all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 77 points 4 months ago (4 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    It’s interesting that these guys changed the law because they didn’t think it applied anymore. Not cause the law was wrong.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 4 months ago

    The social contract is broken. All bets are off.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Sounds like a recipe for Civil War 2

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago

    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

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago

    Kind of, it opened political gerrymandering to no limit so now just need to ban republican districts

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    Fall of a nation.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    There is no reason to be against the Voting Rights Act beyond racism. That's the only possible explanation.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago