1520
Senate Democrats introduce bill to implement term limits and biannual appointments to Supreme Court (www.washingtonexaminer.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
163 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 181 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Pictured: Worst Supreme Court ever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 55 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I mean, possibly not quite if we go back far enough in history, Dred Scott was a thing after all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 73 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The Lochner Era might have been worse than the pre-civil war era.

    To know that the Lochner Era was like, just imagine this court in 10-years.

    The Supreme Court during the Lochner era has been described as "play[ing] a judicially activist but politically conservative role".[5] The Court sometimes invalidated state and federal legislation that inhibited business or otherwise limited the free market, including minimum wage laws, federal (but not state) child labor laws, regulations of banking, insurance and transportation industries.[5] The Lochner era ended when the Court's tendency to invalidate labor and market regulations came into direct conflict with Congress's regulatory efforts in the New Deal.

    The Lochner court struck down laws that would have lessened the impact of the 1929 stock market crash, and also struck down efforts to shorten the depression.

    FDR flat out said that if they didn't knock it off, he would appoint as many justices as needed to undo the damage.

    This current bill is maybe not the way to do it. Just add a few more seats (13 Total, to match the number of appeals circuits), and then maybe name the Federalist Society a hate group and ineligible for federal service in any capacity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 51 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    I dunno. A previous one actually caused the civil war by declaring the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Then there’s separate but equal. Then there’s the fact that the Court decided that the constitution gave it the power to rule in the constitutionality of laws even though it doesn’t say that. Then there’s saying that the second amendment applies to people rather than militias.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Wouldn't you know it, the Federalist Society implicitly supports all of those supreme courts. Their president Leonard Leo is behind half of the current supreme court appointments

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And that's to say nothing of Dred Scott or Korematsu.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Korematsu wa nan desu ka?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Korematsu is the name of the SCOTUS case that allowed for the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2.

    Since then it's widely been viewed as a terrible and deeply shameful decision and is taught in law schools as a textbook example of how SCOTUS power can go badly wrong, especially during times of war.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    I was with you until the last sentence. Nobody should complain about having rights. Support all rights for all Americans.

    Rights don't just grow on trees you know, they are hard as fuck to get.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago*

    Then there’s saying that the second amendment applies to people rather than militias.

    In order to protect a Collective Right the 2A had to protect an Individual Right. It literally couldn't function any other way. In the context of the 1A it would be as if there was a Right To Assembly (Collective Right) but no right to Free Speech (Individual Right). That interpretation isn't new either, it's present in nearly every SCOTUS case that involved the 2nd Amendment.

    I agree that SCOTUS has problems but their take on the 2A is well supported by previous decisions and historical documents.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago

    So... You think court opining on Dread-Scott was better?

    People seem to think they're supposed to somehow compensate for legislators doing exactly what they were elected to accomplish - to say "fuck you" to the other party, as evidenced by people saying they could never vote for anyone from that party no matter how corrupt the politicians from their own party (totally a New York and California thing at least)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent