this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
348 points (95.3% liked)

politics

19072 readers
5111 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] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's not about Scalia, it's explaining the concept of justices making rulings based on their own identity and beliefs instead of facts and logic. To, you know, explain "All the current shit going on with the SC".

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

Bribery, corrruption, and buying court decisions are the issues of today.

Personal identity and beliefs don't factor in when its already bought and paid for.

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

Points to Roe v wade, EPA "major decisions", etc.

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

Bought and paid for.

These SC justices are employees of the people that bribe them.

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

Bribery in many forms exists, but they are making decisions based on their identity. Something tells me you didn't read the article, you should.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Scallia may have, but it got him killed in the end.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

If they have to go back 7 years to being up an example, that would indicate it is very rare they use only their identity to determine rulings.

I don't doubt they often ignore science but this article indicates that is not the case. Is there not something recent they could refer to?