this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
573 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3273 users here now

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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Was it the Democrats 40 years ago that discarded ages-old decorum, stared down stare decicis, and said “nah, that ain’t for me,”

The Republican nominees said the magic words and the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee rubber stamped every GOP nominee since Clarence Thomas. If Dems were hoodwinked time after time after time by candidates who mouthed "stare decisis" to the Senate and proceeded to piss on it as soon as the confirm vote cleared, perhaps they bare some of the blame for being so fucking gullible.

It was a group of far-right so-called “Christians” put on the SCOTUS by Republicans?

By Joe Biden's Democrats. By Dianne Feinstein's Democrats. By committee after committee that cowered when Bill Frist or Lindsey Graham whispered "the nuclear option" to a DC journalist. Every nominee since Bork has been worst than the last, and yet Dems refuse to hold up nominations on the grounds of polite decorum.

Well, fuck my man. The J6ers are at the gates. Democracy is finally on the table. We've got 6 judges who will just as soon wipe their asses with the rulebooks as read them. Can we get a 10th and 11th appointment to the courts to balance things out, President Biden? No? Oh well, I guess its game over.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's a weird strategy to show up and explain how one team operates without rules and lies about everything, but it's the other guy that's the problem. I can see that you're one good faith fella.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

These two teams set the rules for the game. When one team cheats and the other team steps in to defend them while they break the rules, the problem is two-fold.

In the case of the SCOTUS, you've got a Dem Party that refuses to investigate and prosecute flagrantly corrupt judges, refuses to seat additional judges through the Senate (a thing they have the power to do but will not employ), and will not order their bureaucracies to ignore rulings that endanger the life and property of American residents. Instead, you've got a willing accomplice to the willful neglect of women in need of emergency medicine, the persecution of LGBT children and young adults, and the execution of innocent men.

When the DOJ is not merely docile, we have an FBI engaged in illegal surveillance and detention of peaceful dissidents, a DHS that actively facilitates humanitarian crimes against lawful migrants and refugees, and a Pentagon that perpetuates war crimes abroad. All of these agencies are operating under a Democratic Administration.

And to top it all off, you've got a candidate running on the promise of appointing Republicans to her cabinet. This, while coordinating donations and campaign support with the fucking Cheneys. This goes beyond "cheating and lying". It amounts to stepping out into the stands and killing spectators as part of the event. "Well, the other team just told us who to kill, what were we supposed to do? Not kill them?! We'd have fewer fans!" is a fucked way to run your franchise.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If they won't expand the court, they could do what the House and Senate did to Johnson and that's shrink the court.

Unfortunately, the only fair way to do it would also remove Brown-Jackson.

"Five, five is a good number. Remove the four most recently added."

You'd get rid of the Trump court, but also Jackson, and it would still be 3-2 right wing court. Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor.

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

If they won’t expand the court, they could do what the House and Senate did to Johnson and that’s shrink the court.

They won't do that either.

You’d get rid of the Trump court, but also Jackson, and it would still be 3-2 right wing court.

Why would you remove the most recent judges and not the most elderly judges?

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

Just do First In First Out instead.