politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The author came to the wrong conclusion. Yes the Supreme Court making themselves the authority on all federal policy will increase their case load. No, it does not mean they will actually need to do any more work. Cases will be backlogged for as long as they want.
Businesses can now dump toxic waste onto public lands knowing that they are safe from judgement for decades.
It also means that lower courts in practically any state can issue injunctions on federal policy as well, which is going to open the floodgates for crazy. They've pretty much just begged everyone to vote Democrat, and get the seating of SC Justices rewritten. That, or pack the court.
The court was already packed with activist judges appointed under suspicious or hypocritical circumstances who then lied to Congress during their confirmations about their deference to precedent on a host of issues only to the engage in a massive power grab from Congress. Subsequent action to rebalance the court is not court packing.
The term "court packing" has a very specific meaning. It refers to adding seats to the supreme court to shift the balance.
Court packing is the solution. It's been suggested that the number of justices be increased to something like 20-30 (similar to the next lowest court is right now) and then judges be rotated out to other federal positions every few years (effectively a term limit in the SC itself).
This achieves two things 1) It allows for each administration to make appointments to the court as a routine matter, making it difficult to capture the court for generations at a time 2) the amount of judges waters down the influence of the extremist dipshits. We know this works because, as we saw in the past, even lunatics like Alito were kept in check when the court was not majority far-right.
Yeah, Democrats are too married to do-nothing incrementalism to ever seriously consider doing that.
It'd help if we had more than the very slimmest of majorities.
It would help if Democrats would wield the power we give them.
As expected, the purpose of state is to facilitate relatively safe theft from classes not in control of it, and blocking justice is the primary method.
You get the state you vote for, including the people in unelected positions which are chosen by elected officials.
Most of these Justices were chosen by Presidents that lost the popular vote lol
This is true to some degree, but ignores several important factors, such as
I wonder who made it such... Oh right, people who were elected.
No, the electoral system was set up by slave owning terrorists that wanted to make sure they and their children would rule forever.
I’d hate to be a truck driver taking waste out to the river and running into a 100 wildly angry locals.
Yeah I was confused by the article when they said they would regret it. Yeah if they cared, but they don't.
What price should cable be? Who gives a shit, 100 dollars. There I did, supreme Court's justices can do it too.