this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2026
643 points (99.7% liked)

News

39667 readers
3109 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


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. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


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, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The liberal justice took aim at various recent rulings, including one that paved the way for rampant partisan gerrymandering of legislative districts.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s conservative majority Tuesday, saying it undermined democracy in a series of rulings, including several that have prompted a new wave of legislative map-drawing that has increasingly eliminated competitive districts.

Kagan, who has dissented in those cases, also took aim at the majority for striking down campaign finance restrictions and, as she put it, the “evisceration” of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act that was enacted to protect minority voters.

“Part of the reason why the court got it wrong was a kind of lack of the appropriate concern or understanding of the consequences of their decisions,” she said in remarks at Catholic University’s law school in Washington, D.C.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Warren Court, from 1953-1969

United States v. O’Brien made burning draft cards in protest illegal

Terry v. Ohio legalized Stop-and-Frisk Police tactics

Swain v. Alabama cemented the All White Jury for another decade.

Walker v. City of Birmingham made the original MLK protest marches illegal.

And unlike the subsequent Burger Court, which began placing substantial constitutional limits on the death penalty, the Warren Court was generally comfortable with capital punishment.

Much of the modern police state finds it's roots in the Warren Court.

Then consider that the first major ruling striking down a law for discriminating against women did not arrive until 1971, after Earl Warren had retired. This was after over sixty years of Sufferegate agitation.

Warren fully neglected LGBTQ rights, despite a number of early cases. Warren even interpreted federal immigration statutes to uphold the exclusion and deportation of individuals based on homosexuality, treating it under provisions barring "psychopaths" or persons with constitutional psychopathic inferiority.

Civil Rights advancements were largely limited to a pool of politically engaged upwardly mobile straight black men. Rights for women and other minority groups (particularly migrants) floundered.

It should further be noted that Warren was a century behind the times, relative to the legislative and even the executive branch. They were still the last branch of government to get behind civil rights, and often in the most minimal fashion.

They could only be called progressive relative to their Hughes Era predecessors, which operated in open defiance of the FDR lead government. By 1941, FDR had thinned the herd of opposition judges enough to consistently uphold his legislative agenda. Stone, Vinson, Warren, and Burger would lead a relatively liberal court for the next 40 years. But it still trailed the national executive and legislatures, which in turn trailed the progressive state governments, which trailed the activist movements nationwide.

The courts are consistently the last to do anything resembling progressive reforms. They are far more often a bullwark against process.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The only cases I can think of where the courts were more progressive than the legislature are Roe, Obergefell, and Bostock, but the latter two were after the deadlocking of congress

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

They all trailed a bunch of state level reforms and outright popular activism.

And they were minimalist in their reforms, not expansive and definitive. Which has cleared the way for their undermining and rollback through counter-revolutionary action.

Roe was swiss cheese when it was written, hiding under the fig leaf of Privacy established two courts prior. Obergefell was barely more than a restatement of the the Equal Protection Clause and 14th Amendment. Bostock was a reiteration of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

None of this was radical or even novel. It was the Courts squeezing out edge cases on a bunch of reactionary state legislatures that refused to accept settled law.

Like, Oberfell in particular came over a decade after the Iowa courts trailblazed right to gay marriage. And that was, in turn, decades after civil courts were issuing licenses in defiance of social norms. And that was an eternity after gay cohabitation and "adult adoption" to stimulate legal marriage. They were way behind the curve.