268
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 29 Jun 2024
268 points (97.9% liked)
politics
18074 readers
3331 users here now
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.
- 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!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's easy to forget that there's a time, a little over a decade ago, when the Supreme Court Justices were considered above reproach. It was the last vestige of trusted governance in the country. It was considered the one arena untouched by political trends and activism, where citizens could face off against corruption and expect true justice. Decisions were made based not in the shifting winds of the day, but in consideration of the next century or the nations needs.
We have lost something greater than just a political alignment. We have lost trust in the entire State.
Yep.
I lost my trust 5 years ago during Trump. Biden was just slowly rebuilding that trust. But it's still gone.
Ahem, Bush v Gore... bit longer than a decade. They're certainly more shameless now that they have a larger margin, but republican justices have been pushing an agenda for awhile.
At the time, it wasn't this widely regarded as a power grab by conservative politicians in the Supreme Court. Not saying it wasn't, but it was not seen as such. It was nowhere near as brazen as what we're seeing today. Confidence was still quite high at the time or at least it returned quickly.
A bad decision like Bush v Gore or Citizens United was seen as an anomoly. While there were people who saw these as the political flexing they were, the general sentiment of the public was, "well, it must have been a difficult and complex decision. I'm sure they understand the legal impact and made the best decision that they could for the future of the country."
LOL no. Those decisions were utter bullshit.
Of course they were, in retrospect. But at the time, they were considered flukes.
No they weren't... They were derided as conservative power grabs then as now. Even then they talked about Roberts as an activist conservative, as the "decider" vote in a 5v4 court, who played politics to maintain the appearance of neutrality on unimportant, to them, decisions so they could strike when it mattered.
Hell, even then mass media referred to "conservative" and "liberal" justices, which clearly shows judges were not neutral.
This is the bottom line plan. The end of the nation state of law and the beginning of corporate nationhood. Just like democracies replaced monarchies, the supreme clergy is now ushering the new age of corporate states. Corporate nationhood is modern monarchy, which goes hand in hand with the Christian Caliphate they are also building.
The fun part is it’s 10 years ago for you. But for others it’s been their entire existence on earth.
No it wasn't, are you kidding me. It was just that their corruption was obfuscated by difficult to understand legalize. But no even laymen can tell they're making things up.
You have not been listening to conservatives, then. I grew up on a steady diet of Rush Limbaugh and later Fox News. "Activist liberal judges" has been a decades-long refrain on the right.
It's true, and probably some of the moralizing that justifies the current situation in the eyes of the right wing. They see it as "taking back" the court and doing the same thing that "left" was already doing.
The American far right has always had an outsized voice among conservatives, going all the way back to Father Coughlin, who was sympathetic to Hitler and Mussolini. Even mainstream conservatives tended to consider the supreme court more or less immune to political manipulation, with decisions like Roe v Wade to be the exception.
It's entirely possible I'm only familiar with the far right, and not so much the average mainstream conservative. Which is a wild thing to think about my life, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.