’t change their rules for submissions. Maybe you want it limited to big, important, European, and most critically non-American news? The front page of that magazine currently has the earthshaking news that Italy is offering the Colosseum for Elon and Mark to duke it out in. And that Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen is fighting with Meta. And that a well known Oscar winner has died. Would none of those articles have been submitted before the Reddit migration?
And the news about Ukraine, France, Sweden, Uruguay, Cambodia, Australia are in the single digits. So kbin is turning into reddit. In less than 3 weeks we are back at square one. And this is without the influx of the people who will be pushed away from reddit on July.
It was cool while it lasted.
Hmmm. I wonder why there are more posts about US news than Cambodian news. Why is that? Do you think it could be a conspiracy by thousands of users to flood the Fediverse with US news pieces to try to drown out all of the Cambodian news everyone would prefer to hear?
Or maybe the content you see is whatever is on people’s minds, so they post it. Maybe you can post some Cambodian news instead of complaining about the lack of it. I’m interested in Cambodian news too, so please feel free to post all that sweet, sweet Cambodian news you are so upset about not seeing.
Why come to a place where the posts are voted upon by the users if you’re just going to complain about people voting on the “wrong” things?
To the three of you who downvoted me without a word of explanation: we can see who downvotes who on kbin.
So I ask you, why did you downvote me and why do you think that this guy talking to his fellow politicians is news worthy? We are not on an american website anymore, the rest of the world doesn’t care about the american constant struggle and crying about politicians saying stuff.
Woooo internet tough guy here. Be careful everyone – hes gonna call you out! o7 keyboard warrior, o7.
If you want to do the same thing you did on reddit then why did you leave reddit?
why do you think that this guy talking to his fellow politicians is news worthy?
I’m one one of the downvoters, so I’ll try giving you an answer. As an American, it’s newsworthy to me when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is publicly calling out the other justices for behavior he deems unbecoming a justice. I had not realized that @news was specifically for European news? And I think perhaps YOU had not realized that in America, the supreme court is theoretically above politics. A justice is not a politician. Again, in theory. Lately our supreme court has been behaving very much like bought-and-paid-for politicians, and that should be concerning to all Americans.
I had not realized that @news was specifically for European news?
There is a whole world out there. Right now @new is around 50% US. How is it a good thing? Look at this from a non US perspective. You open your news feed and nearly half of it is about US politicians doing the political dance.
If you have political news to post, please post them at least in a political magazine, not in news.
Lately our supreme court has been behaving very much like bought-and-paid-for politicians, and that should be concerning to all Americans.
This is not news, everyone around the planet know that your politicians are sold to the richest people. Again, keep it into political magazines, or we will be flooded.
Do you really want US politics to flood each sub like what happened on reddit?
I’m downvoting you because you’re being incredibly immature right now. People can disagree with you
Saying “how dare you downvote me, I can SEE IT!” and calling them out makes you look like a giant child. You need to take some time to consider your own response and whether or not that’s something WE want on the fediverse. You can just as easily be blocked too, you know.
Downvoting and running away was a reddit thing, now you are accountable for your downvotes.
I have the maturity to ask for answer when people react to what I say. My question about sorting posts out of @news and moving them to @USpolitics is perfectly legitimate. I’m glad that some people took the time to answer so we can have a discussion, but so far among the handful of people who had the courage to put up a written argument I’ve read nothing convincing me that this post has its place in @news rather than in politics.
If all you want is a copy of reddit then please go back to reddit.You will have a barrage of US political news all day long.
You need to take some time to consider your own response and whether or not that’s something WE want on the fediverse. You can just as easily be blocked too, you know.
Block me, be my guest, at least you won’t be able to downvote me on sight anymore.
The destruction of queer rights in the US will harm me regardless of me ever setting foot in the country.
The beauty of this fediverse thing is, that… if you don’t like it you can make your own instance and do the thing you want there instead. Bye.
The supreme court even as a concept is one of the most asinine yet accepted institutions in the world. On par with the Catholic church, but so much worse because it actually has enormous and direct power over 330+ million people. I am dreaming and pining for the day that someone in power, most likely a president, just legitimately tells them to fuck off. They have no enforcement power and they fucking know it. I’m yearning for someone to have the courage, but it’s as clear as it possibly can be that it certainly won’t be a Democrat.
The thing is that the court only has so much power right now because Congress is so fucking broken. If Congress where in working order it could just legislate all the shit that the court is blocking the executive on.
Is there any sense when Congress went off the rails? Some folks I have listened to say it was around the 90s but there were obviously very contentious times before then.
The Congress has never consistently functioned well, I’m not entirely convinced it’s designed to. For the current mess, both in Congress and American politics in general, probably the most influential source is Newt Gingrich’s electioneering policy of attacking wedges and saying anything you have to to get headlines without regards to the truthfulness of your statements. That’s what reshaped the Republican party to be particularly welcoming to extremists, popularized science denial, and led to the modern wave of Christian Nationalism.
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/07/07/newt-gingrich-republican-party
Can you elaborate on the comparison to the church? You don’t like a panel having authority so you want to consolidate it to a president unilaterally ignoring the third branch? Would term limits on judges change how you see the court?
The Catholic church is an unjustifiable and ridiculous institution in the same way the supreme court is. The Catholic church also had a lot of control over the lives of many people for a very long time, although that influence has obviously waned in recent centuries and decades (although it’s clearly still not completely gone). Now, as far as the president having control, I will also say fuck the presidency, but it would always be my hope that a person in that position would do anything in their power as a president and a person to stand up to unjustifiable institutions like the supreme court. Obviously a president couldn’t abolish the supreme court single-handedly, nor do I think that would necessarily, inherently be a good thing, but I do think that a president could and should call out the obvious reasons for which the institution needs to be abolished, because it absolutely does. The fact that nine human beings can directly control the lives of millions and millions and millions of people is an absolute travesty. I don’t even feel dissimilarly about congress, but obviously it’s a bit better because they are actually elected. In general, though, I am a very strong proponent of direct democracy. Term limits are a starting point, but it would be akin to applying a bandaid to a gaping, oozing wound.
The thing is, I can see the logic behind why the Supreme Court is designed the way it is. If they don’t have to worry about reelection, they shouldn’t have a vested interest in making calls that make a specific voting group happy. In theory, this means they should be free to provide unbiased decisions that help society to better function.
The problem though is that there isn’t a way for the public to easily remove a justice that obviously is just trying to rule from the bench. This increases the chance of them abusing their position of power.
The current Supreme Court has made several decisions recently that are beyond a rational understanding of the law that only serve to the benefit of themselves and to their wealthy benefactors. The decisions are harming people with little genuine benefit for our collective society. As such, we should be able to remove them in such extenuating circumstances. But we can’t, and they are there for life. It is extremely frustrating.
Let me know when Roberts begs the others to stop taking massive gifts that look like bribes.
“Why won’t they just let us make wildly unpopular decisions that jeopardize the livelihoods of Americans without having to make us feel bad about it?!”
-Roberts, 2023
Well if the court didn’t engage in clearly partisan politics, maybe the liberal justices wouldn’t have anything to criticize.
Does he realize how bad it looks when he voices that his problem is criticism and not like, I don’t know, taking money from political interests? Or refusing to recuse in cases where there’s a relative directly involved?
It is really incredible how far down the drain the SCOTUS has gone in such a short period of time. Not saying it was great before Justice Kennedy retired either, but at least back then it was generally respected.
I hope RoyGBiv is rolling in her grave at refusing to step down and let Obama select a replacement when she knew the power of her position.
Why do you think they would’ve filled her spot when they didn’t fill the other one with Merrick Garland? She protected her spot or they would’ve held it up until Trump.