this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
506 points (97.7% liked)

United States | News & Politics

1868 readers
573 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Kamala Harris’s running mate urges popular vote system but campaign says issue is not part of Democrats’ agenda

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MouseKeyboard@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

My worry with that is the supreme court would just declare it void.

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I am worried about that too, but I also think that we should still fight to improve things regardless of the threat of a regressive court undoing our progress.

[–] qwertilliopasd@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I completely agree with you. The only way to get them to show us all who they are is to fight for what is right. Every time they fight against the people it becomes harder to ignore their blight. Either things get better or more people see who is making things worse. Win-win.

[–] Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

They are forever burning the bridge to millenials and younger. It’s wonderful.

[–] SlakrHakr@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

How could they? At the end of the day isn’t it up to the states to decide who their electoral votes go?

[–] MouseKeyboard@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 week ago

Unfortunately, the supreme court has zero checks and balances, and recently has been willing to make partisan political rulings, so it may well strike it down to help Republicans.

[–] qwertilliopasd@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

How could they make a president immune from any checks and balances?

How could they allow states to enforce draconian laws against the homeless?

How could they work towards ending voting rights?

How could they give lower judges the power to overrule experts?

They can. They have. They will again. The states have the constitutional right to select their electors as they choose, but this court has demonstrated complete contempt for justice and fairness.

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The supreme court also overruled states trying to ban interracial marriage, implement poll taxes to unfairly target poor people, and place signs in their yard protesting war.

[–] qwertilliopasd@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I was pulling from the current court, but yes. It's almost like giving nine unelected geriatrics the ultimate authority on all laws isn't a good idea.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago

The only easy grounds for them to do so with an actual constitutional backing would be that interstate compacts are supposed to be approved by Congress.