this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
968 points (99.3% liked)

News

36233 readers
3306 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, blogs, 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A solid majority of Americans say Supreme Court justices are more likely to be guided by their own ideology rather than serving as neutral arbiters of government authority, a new poll finds, as the high court is poised to rule on major cases involving former President Donald Trump and other divisive issues.

The survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 7 in 10 Americans think the high court’s justices are more influenced by ideology, while only about 3 in 10 U.S. adults think the justices are more likely to provide an independent check on other branches of government by being fair and impartial.

The poll reflects the continued erosion of confidence in the Supreme Court, which enjoyed broader trust as recently as a decade ago. It underscores the challenge faced by the nine justices — six appointed by Republican presidents and three by Democrats — of being seen as something other than just another element of Washington’s hyper-partisanship.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] stembolts@programming.dev 125 points 2 years ago (4 children)

7/10 Americans are aware / woke.

The owners, "Stop being aware, go back to being a cog in the machine. Stop reading the founders intent that we can overthrow them. That's against the law and the law is what we will use to enforce our ideologies upon you."

The "war against woke" is a war against awareness.

[–] clearedtoland@lemmy.world 56 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I would say it’s a war against knowledge and critical thinking. Those two things threaten their control and reasoning. Why else fear books or competing ideologies?

It’s one thing for the deer to see headlights coming at it. It’s another for it to know what it means and what it should do.

[–] KnightontheSun@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

I think that is what stembolts is saying. Awareness is borne from knowledge and critical thinking.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bamfic@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Too bad the system is designed by the founders so that 70% of the people are guaranteed in perpetuity to always have less than 50% of the power, and thus never get what they want.

This was done to keep slavery in place.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ranvier@lemmy.world 62 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Is bribery and corruption an ideology?

[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 37 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Yes. It's called Cronyism.

[–] Ranvier@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Then put me in with the 7 out of 10 Americans.

[–] dactylotheca@suppo.fi 7 points 2 years ago

It's called Cronyism.

Funny way to spell "conservatism"

[–] cmoney@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Have you seen the interest rates on motorhomes nowadays?

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 61 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Alternate headline: 3/10 Americans are living in fantasy land.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 29 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I would suggest 3/10 share their extremists ideology. (Well, the ideology of the majority,)

“Warriors are fine. Nerf warlocks.” -Me, a mage in Vanilla WoW.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 55 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Non-politicized decisions are wacky, the Sackler decision had Gorsuch and Jackson in the majority and Kavanaugh and Sotomayor in the minority.

"Coincidentally," the abortion and gun rulings are all exactly the same 6-3 teams based on who appointed them.

It's pretty much settled fact that this Supreme Court puts ideology over impartiality.

[–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

They definitely do on the most important issues, however they continue to be impartial on the issues that don't hit mainstream media (Fox Business Network)

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

The Sackler decision makes a lot more sense when you see it as the court disagreeing with how to protect the wealthy elite from future cases. Either the novel method here, being allowed to make an agreement that forecloses any future problems; or the traditional method of burying the other side in lawyers until you die.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 45 points 2 years ago

3 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices agree!

[–] Facebones@reddthat.com 32 points 2 years ago (2 children)

3 out of 10 Americans are lying 🤣

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 years ago

3 out of 10 believe impartiality means agreeing with their ideology.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

Ideology of “I get mine, you get shit”. Ideology of “I get what I want because I’m on this bench”. Ideology of “what can you do for me?”.

Illegitimate court. Every single ruling by them should be overturned and every citizen should ignore them.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 17 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] Qwazpoi@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

Maybe they believe that the supreme court is more influenced by money than ideology?

[–] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

Go read the Heritage Foundation's founding documents. Literally says in black and white that the way to shift the landscape in your favor is by getting your people on the SC.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (3 children)
[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's because Republicans are skewing the numbers. 84% of Democrats and 73% of Independents understand the Supreme Court is a joke.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 4 points 2 years ago

I bet a chunk of those republicans are mad that the court is "too liberal"

Republicans are the worst

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Happy cake day, FlyingSquid.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago
[–] WanakaTree@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago

I'm curious how many of those 7/10 think it's a good thing

[–] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago

The other three aren't paying attention.

[–] ef9357@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 2 years ago

I don’t think it. I KNOW it.

[–] hOrni@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

But how many of them think that's a bad thing?

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

pretty sure 3 out 10 americans believe they've met a demon or space alien

[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The other three are bootlicking republicans

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago

No idea why they'd think that...

 

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Theres no such thing as an impartial person.

[–] Veraxus@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I like pineapple on my pizza. Therefore, I rule that everyone else must always eat pineapple on their pizza. The Constitution doesn't say anything about pizza, so this is totally okay and exactly what the "Founders" wanted.

This is not, and never was, merely an issue of "being an impartial person"... but believing that you can and should be able to force your own partial views onto others - sometimes under threat of state violence - even when those views directly contradict the obvious letter and intent of our Constitution.

"Ideology over impartiality" means "they rule by fiat, rather than by any principle of justice."

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Its not believing they can, they just can.

[–] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This is true. It can be strived for, though, and there are strategies to overcome bias, increase impartiality, and identify bias in others. If the United States supreme court (and really its legal system too) had any integrity, it would champion doing so.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

I think the best strategy is to assume the worst. Assume that theyll take whatever bribes they can get away with, empower their political party however they can, seek to harm groups theyre hateful towards, etc. Restrict what they can get away with, do not permit any self accountability, keep the roster changing so corrupt roots cant go deep.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

If the United States supreme court (and really its legal system too) had any integrity, it would champion doing so.

I think most of the liberal justice would argue the court is and that's the problem. The keystone of Originalist philosophy is that judges should be impartial and leave policy decisions to the people (except when the constitution prohibits restrictions). To do that they are supposed to follow the original meaning, not the contemporary understanding.

In Living Constitutionalism judges are expected to apply their own personal standards and worry about the practical reproductions (that they for see).

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago

The difference is at least some of us recognize our bias and work to mitigate its effects while the rest of us don't even know there's supposed to be a difference.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Democracy requires its 3 pillars - the Judicial, the Press and the Political - to be independent.

In the US all three are tied, some even Constitutionally.

It's thus not surprised that the country only ever got close to being governed for the Many rather than the Few at times when other Civil Society movements (such as Unions) were strong and healthy. Certainly that's not the case nowadays, not even close.

load more comments
view more: next ›