480
submitted 2 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 109 points 2 months ago

The SC is hopelessly corrupt and should be dismantled.

[-] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 45 points 2 months ago

If memory serves, the French invented a huge apparatus for that, inspired by a bread slicer.

[-] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago

The best thing since sliced nobility

[-] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 months ago

Get yer fresh oafs right here! Gottem fresh! Pre-sliced & prêt-à-mànger! Gettim while they're hot!

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago

Annual reminder that the SCOTUS decided that the SCOTUS has the power of Constitutional review.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

I'd suggest elevating more federal court justices for a period, durich which time they decide as a group what to take up and then randomly assign 5 or 7 to a case. After their stint they can either return to federal court or retire.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

they should just require a randomly selected jury for any ruling and the justices only job should be deciding what to present to jurors

[-] shasta@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago

I'm not sure I'd like to trust a random jury to determine the interpretation of laws

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

I can guarantee a randomly selected jury would do a better job than the current court.

[-] shasta@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago

If we're comparing with the current SC everything is an improvement. But if we're going to change things, I would prefer a system that does not rely on easily manipulated, uneducated masses.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Yeah you'd have to buy a dozen RVs instead of just one.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I haven't heard of a lot of jury tampering trials go well. And usually isnt it more of a mafia style "nice family you got there, would be a shame if something happened to it" situation?

[-] bradinutah@thelemmy.club 34 points 2 months ago

Moscow Mitch has always given in to foreign pressure to help Weird 34. The Turtle's hypocrisy isn't much of a surprise. Shame on Kentucky voters that voted for McConnell and against America.

Garland would have been a better SCOTUS Justice than the Attorney General. If only we had someone better ready to move faster. But even if he had, wouldn't SCOTUS have still stopped him? Hard to know for sure.

We now know that Chief Justice Roberts is pro autocracy. His actions speak louder than his words. He thinks and has ruled that the President should have more power in the USA than the old kings of England had over their people and parliament. A king who is immune. Charles I got hung for thinking he had less power than what Roberts has granted Weird 34.

From the article: "There is a risk of authoritarianism down the line."

I disagree. A Dementia Don win is an inevitability that we'll have an autocrat in charge. Roberts may want to reflect on the monster he's created, especially if the autocrat gets his way and dismisses SCOTUS as easily as dismissing the Constitution.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

Yep by the time Roberts gets his "let Roberts enforce it" moment from trump the Republic will be in shambles.

If project 2025 gets in effect we will see civil war.

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

We will see civil war no matter what if the court doesn't change. It's basically what happened last time.

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

If project 2025 gets in effect we will see civil war.

project 2025 has been a thing since 1981 and all of our presidents and congress people have already enacted nearly 75% of it so far; people have been accepting it since then; also attacking leftists for pointing it out since; and there will be no civil war because of these facts.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 25 points 2 months ago
[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago

do strongly worded letters to the manager work in the supreme court?

[-] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

Depends how much money you put in the envelope

[-] slurpeesoforion@startrek.website 5 points 2 months ago

What's Clarence's rate again?

[-] WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Top of the line RV will do it.

[-] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Everytime I try to open the article the firefox tab crashes. what gives? I've been seeing this happen a lot recently

[-] Monstrosity@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago

I'm using FF & don't have that issue nor have I elsewhere.

Sometime extensions cause issues if you have any installed.

[-] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

updated my extensions and browser, now it works, oops!

[-] DougHolland@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

It's a sadness, but I also have occasional issues with Firefox. It's still the best browser by far, but its share is so small, more and more developers aren't testing their pages in Firefox any more.

Doesn't make no never mind to me. If a page doesn't work in Firefox, I can do without.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 months ago

Everytime

Not a word.

this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
480 points (99.6% liked)

politics

19248 readers
2296 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS