469
The SC is hopelessly corrupt and should be dismantled.
Annual reminder that the SCOTUS decided that the SCOTUS has the power of Constitutional review.
I'd suggest elevating more federal court justices for a period, durich which time they decide as a group what to take up and then randomly assign 5 or 7 to a case. After their stint they can either return to federal court or retire.
If memory serves, the French invented a huge apparatus for that, inspired by a bread slicer.
The best thing since sliced nobility
Get yer fresh oafs right here! Gottem fresh! Pre-sliced & prêt-à-mànger! Gettim while they're hot!
they should just require a randomly selected jury for any ruling and the justices only job should be deciding what to present to jurors
I'm not sure I'd like to trust a random jury to determine the interpretation of laws
I can guarantee a randomly selected jury would do a better job than the current court.
If we're comparing with the current SC everything is an improvement. But if we're going to change things, I would prefer a system that does not rely on easily manipulated, uneducated masses.
Yeah you'd have to buy a dozen RVs instead of just one.
I haven't heard of a lot of jury tampering trials go well. And usually isnt it more of a mafia style "nice family you got there, would be a shame if something happened to it" situation?
SCOUTS:
:(
Moscow Mitch has always given in to foreign pressure to help Weird 34. The Turtle's hypocrisy isn't much of a surprise. Shame on Kentucky voters that voted for McConnell and against America.
Garland would have been a better SCOTUS Justice than the Attorney General. If only we had someone better ready to move faster. But even if he had, wouldn't SCOTUS have still stopped him? Hard to know for sure.
We now know that Chief Justice Roberts is pro autocracy. His actions speak louder than his words. He thinks and has ruled that the President should have more power in the USA than the old kings of England had over their people and parliament. A king who is immune. Charles I got hung for thinking he had less power than what Roberts has granted Weird 34.
From the article: "There is a risk of authoritarianism down the line."
I disagree. A Dementia Don win is an inevitability that we'll have an autocrat in charge. Roberts may want to reflect on the monster he's created, especially if the autocrat gets his way and dismisses SCOTUS as easily as dismissing the Constitution.
Yep by the time Roberts gets his "let Roberts enforce it" moment from trump the Republic will be in shambles.
If project 2025 gets in effect we will see civil war.
If project 2025 gets in effect we will see civil war.
project 2025 has been a thing since 1981 and all of our presidents and congress people have already enacted nearly 75% of it so far; people have been accepting it since then; also attacking leftists for pointing it out since; and there will be no civil war because of these facts.
We will see civil war no matter what if the court doesn't change. It's basically what happened last time.
do strongly worded letters to the manager work in the supreme court?
Depends how much money you put in the envelope
What's Clarence's rate again?
Top of the line RV will do it.
Everytime I try to open the article the firefox tab crashes. what gives? I've been seeing this happen a lot recently
It's a sadness, but I also have occasional issues with Firefox. It's still the best browser by far, but its share is so small, more and more developers aren't testing their pages in Firefox any more.
Doesn't make no never mind to me. If a page doesn't work in Firefox, I can do without.
I'm using FF & don't have that issue nor have I elsewhere.
Sometime extensions cause issues if you have any installed.
updated my extensions and browser, now it works, oops!
Everytime
Not a word.
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
469 points (99.6% liked)
politics
18973 readers
3309 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! 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.
- 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