701
Supreme Court approval rating falls to one of lowest yet amid Trump cases
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
701 points (97.6% liked)
News
23305 readers
3644 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
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.
There are ways. Impeachment being the constitutionally sanctioned way.
Just appoint 10 additional supreme court judges. Then pass federal law to limit adding more supreme court judges. Pass federal laws to fix all of the shit that has been happening, including voting reform and gerrymandering with a better voting system A second reconstruction era.
It would be easy to fix, all the democrats need is a solid majority which they would get on election reform or abortion alone.
they should have. They could have. People said this... like when RvW was on the chopping block.
But no. "We can't do that because then they'd do it!"
The problem with federal law is that the next Congress can ignore it. Never forget Congress writes the laws and that means there's functionally no way to bind a future Congress short of the Constitution.
That's not viable. It requires getting a bunch of Republicans to agree to it, and getting even one Republican to listen to reason is a rare thing.
There's ways. They're only lifetime appointments, after all.
To be fair, Bush had won the popular vote by the time he nominated any justices.
Yes, but he wouldn't have even been president in the first place if it wasn't for the Supreme Court, and specifically Clarence Thomas.
True. And he had an incumbency advantage in 2004. I was just pointing out that Bush's appointments weren't as simple as "he didn't win the popular vote."
Right, but he wouldn't have even been running in 2004 if he hadn't been handed the presidency in 2000.
He won the popular vote by taking the country into an unjustified war because he has daddy issues.
Remember what the chairman of Diebold said.