The chief justice doesn’t like his conservative Supreme Court colleagues getting called out for judicial overreach.
Well if the court didn’t engage in clearly partisan politics, maybe the liberal justices wouldn’t have anything to criticize.
Does he realize how bad it looks when he voices that his problem is criticism and not like, I don’t know, taking money from political interests? Or refusing to recuse in cases where there’s a relative directly involved?
It is really incredible how far down the drain the SCOTUS has gone in such a short period of time. Not saying it was great before Justice Kennedy retired either, but at least back then it was generally respected.
I hope RoyGBiv is rolling in her grave at refusing to step down and let Obama select a replacement when she knew the power of her position.
Unfortunately, she’s dead which means she will never even have the capacity to understand what her decision meant.
Why do you think they would’ve filled her spot when they didn’t fill the other one with Merrick Garland? She protected her spot or they would’ve held it up until Trump.
She could have retired at any time, including right after Obama was elected. The Republicans couldn’t have held the spot open for years. It would have become a major election issue.
I’d bet good money McConnell would have tried to find a way/reason to keep it open, look at all the rules making/breaking they did to fill/keep a seat empty close to elections, I’m sure they’d just come up with some other bullshit
I’m sure he would have tried, but we’re dealing with massive hypotheticals at this point. Under your argument, we should not have a justice at any point ever step down because McConnell would try to block a nomination. Yes, he would try. Doesn’t change the fact that the best move was for her to step down at the beginning of the term.
We should honestly be pushing for justices getting on in years and having health issues to step down at the beginning of presidential terms regardless.
On the other hand, it’s our job to pick the best president and we majorly blew it. I can easily imagine RBG thinking “if they are dumb enough to elect this chode, they deserve what they get”.
“Why won’t they just let us make wildly unpopular decisions that jeopardize the livelihoods of Americans without having to make us feel bad about it?!”
-Roberts, 2023
"Why can’t we be blatantly corrupt without getting called on it? "
Let me know when Roberts begs the others to stop taking massive gifts that look like bribes.
Tsk, they only look like bribes if you’re looking. You should stop doing that as well.
None of these people deserve their positions.
I don’t know, I like Sotomayor. And Brown-Jackson seems alright. And I really don’t have much opinion on Kagan aside from the fact that I usually agree with her rulings. As for Conservatives, I disagree with all of them almost always, but Gorsuch at least seems to care about consistency, and I think his views on Native affairs is admirable.
If it’s not clear, I mean all the conservatives that clearly were put there for nefarious reasons. And none of them deserves a life time position on the supreme court regardless, and by them here I mean everyone, not just conservatives.
Snowflake behavior
Holy crap this is endgame. The head of the judicial body is too concerned about the feelings of the body?
So, just logically. I have a personal commitment and value to something. And somebody gets mad at me about it. My values and commitment should be able to withstand that? Yes? As soon as someone has a different opinion it’s like “I can’t bear to hear a different opinion (clutches pearls) and I can’t stand to have my opinion critiqued”
For you and me and the lady in the checkout line (and I say that as a lady who is often in checkout lines), that’s great. But this is the head of the judicial body of one of the most powerful nations - most powerful democracies - on earth. These are opinions that shape the lives of 300 million people at least. And he’s gonna be there for another quarter of a century.
Like how many steps is Roberts from a kind of de facto chilling effect, and I’m not trying to be funny
Thank God for the generations who hear a public figure try to corral or control a situation and then begin to act in doing the exact opposite. Definitely need to remind the conservative justices that there are people out here
End rant (for now)
I don’t think he is anywhere near a chilling effect on the liberal justices.
They main problem we have with SCOTUS is that they don’t have to GAF what anybody says.
That is good if the person has principles, but has problems if they are grifting trash.
The thing he should be complaining about is the bribes - I’m sorry, speech - that the justices are taking. But since he gets 8 figures of speech by consulting gigs for his wife, there is no chance the Chief Grifter will tackle the real problem.
People should be silent while we destroy their future - Roberts, 2023
The supreme court even as a concept is one of the most asinine yet accepted institutions in the world. On par with the Catholic church, but so much worse because it actually has enormous and direct power over 330+ million people. I am dreaming and pining for the day that someone in power, most likely a president, just legitimately tells them to fuck off. They have no enforcement power and they fucking know it. I’m yearning for someone to have the courage, but it’s as clear as it possibly can be that it certainly won’t be a Democrat.
The thing is that the court only has so much power right now because Congress is so fucking broken. If Congress where in working order it could just legislate all the shit that the court is blocking the executive on.
Is there any sense when Congress went off the rails? Some folks I have listened to say it was around the 90s but there were obviously very contentious times before then.
The Congress has never consistently functioned well, I’m not entirely convinced it’s designed to. For the current mess, both in Congress and American politics in general, probably the most influential source is Newt Gingrich’s electioneering policy of attacking wedges and saying anything you have to to get headlines without regards to the truthfulness of your statements. That’s what reshaped the Republican party to be particularly welcoming to extremists, popularized science denial, and led to the modern wave of Christian Nationalism.
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/07/07/newt-gingrich-republican-party
Can you elaborate on the comparison to the church? You don’t like a panel having authority so you want to consolidate it to a president unilaterally ignoring the third branch? Would term limits on judges change how you see the court?
The Catholic church is an unjustifiable and ridiculous institution in the same way the supreme court is. The Catholic church also had a lot of control over the lives of many people for a very long time, although that influence has obviously waned in recent centuries and decades (although it’s clearly still not completely gone). Now, as far as the president having control, I will also say fuck the presidency, but it would always be my hope that a person in that position would do anything in their power as a president and a person to stand up to unjustifiable institutions like the supreme court. Obviously a president couldn’t abolish the supreme court single-handedly, nor do I think that would necessarily, inherently be a good thing, but I do think that a president could and should call out the obvious reasons for which the institution needs to be abolished, because it absolutely does. The fact that nine human beings can directly control the lives of millions and millions and millions of people is an absolute travesty. I don’t even feel dissimilarly about congress, but obviously it’s a bit better because they are actually elected. In general, though, I am a very strong proponent of direct democracy. Term limits are a starting point, but it would be akin to applying a bandaid to a gaping, oozing wound.
The thing is, I can see the logic behind why the Supreme Court is designed the way it is. If they don’t have to worry about reelection, they shouldn’t have a vested interest in making calls that make a specific voting group happy. In theory, this means they should be free to provide unbiased decisions that help society to better function.
The problem though is that there isn’t a way for the public to easily remove a justice that obviously is just trying to rule from the bench. This increases the chance of them abusing their position of power.
The current Supreme Court has made several decisions recently that are beyond a rational understanding of the law that only serve to the benefit of themselves and to their wealthy benefactors. The decisions are harming people with little genuine benefit for our collective society. As such, we should be able to remove them in such extenuating circumstances. But we can’t, and they are there for life. It is extremely frustrating.
Undoing decades of precedent to make political agenda-based rulings that will drastically change the lives of people in this country forever… That’s fine, just don’t criticize the court, or expect them to adhere to any ethical guidelines…
The fact that these republicans took nearly a million dollars in loan forgiveness for covid themselves then complain about helping kids out is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Roberts complains about his extreme right wing judges being singled out then takes away rights for LGBTQ people on a hypothetical not actual laws. The person never existed and was all thought up by the extreme right billionaire friends to put in front of the court.
Absolutely disgusting. So John roberts deserves all the criticism coming at him.Just accept your lot peasants and obey
How to destroy your legacy in 8 years.
The beauty of this fediverse thing is, that… if you don’t like it you can make your own instance and do the thing you want there instead. Bye.
You know, if you want to be a pain in the ass we can also kick you out of this place.
Is this really the content that we want for @news ?
There is an up/down vote button for you to express that POV on the post itself. I get what you’re attempting to do, but as someone mentioned, this isn’t Reddit you have open the ability to create your own @news. Hell, I encourage you to. A nonhomogeneous mix is actually healthier in the long run. And, at least for my part, now you have the answer to why someone down voted you.
Also, no one likes the explicitly @-ing folks who down voted you. Yes, you can see who down votes you but I feel, you should perhaps use the saying of “with great power comes great responsibility.” Maybe ask “openly” why you’re being down voted. @-ing the folks, and remember this is solely my subjective opinion, that’s not cool.
Also, no one owes you an explanation of jack crap. And that applies “in general.” Yes, it’s better when someone explains their position to you and what not. But no one OWES you an explanation. I think that’s what rubs me with the @-ing folks wrong here. None of those people HAVE TO explain themselves, it’d be great if they did, but you are not owed it and that is a very important distinction.
There is an up/down vote button for you to express that POV on the post itself.
NO.
There is a reason why we have different magazines with different names. Got to @USpolitics or @politicus. How many more political subs do you need? When we register for @news it’s not to get yet another american political shenanigans. You really think that someone from Italy registered to @news to hear about what your governor or potus or whatever wizard said to his king? Use your magazines! What is wrong with you? We are not your audience.
Let’s invite some people from lemmy.ml and see if you agree to follow their votes. They have news too, do you want to hear from them? Of course not! So change your tone.
Also, no one owes you an explanation of jack crap. And that applies “in general.”
I don’t care, I will keep callout you out on your bullshit. block me if you want. After all, you said yourself that there is an upvote/downvote button, well there is also a block button, please use it, but I will keep calling you out anyway. Post your political soap opera to your political magazine, end of the story.
@news describes itself as
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
America is in the world. As is Africa, Asia, South America, etc. Perhaps you should talk to the mods of @news and see if they won’t change their rules for submissions. Maybe you want it limited to big, important, European, and most critically non-American news? The front page of that magazine currently has the earthshaking news that Italy is offering the Colosseum for Elon and Mark to duke it out in. And that Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen is fighting with Meta. And that a well known Oscar winner has died. Would none of those articles have been submitted before the Reddit migration?
SCOTUS is not held to any ethical standards and have appointments that last for life. The conservative court has gone off the rails on their latest rulings, arguably making discrimination legal, even on protected groups. This upends decades of protections for vulnerable groups that were targeted by fascist groups.
While Roberts is whining about criticism on what his court has done, the main topic of criticism is newsworthy in that it has real consequences.
The same groups that lean toward authoritarianism, also lean toward Putin being allowed to take Ukraine. This fight spills over to the rest of the world.We do not care!
This is not news material. Keep it for USPolitics, or Politicus, or nonpartisan, or whatever political magazine is fit for. This is not newsworthy.
I’m thinking you should probably stop speaking on behalf of everyone. I am not American but I do care that millions of Americans are losing their rights. I care that US businesses got over a trillion in PPP loan forgiveness but that the same can’t be extended to 40 million individuals and their student loans for education they are almost forced to have if they want a shot at making more than minimum wage and even then, it’s not a guarantee.
I’m not a refugee but I care that the Greek government effectively let hundreds die rather than assist them.
I’m not French but I am interested in the riots happening there.
I’m not Russian, Ukrainian, or even European but I want to know what is happening with the occupation of Ukraine, the coup attempt, and what other countries are doing to ensure the Russia doesn’t violate NATO and the repercussions if they do.
Why do you believe you get to narrow the scope of what is news on behalf of everyone else?
I’m thinking you should probably stop speaking on behalf of everyone. I am not American but I do care that millions of Americans are losing their rights. I care that US businesses got over a trillion in PPP loan forgiveness but that the same can’t be extended to 40 million individuals and their student loans for education they are almost forced to have if they want a shot at making more than minimum wage and even then, it’s not a guarantee.
Stop importing US problems in your own country. Nothing meaningful happens in your country? You still have to indulge into america politics even with the @news magazine? What is so hard with posting US political news in one of the US political magazines? Tell me!
Have a look at the frontpage of @news, we are at around 50% of american news and most of it is political.
I’m not a refugee but I care that the Greek government effectively let hundreds die rather than assist them.
I’m not French but I am interested in the riots happening there.
I’m not Russian, Ukrainian, or even European but I want to know what is happening with the occupation of Ukraine, the coup attempt, and what other countries are doing to ensure the Russia doesn’t violate NATO and the repercussions if they do.
We can fill the frontpage of news with french political news, should we? Of course not.
At least post it in @politics. So far absolutely no one could argue why political news weren’t posted to @political instead.
Again, why do you believe you get to narrow the scope of what news is to everyone else? You are welcome to create your own magazines that talk about exactly what you want and block the ones that aren’t what you want to engage with.
And this magazine is @news.
Why don’t YOU take your content and publish it into the magazine that was designed for it in the first place?
I will tell you: popularity! You don’t want to read USpolitics because it’s not popular, you want the buzz
Also, if you were a little bit coherent with what you said, you would agree with me. You said:
I’m not a refugee but I care that the Greek government effectively let hundreds die rather than assist them.
I’m not French but I am interested in the riots happening there.
I’m not Russian, Ukrainian, or even European but I want to know what is happening with the occupation of Ukraine, the coup attempt, and what other countries are doing to ensure the Russia doesn’t violate NATO and the repercussions if they do.
So you pretend to care about what happens outside of the USA, but look at the results on news:
Zelensky, 5 upvotes
Uruguay, 3 upvotes
Sweden, 3 upvotes
Cambodia, 2 upvotes.
Israel 7
China 8
Australia 5
Germany 8
Scotland 7
uk 9
Colombia 5
meanwhile, prostitution in Maine 80
supreme court total around 500
See? This is american redditors pushing their political content in the news feed and pushing the content you wanted to see down the frontpage. What do you think of this?
If you haven’t noticed yet, your opinion is the one in the minority here.
You really should care, though. What affects the value of the USD affects the global market, including the value of whatever currency you use. You should be hoping the US does not suffer an economic collapse due to a rise in fascist conservatism.
And the news about Ukraine, France, Sweden, Uruguay, Cambodia, Australia are in the single digits. So kbin is turning into reddit. In less than 3 weeks we are back at square one. And this is without the influx of the people who will be pushed away from reddit on July.
It was cool while it lasted.
Hmmm. I wonder why there are more posts about US news than Cambodian news. Why is that? Do you think it could be a conspiracy by thousands of users to flood the Fediverse with US news pieces to try to drown out all of the Cambodian news everyone would prefer to hear?
Or maybe the content you see is whatever is on people’s minds, so they post it. Maybe you can post some Cambodian news instead of complaining about the lack of it. I’m interested in Cambodian news too, so please feel free to post all that sweet, sweet Cambodian news you are so upset about not seeing.
I wonder also if it might be because we are all reading news and conversing in English right now. Not very many of us can read Khmer.
you can use https://ground.news to find foreign news in english so you can share them easily. Sorted by quality and political orientation.
https://ground.news/article/3e3c078d-de55-4f8b-9731-8e6ed80cc1fd
Cambodia ruling party victory a sure bet as campaigning begins for general election
which gives another point of view leaning right, from Australia.
Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen has launched his ruling party’s campaign for re-election in a poll that has been criticised as a sham after the main opposition party was prevented from running.
But of course if you all want to share what brand of cereals Donald Trump had for breakfast then please be my guest and post it as NEWS. But the best place to do it is reddit.
I looked up https://ground.news on your suggestion and immediately signed up. This is the site that I have wanted to find for years. Thanks
You said this back on July 2, how is it months later?
Hmmm. I wonder why there are more posts about US news than Cambodian news. Why is that? Do you think it could be a conspiracy by thousands of users to flood the Fediverse with US news pieces to try to drown out all of the Cambodian news everyone would prefer to hear?
I’m talking about the votes, not the number of posts. If you tuned down your ragemeter you would have figured it out by yourself.
Or maybe the content you see is whatever is on people’s minds, so they post it. Maybe you can post some Cambodian news instead of complaining about the lack of it. I’m interested in Cambodian news too, so please feel free to post all that sweet, sweet Cambodian news you are so upset about not seeing.
Now who’s arrogant? I’m glad that we’ve established this point. Thanks for answering btw.
Then quit whining and post the kind of content you want to see.
You quit whining and you go back to reddit.
You are the one whining here.
I based all my arguments on facts. All I got was people with feelings brushed in the wrong way. You going emotional is very telling of the situation. Seems like when someone is talking to you you take it as a feeling based action. Sometimes it’s just conversation.
Why come to a place where the posts are voted upon by the users if you’re just going to complain about people voting on the “wrong” things?
Why? Because they don’t respect the tool, which splits the posts by theme and interests. For example USPolitics and news. I say this is not news worthy.
And why do YOU complain about someone discussing the tool with other users? Do something else, go outside, stop complaining about it, no one is forcing you.
But you understand all of it, don’t you? You know exactly what I’m talking about.
To the three of you who downvoted me without a word of explanation: we can see who downvotes who on kbin.
So I ask you, why did you downvote me and why do you think that this guy talking to his fellow politicians is news worthy? We are not on an american website anymore, the rest of the world doesn’t care about the american constant struggle and crying about politicians saying stuff.
Woooo internet tough guy here. Be careful everyone – hes gonna call you out! o7 keyboard warrior, o7.
If you want to do the same thing you did on reddit then why did you leave reddit?
You’ve been here a whole 19 days, at least on this account. People likely assume you came from reddit as well.
Don’t forget me too! 🤣
ok then. Answer my question.
You asked why you were downvoted. It’s because of your arrogant attitude and trolling. But, I’ll sometimes have some pity and feed the troll.
You asked why anyone outside the US should care what happens in the US. The answer is very simple. If the US experiences a collapse of some kind (which it might), it will have a profoundly negative effect on the value of currencies worldwide, including the EUR and GBP. So, no matter how much you hate it, the value of your currency is affected by the value of ours.
That’s just one reason why you should care about the rise of conservatism and how it harms the U.S.
You asked why you were downvoted. It’s because of your arrogant attitude and trolling.
You are the troll here, so change your tone: “Don’t forget me too! 🤣”
You asked why anyone outside the US should care what happens in the US.
No, you read it wrong. I specifically talked about the nature of the post which was political. We already have magazines for politics, specially the US one, but the nature of the problem is politics seen as news. The US politics is and endless shitshow which doesn’t qualify as news anymore. Breaking news! Trump called AOC FAT!
The answer is very simple. If the US experiences a collapse of some kind (which it might), it will have a profoundly negative effect on the value of currencies worldwide, including the EUR and GBP. So, no matter how much you hate it, the value of your currency is affected by the value of ours.
That must be the most ridiculous argument I’ve read so far. Look at this news that I just picked from the news magazine:
The Supreme Court will decide if abusive spouses have a right to own guns (vox.com)
GirlpartsThe world is shaking! Suspense! Good thing that I’ve been informed about this one.
That’s just one reason why you should care about the rise of conservatism and how it harms the U.S.
Keep it for @USpolitics
I’m downvoting you because you’re being incredibly immature right now. People can disagree with you
Saying “how dare you downvote me, I can SEE IT!” and calling them out makes you look like a giant child. You need to take some time to consider your own response and whether or not that’s something WE want on the fediverse. You can just as easily be blocked too, you know.Downvoting and running away was a reddit thing, now you are accountable for your downvotes.
I have the maturity to ask for answer when people react to what I say. My question about sorting posts out of @news and moving them to @USpolitics is perfectly legitimate. I’m glad that some people took the time to answer so we can have a discussion, but so far among the handful of people who had the courage to put up a written argument I’ve read nothing convincing me that this post has its place in @news rather than in politics.
If all you want is a copy of reddit then please go back to reddit.You will have a barrage of US political news all day long.
You need to take some time to consider your own response and whether or not that’s something WE want on the fediverse. You can just as easily be blocked too, you know.
Block me, be my guest, at least you won’t be able to downvote me on sight anymore.
Many of us won’t block you. We will just see you and feel sad for you.
Doing things like calling out someone’s post history or making a whiney edit about the people downvoting you are also reddit things. And that’s the kind of behaviour you’re exhibiting right here. You’re being close minded and demanding that other people cater to your needs. Just like Americans shouldn’t only concern themselves with their news, you too shouldn’t only close yourself off and only care about your news. And if you don’t like it, unsubscribe yourself.
Go touch some grass dude.
Doing things like calling out someone’s post history or making a whiney edit about the people downvoting you are also reddit things. And that’s the kind of behaviour you’re exhibiting right here. You’re being close minded and demanding that other people cater to your needs.
I’m not whining, I’m calling people out on their bullshit votes. @news is turning into political trash and you don’t seem to care.
Just like Americans shouldn’t only concern themselves with their news, you too shouldn’t only close yourself off and only care about your news. And if you don’t like it, unsubscribe yourself.
I’m not closed, I already posted about foreign countries. And if you are not happy with people calling you out on your bullshit then go back to reddit where you can downvote incognito.
You can turn this place to shit if you want to but I won’t remain quiet about it, dude…
I’m calling people out on their bullshit votes.
Okay, I’ve been staying out of this but now I just have to: what kind of extraordinary qualifications do you have to unilaterally decide which votes are valid and which are not? Is it as simple as any vote that disagrees with you is automatically “bullshit”?
Have you considered that people are just downvoting you and moving on because they feel that the flaws in your arguments are apparent enough that they can just click the down arrow without having to type a whole essay about it?
And really, why should anyone have to type out a whole response to justify clicking downvote? What makes your opinions so astronomically important that they deserve everyone’s full intellectual energy or none at all?
Okay, I’ve been staying out of this but now I just have to:
What an entry!
what kind of extraordinary qualifications do you have to unilaterally decide which votes are valid and which are not? Is it as simple as any vote that disagrees with you is automatically “bullshit”?
I’m talking about very factual points: the usage of the tool that we are building now. Many of us have migrated because of the flaws of other media platforms.
Your position about “downvote” is like expression a feeling. For other people like me it’s very factual. That’s part of what I wanted to establish. It emotions vs facts all over again. The reaction I had were mostly based on feeling. Just like the content I’m seeing spammed here. Ragebait.
Have you considered that people are just downvoting you and moving on because they feel that the flaws in your arguments are apparent enough that they can just click the down arrow without having to type a whole essay about it?
And I gave them an opportunity to answer with arguments. That was the point. If they have such a big reason to downvote then let’s go and say why. And the result is poof… there was not much except feelings. This magazine is turning into a collection of ragebait. And now one of the default magazine of the alternative to reddit has fallen into the same trap that reddit laid to us: ragebait content. I wouldn’t care if is was posted into USPolitics or politicus, but news, what, the whole planet???
I expected much better from the first wave of people who left reddit. In the end they just want more of the same ragebait.
And I know exactly what you are all going to say. “then go away if you don’t like it”. Yes, I don’t like it, that’s why I left reddit. I couldn’t care less about your political shitshow non-stop circus which leaked thorough all the subs. You think people care about your senators killing a dog with their car? The people posting other news are now thrown down the frontpage so we can make more space for the latest Trumpstunt. And now you are getting out of the wood because you had too much! What a superhero you are.
Reddit has a solution to this. In addition to r/news there is r/worldnews, which prohibits US internal news/US politics. Something similar would be a good solution here too. Also, frankly, you have failed to explain how the article you’re complaining about is politics rather than news. In the U.S. justices and judges are not politicians. Maybe they are where you live?
The destruction of queer rights in the US will harm me regardless of me ever setting foot in the country.
Don’t be ridiculous.
I don’t think they’re being ridiculous to say that US politics has an impact outside of the US. To quote a former Canadian Prime Minister:
“Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.”
why do you think that this guy talking to his fellow politicians is news worthy?
I’m one one of the downvoters, so I’ll try giving you an answer. As an American, it’s newsworthy to me when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is publicly calling out the other justices for behavior he deems unbecoming a justice. I had not realized that @news was specifically for European news? And I think perhaps YOU had not realized that in America, the supreme court is theoretically above politics. A justice is not a politician. Again, in theory. Lately our supreme court has been behaving very much like bought-and-paid-for politicians, and that should be concerning to all Americans.
I had not realized that @news was specifically for European news?
There is a whole world out there. Right now @new is around 50% US. How is it a good thing? Look at this from a non US perspective. You open your news feed and nearly half of it is about US politicians doing the political dance.
If you have political news to post, please post them at least in a political magazine, not in news.
Lately our supreme court has been behaving very much like bought-and-paid-for politicians, and that should be concerning to all Americans.
This is not news, everyone around the planet know that your politicians are sold to the richest people. Again, keep it into political magazines, or we will be flooded.
Do you really want US politics to flood each sub like what happened on reddit?
TIL the US isn’t part of the world.
I am sympathetic to Kagan’s argument on standing and similarly I understand why Roberts is trying to lower the pressure. In any case this seems to come back to Congress no longer passing legislation and instead relying on executive powers for all political requirements. Not really seeing a solution until primary rules change. Centrists are left unserved presently.
Centrists can go suck a fat one. The primary reason we’re in this fascistic mess globally is the centrists’ aversion to being inconvenienced for the rights of their fellow people and for the future of the planet.
That’s what creates dictatorships, that’s what starts world wars, in summary, that’s what enables fascists.
Can you give me an example? Some purple states have protected reproductive health in response to the court overturning Roe. My perception is that the primary races are selecting increasingly polarizing candidates who’s goal is just notoriety/fundraising over governing. MTG is a prime demonstration of this effect.
I said global. This is a human phenomenon, not specific to US politics.
Think of it like a “greed is the root of all evil” kinda statement.
Thank you for your reply. What I am trying to articulate is that I see the trend toward extreme candidates cascading through many government systems. The origin being at the legislature in America’s circumstance. The legislature holds nominations of judges in it’s hands now which is why we are seeing the buck stop at the court. Congress gets to bemoan the fact that the court is responsible because they aren’t offering any practicable solutions. Please note, I am not saying the court is without fault. There are certainly ethics rules issues at play and the court composition as it is now is due to the faults of congress in how the nomination process works.
My thought is that if primaries worked differently legislative candidates would run more moderate campaigns and we would see less brinkmanship at the court. Roberts I think is correctly concerned about the perception of the court and is genuinely worried about the last branch of US government losing the respect of the populace. With the decision on Roe v Wade, I think he should be.
similarly I understand why Roberts is trying to lower the pressure
Allow me to cite a passage from Kagan on WV v. EPA.
It seems I was wrong. The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the “major questions doctrine” magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.
In short, “weak ass arguments receive rebuttal for being weak ass arguments.” The Court is fine to actually start issuing judgement that follows in step with the history of the court. But then you have something like Dobbs and the majority opinion.
The doctrine of stare decisis does not counsel continued acceptance of Roe and Casey. Stare decisis plays an important role and
protects the interests of those who have taken action in reliance on a past decision.So after indicating that people might plan their lives on court decisions, the majority then begins to explain why “none of that matters” without actually explaining why none of it matters outside of “because unborn babies are important” WITHOUT explaining the “why” of that statement. That’s the point of the court to establish the “why” of an argument. It might be plainly obvious to the Justices the why unborn babies are important, it’s their job to then hit the letters on the keyboard to spell that out. That’s the justice system, you spell it out in insanely ornate detail. That’s literally what all lawyers love to do, unload heaps of words onto people. When they do not do that, well then that’s how you know they are full of shit.
So no, I dissent here. The Justices must do better and not simply provide weak-ass arguments with nothing but circles for the explanation. The more expansive reading justices are rightly apt to apply heat to bullshit. A weak ass court is only made stronger when it’s weak ass arguments and opinions are called out for everyone to read.
That said.
In any case this seems to come back to Congress no longer passing legislation and instead relying on executive powers for all political requirements
That’s broad powers. That’s how that works. We do not list explicitly every single animal that needs to be on the endangered species list. We do not list in law every single road that will be paved with public works money. We do not itemize in law every single uniform that we will purchase for every member of the military. At some point we just say in law “protect animals that might go extinct”, “fix our highways”, and “protect our armed forces” and let the Executive dictate how best to achieve those goals. And when the Executive fails on that in a particular way, well they’re Congress, they can pass a law that gets more specific.
But even then, when specificity is given, the only thing I hear is “OH NO THIS LAW IS A 1000 PAGES LONG! I CAN NOT READ THIS!” Yeah, who knew complex societies were, IDK, complex?! The Executive powers are JUST THAT, the part of the Government that gets shit done. Congress indicates their broad wishes and the Executive deals out the finer details. How pray tell, is that thinking NOT centrist? How are you left unserved by your supposed current model of governance? Yes, you might be unserved because the political party system is fucked but that is distinctly NOT a function of the balance of power between branches as outlined in our form of government.
Thank you for your reply.
In short, “weak ass arguments receive rebuttal for being weak ass arguments.” The Court is fine to actually start issuing judgement that follows in step with the history of the court. But then you have something like Dobbs and the majority opinion.
I completely agree. I think that I gave the impression that everyone needs to sing kumbaya and that is not what I meant to convey. Roberts I think is trying to respond to the increased scrutiny and while I disagree with his approach, I understand his reasoning/goals. The court is in the spotlight way more than it has been and he sees that I suspect correctly as unhealthy for the institution. To the question of if it should be, I think the obvious answer is yes, in light of recent actions there should be more scrutiny. There should be zero concern that there is influence peddling or neglecting precedent because of ideological lean of the justices.
At some point we just say in law “protect animals that might go extinct”, “fix our highways”, and “protect our armed forces” and let the Executive dictate how best to achieve those goals.
Yes, but with respect to reproductive health rights, that should have been legislated as an amendment long before the court was packed by the Trump administration. Congress is at fault for not enshrining those rights, especially given the long history of speculation regarding the “Legitimacy/Cleanliness” (eye roll I know) of the Roe decision. Instead numerous congresses preferred have campaigned on the very actual threat that those protections under Roe would be taken away and now here we are. I could see your point that there is benefit to a federal vagueness because on occasion because it allows the states to experiment but I think there are some decisions we just need to put to bed and move forward.
How are you left unserved by your supposed current model of governance? Yes, you might be unserved because the political party system is fucked but that is distinctly NOT a function of the balance of power between branches as outlined in our form of government.
If I use this gallup poll data from 5/2/22
Should abortion be legal-
Legal under any circumstance 35%
-
Legal under certain circumstances 50%
-
Illegal under any circumstance 13%
If that is where the general public is, why can’t congress pass laws? In, this sense I am unserved because every 4 years we are going to roll the dice on how federal laws will be executed. To have something lasting we need amendments and bills speaking to these issues with more specificity. I am arguing that the court while absolutely a problem is a symptom of the larger sickness that is our legislature.
Again I thank you for your reply and any further contribution the discussion. It is nice to talk through the ideas.
-
Hey look up in the sky! It’s Captain Hindsight!
