this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
240 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19090 readers
5769 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
 

A new study published on Thursday and led by my colleague Chelsey Davidson found that since the 2012–13 term, more than 80 percent of election-related cases on the Supreme Court’s hand-picked docket could move the law only in a direction that degraded fair elections.

In that time, the Supreme Court accepted 32 cases involving core democracy issues such as redistricting, ballot access, campaign finance, and VRA enforcement. In 26 of them, the lower court had issued a pro-democracy ruling. This means that the best-case scenario at the court was affirmation of the status quo, while a reversal of the lower court would restrict voter participation. By contrast, the justices picked just six cases where they might reverse anti-democracy rulings.

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 93 points 1 year ago (1 children)

End life time appointments, now. Pack the court, now. Pray some of those fuckers keel over, quick.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

There's enough to impeach Kavanaugh and Clarence if the Dems had the presidency and congress.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 year ago

Unless the senate itself is dramatically changed, Dems will never have the 2/3 majority needed to remove anyone, and I’m not holding my breath for the GOP to put country before party anytime soon.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The Democratic Party, as it exists today, is structurally incapable of what your suggesting. Their entire power structure is based on suppressing the left, and NOT activating / mobilizing their base for real political or societal changes towards leftist goals, or projects.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Judicial review isn’t even in the Constitution. The Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Originalism ain't in the constitution as well.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So they are doing what they were hired to do

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

If only we could have predicted this back in 2015!

/s

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Of course they are. It’s their job.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Seems silly to characterize one of the key functions of the court (deciding what case to take) as rigging. I'm not saying that I don't find this court a reactionary shit pile, just that they're acting exactly as you'd expect them to

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

If they do it in bad faith to achieve a certain political outcome, I don't see why it would be unreasonable to call it rigging.