this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
1309 points (97.3% liked)

Political Memes

5614 readers
1515 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 218 points 3 months ago (18 children)

Why not have more severe consequences for voter suppression?

[–] [email protected] 34 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Because Voter Suppression usually comes in the form of laws and judgements, and legislators can't be arrested for passing unjust laws, and judges can't be arrested for passing unjust rulings, partly because...well who the fuck could even prosecute such a case without risking biased prosecution?

The supreme court is ordinarily supposed to be the check for when the law itself is unjust, but that ship has sailed and it ain't coming back until, IMO, we institute a sortitionate bench, IE the judges for any given case before the supreme court are selected at random from the pool of all federal judges who don't have a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of one, on the case.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Really like the thought of the Supreme Court being pulled from a random pool of Federal judges for each case. Fuck this appointed for life shit!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But then with how partisan judges are now, you would get completely random rulings. Better than what we have now I guess, but in theory you could have two landmark cases against, for example, Roe v Wade, and the SC might handle these challenges completely differently depending on composition.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Would it not leave the door open for more cases to be revisited with such randomness?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)