1076
Billionaires are hoarding trillions in untaxed wealth. They want the Supreme Court to keep it that way
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
1076 points (98.3% liked)
News
23361 readers
3231 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When has the US turned into a regime led by the supreme court? All my life, whenever something was up, you heard what the president did or tried to do or whatever. Nowadays, all headlines about the US are about something the Supreme Court with it's undemocratically elected judges gets to decide over all lawmaker's heads.
Congress being so bad at legislating has basically forced the Supreme Court to legislate. I obviously don't agree with decisions like ending Roe v. Wade, but abortion should never have been up to them in the first place. Those kinds of decisions should be up to congress to make clear laws.
We have a completely dysfunctional congress and its been only getting worse for decades. It's a symptom of a much larger illness in America. I remember decades ago some of my most conservative family members debating policy with some of my most progressive over coffee. Now the media has pitted them against each other so much, that they literally have their phone numbers blocked in fear that some of their ideology might slip into their bubble of an echo chamber.
Don’t worry, when Trump is reelcted, he’ll fix that glaring loophole and make himself supreme ruler.
A friend of mine used to call them 'our mullahs'. I used to laugh him off. Now, I'm not so sure.
I do the same thing.
The Supreme Court has been powerful for a long time.
Since the early 19th century.
https://www.history.com/news/supreme-court-power-john-marshall
Don't forget about the most powerful person in the world, the parliamentarian.
This has always been the case. 3 co branches of government. The fact that you hadn't heard it much is probably either a case of you paying more attention, or it getting more attention.
But yes, republicans have politicized the court, so it's even more divisive now.
The feeling I get is more that the famous checks and balances ceased to work and the supreme court is the branch getting the most power from this breakdown.
They wouldn't have so much power if the legislature was functional. The majority of their ruling could be undone by Congress passing a law saying "No, that is not what we meant. Ignore this stupid ruling that willfully misinterpreted our law."
Most of our government dysfunction comes back to Republicans refusing to compromise and weaponizing the filibuster to obstruct and prevent Congress from doing anything.
Not really because Congress can remove them from office if they get out of line. While I've certainly disagreed with many rulings, I can't find any that I think are really out of line or some gross abuse of power.
There are lots of them, especially in the last 10 years. A few more if you include Scalia's tenure. The most recent of them is the "major question doctrine". This idea, invented by the current court, allows the court to change any law whenever the court decides that they don't like the current law and they think it's important enough. There is no justification in the constitution or in prior case law for such a power to be granted to the court.
Any actual example?
They literally gave you one. Look it up, failure.
They didn't give an actual example, they mentioned a doctrine. Or is it that you don't know the difference between a case and a doctrine?
Bush v Gore? It's my understanding that the SCOTUS decided to take the case on their own without being asked, put a stay on the recount, then said there wasn't enough time to count because of they stay they put. They also said essentially that because counties in Florida didn't have a unified system for deciding how voting is done that they went against an equal protections law im forgetting the exact name of, completely ignoring that this is how it's done all over the country so if it's the case in Florida that it was incorrect then that means every single state has the same issue.
Didn't matter to them, they got to stop the recount just when Bush has the slightest lead.
I mean then there's citizens united... Corporations have the same rights as people??
Not accurate, Bush petitioned the courts to block the count, and they stayed the decision by the Florida supreme court. I disagree with the ruling, they should have counted all of the votes, but it was on sound legal ground, even if ultimately disagreeable.
It's long been interpreted that the COTUS is a restriction on the state not a granting of rights to the individuals. There was a great disagreement over including the BoR at all in the COTUS because some founder were afraid that explicitly listing out some of the rights would open the door to the assumption that non-enumerated rights weren't actually protected. They couldn't settle this in time which is why they were included as amendments and not in the original COTUS. The ruling stems from this idea, that the COTUS restricts the statement, it doesn't grant rights to the individual, so they can't restrict it when it comes to other private entities as well. Again, something I vehemently disagree with and should be amended, but it's not some ridiculous overreach, it's based on sound legal interpretations of the COTUS.
I appreciate the detailed response in spite of all the shitty responses people have been giving you!
You and I are the only ones who has responded to him so far. Did you see other replies that are no longer there now?
But SCOTUS can define entities (if existing law doesn't already do so, though SCOTUS can also strike down those laws if it wants to), and what it comes down to is if SCOTUS defines a corporation as a citizen, vs a business entity, a construct.
Then laws would be judged based on the entity they're being applied to.
For example, pets are considered property in the eyes of the law, so laws are applied to them as if they were property, and not citizens.
A construct should not be a citizen, legally or otherwise. It's not a restrictions issue, it's an entity identification issue.
We might be conflating two things here, or I just have no idea what you are talking about.
Using your pet example, if the pets were to start spending money on politics, the court might still rule that, like with corporations, it does not have the right to limit how much pets donate to political causes.
But this has never come up, so I can't see how you would argue that the court would not rule this way.
Well my understanding the conversation was about if SCOTUS could declare a corporation as a citizen/person or not.
If I understood you correctly, you were talking from the point of view that's SCOTUS doesn't restrict things, so it was valid for them to do so.
I'm speaking towards that it's not a restriction, it's a classification, which SCOTUS is allowed to do, so they could declare a corporation as not been a citizen/person.
I'm not even sure how you got to this. WRT to restrictions, I was talking about the COTUS (the Constitution of the US), not the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US). And, more importantly, I was saying it is a restriction on the government, not that it doesn't restrict things.
I got that opinion based on this comment from you...
From my reading of your comment I'm assuming "it" was COTUS and "they" was SCOTUS.
Rereading it, I guess I can see how it might have been confusing. But by restrict in that sense I was referring to the state restricting spending on speech.
Technically, as they were Voted into Office by Senators representing the interests Voters, they are democratically elected via Representative Democracy.
I guess if you change the definition of "democratically elected," then sure. Supreme Court Justice is an appointed position. It's literally the entire point of the distinction between the two (elected vs. appointed).
If you were to consider anyone appointed by an elected official as being "democratically elected," then that would mean that nobody is appointed. It would become a distinction without a difference.
So... are they appointed by the President without anyone having any say or is there a vote? If there is a vote by an elected body like the senate or congress, then they are democratically chosen.
Pretty creative, I guess. Unfortunately for you, words have meanings, and you are objectively wrong about what you believe those meanings to be. The term "political appointment" is a term that is already defined in US politics, and it refers to government positions that are obtained by appointment (usually, if not always, by someone who WAS elected). Period. Those people are not elected officials no matter what weird reasoning you might come up with. That is the entire point of the distinction between the two terms.
Congress doesn't pick or vote from a set of candidates.. Essentially they are just confirming appointments, just like the appointed cabinet members and most other appointed positions.
Not relevant. And they can pick from whomever the President puts forward. I know because I asked Merrick Garland and Neil Gorsuch.
Report by researchers from Princeton and Northwestern universities suggests that US political system serves special interest organisations, instead of voters
And that is relevant to my statement, how?