I believe that this assumes precedent matters. The other thing this court has declared is that precedent means nothing. That's the important take to have if things are going to get fixed.
this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
162 points (98.8% liked)
politics
29742 readers
2731 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I was wondering the same thing. They keep declaring the previous supreme court wrong. Why do they get to be the final say then? If they are saying a supreme court ruling can be wrong, why are we even bothering with these idiots.
Why do they get to be the final say then?
They don't unless we let them.
Technically you're right, but with the court having skewed the system to favour Republicans so much, it will be very difficult to get more people on to the Surpreme Court who want to overrule this one's decisions.
No it won't, win the election, pack the bench.
It’s interesting that these guys changed the law because they didn’t think it applied anymore. Not cause the law was wrong.
Honestly, with how often they use the emergency shadow docket these days, I was surprised they even tried to give the illusion of merit.
Now Roberts is saying "the public should trust us! ".
Nope. This is what ruling without merit gets you. Distrust.
It foreclosed the possibility of any new Voting Rights Act in the future, too.
Until the ruling is overruled by different justices on a future Supreme Court.
The social contract is broken. All bets are off.
They said the same old shit about "never being able to overturn roe v wade" but they fucked that up too.
They can do whatever they want at any time doesn't matter what bullshit law they passed this has been proven time and time again over the years
Sounds like a recipe for Civil War 2
Balkanize the country then, let the American empire balkanize and die
Hey that's what Russia and the republicans and the evangelicals want. You with them?
Good. I'm quite done with all the edging.
We've been fully engaged in a cold civil war since Nixon was made to resign. The heritage foundation with their federalist society judges have people in every key position to literally just take over the government, which is mostly what they've been doing. They openly declared they were engaging in a coup on the united states saying the revolution will be bloodless if the left allows it, and it sure looks like the left at large is allowing it.
Let's get out over with.
Get on with it
There is no reason to be against the Voting Rights Act beyond racism. That's the only possible explanation.
I wouldn't go that far. There is a lot of quid pro quo in politics. Not sure which is worse sometimes. Being racist because your racist, or being racist because someone has made it worth it for you to be so.
Bullshit. The whole point of checks and balances within this system of government (though it's not working presently) is that Congress can work to override the judiciary when they get it wrong. The Constitution can be amended to enshrine the VRA, etc -- of course the states have to ratify which could be a tall order. And since the judiciary gave the president carte blanche to do whatever he/she wants, they could simply sign an executive order at this point to deal with this and say "Fuck you" to the Supreme Court.
Or if the new president has a particularly large set of balls, they can, uh, conduct a re-enactment of the Red Wedding. No EOs required, and the president can pack the court afterwards with their own guys. It aligns SCOTUS term limits with the presidential ones nicely.
Clean sweep.
The Constitution can be amended
Which requires either a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress or a convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states...
....and what part of our oh half century or so of bullshit makes it seem like this is even remotely possible?
Just because it likely won't happen doesn't mean it can't happen. And you seem to have purposefully left out the rest of my sentence: "to enshrine the VRA, etc – of course the states have to ratify which could be a tall order."
This is the kind of cherry-picking that runs rampant in discourse today and adds literally nothing to the conversation.
Kind of, it opened political gerrymandering to no limit so now just need to ban republican districts
Fall of a nation.
