this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
854 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3536 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
 

Alabama Chief Justice Tom Parker indicated on the show he was a proponent of the “Seven Mountains Mandate,” an explicitly theocratic doctrine at the heart of Christian nationalism.

Alabama Chief Justice Tom Parker, who wrote the concurring opinion in last week’s explosive Alabama Supreme Court ruling that frozen embryos have the same rights as living children, recently appeared on a show hosted by self-anointed “prophet” and QAnon conspiracy theorist.

Parker was the featured guest on “Someone You Should Know,” hosted by Johnny Enlow, a Christian nationalist influencer and devoted supporter of former President Donald Trump. Over the course of an 11-minute interview, Parker articulated a theocratic worldview at odds with a functioning, pluralistic society.

“God created government,” he told Enlow, adding that it’s “heartbreaking” that “we have let it go into the possession of others.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Wrong

We need partisan leftist judges to crack down on cops, slumlords, union busting, discrimination, and other vile expressions of rightist ideology.

[–] Fapper_McFapper@lemmy.world 72 points 8 months ago (2 children)

To me, the things you mentioned lean more towards basic human rights. I don’t think it would be fair to call a judge partisan if he or she rules to preserve those. But I’m just a dude on the internet. Happy Friday friend!

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 24 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You aren't wrong, and and yet all those things I mentioned fall on partisan lines anyway. The problem isn't partisanship, it's right-wingers. If we got rid of those judges and replaced them with leftist partisans instead we could actually start fixing things. Justice is political, you can't escape that!

But I'm just a girl with a dream. 😏

[–] Fapper_McFapper@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don’t think you are wrong either. I just think that the word partisan might be too strong? Ideally, I’d like my judges neutral, but where do you find those nowadays right?

Stay safe sis.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 13 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I think that's a trick the right played on us, to convince us that we should be apolitical and stop us from getting politically organized. Meanwhile, they're explicitly partisan and that's why they keep winning. Basic human rights aren't neutral and we shouldn't be either.

Reject idealism. Embrace politics. Solidarity forever. ✊

[–] dezmd@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Everything is about perspectives and everything has nuance that must be taken into account. Yes, that can be really fucking annoying and sometimes works against our hopeful outcomes and does cause our good soundbite moments to be tarnished. There is not a singular universal argument in favor or against every single possible concept we create as a thinking society. To some extent, everything as we conceptualize it is malleable.

Your whole argument looks wholesale more about rejecting politics to embrace idealism. Which is a good thing in my estimation, and seems better situated to have outcomes more inline with what you, and we all, may be looking for out of life in general. Basic human rights aren't political, they're an ideal that goes beyond the limitations of politics.

So in that way, the following works exactly the same towards your preferential outcomes:

Reject politics. Embrace Idealism. Solidarity forever.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Okay so if you reject politics you literally can't get judges appointed. 👀

With that out of the way-

"Rights", as a concept, are inherently political. A right is literally a political carve-out that enshrines a mandate and creates a political obligation to uphold it. Idealism can be employed to support certain rights, but rights themselves can only exist through politics.

[–] dezmd@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I can appreciate the logic and the fervor behind your positions.

I will argue a step further zooming out that Basic Human Rights are inherent without politics at all. Knowledge comes before politics.

If anything, politics demotes rights from inherent to defined and limited. Which, simply put, sucks.

Politics is a game, don't ever forget that. We are all in the game and have to keep playing as long as everyone else keeps playing. It's all bullshit layered on top of bullshit, rules laid out by someone that came before with rules added by someone after that, and later again someone else to make up more rules.

Some of the bullshit works great and helps overcome life's struggles and adversities. Some bullshit brings us all down together and is ruinous to us as a species. Some bullshit even tends to be ruinous to the entire ecology of life on our tiny blue dot in the universe.

Just be careful to not get too caught up in the bullshit.

Don't get me wrong, I've voted in every election since I was old enough to vote and I do have a certain feeling of responsibility towards civic duty for the sake of a civilized society (and more-so now, for my children, which does help reinforce that ideal). I also try to engage with the news of world and am generally self aware enough to be thoughtful, rational, and capable of compromise.

I don't vote for politics, I vote for ideals.

Cheers.

[–] Fapper_McFapper@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

I am thoroughly enjoying this conversation and topic, both of you. Thank you.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I don’t think you are wrong either. I just think that the word partisan might be too strong? Ideally, I’d like my judges neutral, but where do you find those nowadays right?

I think that’s a trick the right played on us, to convince us that we should be apolitical and stop us from getting politically organized.

The core belief system of the United States of America has always been to have fair and impartial judges. It's not a conspiracy theory from either side.

Having said that, either side would love to stack the court system in their favor, and the conservatives especially have been actively working on that for quite a while now.

As Americans, we shouldn't allow that to happen (FFS vote smart on judges!), either way. There's a reason why Justice is always shown with a scale.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The issue is those on the right believe that's what makes judges partisan.

[–] Fapper_McFapper@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Ah, that’s a perspective I was not seeing. Thank you!