this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
699 points (97.6% liked)

News

23367 readers
3074 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The approval rating of the nation’s highest court stands at 40 per cent, according to a new poll

The Supreme Court’s approval rating has plunged to one of its lowest levels yet ahead of a ruling on Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president.

The approval rating of the nation’s highest court stands at 40 per cent, according to the latest poll released by Marquette Law School on Wednesday.

The latest numbers rival only those of July 2022, when only 38 per cent of US adults said they approved of the Supreme Court and 61 per cent disapproved – just after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ME5SENGER_24@lemmy.world 176 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Approval ratings mean nothing to lifetime appointments. Nobody should hold a position forever. If they wanna keep them there for life, then at least make them subject to review every X years

[–] blargerer@kbin.social 85 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Theres only one way to end a lifetime appointment, so they should worry if it gets too low.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago (2 children)

You can impeach them or imprison them too. They only hold their position "in good behavior".

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 41 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Given that Thomas is clearly accepting bribes and his wife is using him to further a coup, I think we can safely assume that means nothing, other than a future weapon against a liberal justice.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

If you get one in prison then I'm pretty sure they'll get kicked out. Now we just need a Congress with the balls to spend 5 pages defining bribery so the justices can't wiggle out of it.

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

How do imprison someone who has the money, connections, and legal knowledge to appeal the case all the way up to themselves.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 26 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I wonder what the plantation owners approval ratings were like. We should conduct a study.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 13 points 9 months ago

3/5ths of people disapproved

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 15 points 9 months ago (3 children)

My wife and I love each other endlessly and agreed to the whole "until death" thing, but we both hold a firm belief that marriage contracts should have an expiration date at which point the couple can step back and evaluate if they want to continue this union. If not, marriage dissolved, bye.

I hear people say that X isn't marriage, but I say that nothing should be marriage and EVERYTHING should have a planned expiration date. Except light bulbs, batteries, and puppies.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We really need to get these guys out of the office. Why are we caring about impeaching presidents, we need to keep a close eye, catch them doing illegal shit and impeach the supreme court justices. Obviously hold off until the US has a president that can appoint good, fair judges - I don't believe Trump is capable of that, and Biden is at best borderline capable.

[–] ME5SENGER_24@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There is supposed to be a separation between the 3 governmental branches within the US. Unfortunately, that’s just not reality. Judges should be elected to terms by the people. We are meant to have a government of the people, by the people, for the people. We the people, are the most important pieces of this equation.

We the people, need to push our agenda on the government instead of the government pushing itself on us.

I’m not talking about any sovereign citizen craziness. I’m just saying it’s 2024, I can pay for my groceries with my cellphone why can’t I chose how my tax dollars are spent?!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

It surely does mean something. They don't have an army to enforce their rulings. They also can get a whole bunch of new judges in. Finally, if a prosecutor gets their shit together they could end up in prison for bribery. And while they can define bribery however they want, see point one.

[–] raoulraoul@lemmy.world 76 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Go figure. Three of them are Trump-appointed shills, two are ~~Cheney's~~ Dubya's and Thomas hanging on from "Vision Thing" Bush times.

!detroit@midwest.social
!michigan@midwest.social

[–] Thrashy@lemmy.world 73 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

We are rapidly approaching the point where it is an open question as to whether the Supreme Court can make its rulings stick in jurisdictions that don't fall along the current majority's ideological bent, and that's not a place anybody in their right mind wants to go. The question is, are Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett still possessed of enough self-awareness to recognize that and rule accordingly at least some of the time? If not, do Roberts and Gorsuch make a consistent enough voting bloc to swing dicey decisions away from the foaming-at-the-mouth radical right wing of the bench when they might seriously endanger the ongoing credibility of the court as an institution? I'm not super optimistic, but time will tell...

[–] Lemmeenym@lemm.ee 19 points 9 months ago (2 children)

We are rapidly approaching the point where it is an open question as to whether the Supreme Court can make its rulings stick in jurisdictions that don’t fall along the current majority’s ideological bent

Recently the most significant refusals to follow court rulings are in jurisdictions that do agree with the court majority's ideological bent. Alabama's voting maps fight and Texas's current border fight being the two biggest ones. At least for now democrats still generally believe in the American system and respect the rule of law.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 9 months ago

The governors of solidly blue states will soon enough have citizens who are going to not put up with it.

They can try and fail to make a nationwide abortion ban stick on the west coast.

West coast had an interstate compact during COVID because they knew they could not count on the Feds.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Let's see what happens if they outlaw mifepristone.

[–] beardown@lemm.ee 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Probably the same thing that happened with Dobbs - ultimately, not much of anything.

It's sad. But Americans need to stand up for ourselves.

When SCOTUS abolishes Chevron deference later this year and consequently destroys the federal bureaucracy we will be finished. Hopefully the FBI can lean on SCOTUS to prevent that, though it is doubtful they are astute enough to perceive Chevron's destruction for the national security disaster that it is

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Hawaii over there with the sunglasses on.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 53 points 9 months ago (1 children)

How lame is the concept of "lifetime appointees"?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago (2 children)

There’s a reason for it. We may have made the need for it meaningless, but the reasoning is sound.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 31 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The functional part (avoiding incentivizing corruption) could be handled just as well by giving them lifelong pay (and financial reporting). The winds of justice being determined by when an old person dies is not a necessary feature.

[–] JonEFive@midwest.social 24 points 9 months ago

They could also be limited to serving for say 10 years without the possibility of a second term. Effectively very similar to a lifetime appointment. There's no re-election so they don't have to rule on cases in a political manner. This doesn't solve the problem of approval rating being completely meaningless, but at least there's some limit on insanity.

[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 25 points 9 months ago

It wasn’t, really. We need to stop attributing some kind of infinite foresight and wisdom to the authors of the constitution. The Supreme Court was a bad idea poorly implemented, the senate as the superior house was a fucking terrible idea, and the independent executive is not defensible at this point.

The authors (who, let’s remember, were working with a 17th century philosophy on the nature of humankind that has since been discredited) were operating on entirely different premises, for an entirely different country, and balancing things like slavery and freedom and democracy versus rule by the elite (the elite were justified to rule by their identity as being elites) by trying to come to a middle ground compromise on those and related issues. It’s really kind of crap by modern democratic, political, and philosophical standards. The only reason it hasn’t been addressed is that we’ve become self-aware enough that we’re terrified that US democracy has fallen to the point that we could only do worse than 18th century slaveholders, landlords, and wealthy lawyers.

To make it explicit, the authors thought that a) the rich would put the country’s interests ahead of their own, b) that selfishness would mean people wanted to protect their branch of government rather than their party, and c) that part b would be a sufficient bulwark against demagoguery. They believed in a world where men (and I mean men, specifically, and rich men in particular) were rational actors who would act in their own self-interest.

Don’t get me wrong - they were reading the scholars of their time - but if political and social science hasn’t made advances in the past three centuries we should probably just give it up.

[–] DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 45 points 9 months ago

I can't believe it's that high.

[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today 36 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So it's the lowest yet but it was lower in July 2022? Which is it? Did a fucking robot write this?

[–] Kase@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The Supreme Court's approval rating has plunged to one of its lowest levels yet...

Emphasis mine, ofc. I don't disagree that it's worded awkwardly.. I was wondering the same thing as you until I reread it several times. ¯⁠\⁠(⁠°⁠_⁠o⁠)⁠/⁠¯

[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I overreacted, I've been super paranoid about automation enshitifying every aspect of online culture and media lately.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 34 points 9 months ago

Well, yeah half the court was appointed through nebulous means, and they've been slowly throwing out things considered settled law that's been on the books for literal decades. No shit that people have no faith in the legitimacy of the court anymore.

At this point I think we should ignore any and all rulings they make until we fix the system that brought this bullshit on.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 28 points 9 months ago (8 children)

When five out of nine have been appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, that's what you'll get.

Of course, we have no way of removing any of them, so it's not like they have to care.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago (5 children)

There are ways. Impeachment being the constitutionally sanctioned way.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 6 points 9 months ago

There's ways. They're only lifetime appointments, after all.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] n1ckn4m3@kbin.social 23 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, they could have a 0% approval rating and we'd still never get the 2/3rds majority in congress to do fuckall about it. This supreme court will continue to pander to corporate and donor interests and act wholly without ethics because our system was built on the concept that people in those roles would act with integrity and utterly falls apart when people on the supreme court flagrantly disregard their responsibility to citizens and act in their own interests.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Biden et al should have packed the court when they had the chance.

[–] n1ckn4m3@kbin.social 15 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Can't say I disagree. When you fight a cheater by playing 100% by the rules in a world where cheating isn't punished, you lose every time. This pretty much sums up the last 40 years of the Democratic party.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] BilboBargains@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

American politics is corrupt from top to bottom

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SmarfDurden@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

But unfortunately, it means nothing to them since they don’t have to be elected

[–] TengoHipo@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

They are all in someone’s pocket. How can we approve of them. They make horrible decisions as of late.

load more comments
view more: next ›