1522

Senate Democrats introduce bill to implement term limits and biannual appointments to Supreme Court (www.washingtonexaminer.com)

submitted 10 months ago by Veedem@lemmy.world 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

[-] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 51 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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

[-] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 17 points 10 months ago

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

[-] cashews_best_nut@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Korematsu wa nan desu ka?

[-] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] cashews_best_nut@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Arigato

[-] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months 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.

[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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.

this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023

1522 points (98.5% liked)

politics

18586 readers

4356 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.
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.
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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News