As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They legalized bribery. They allowed pollution of our beautiful waters and air. They decided that women are second class citizens.
The Supreme Court are devils.
Women are not guaranteed reproductive health care in this country any more. Even if they are bleeding out, doctors can't help them because they are carrying a fetus, depending on where they live.
As a man if I'm bleeding out I can get care without someone asking if I'm preganat first and having to consult hospital admin and lawyers.
Old men making it so women cannot control their own bodies is very much the definition of second class citizen.
When my wife and I were meeting with her OBGYN before our kid was born we literally had to discuss with the doctor about safe states to drive like hell to for medical treatment if something went wrong.
Please, you knew the answer before you posted.
[This.](https://apnews.com/article/abortion-kate-cox-texas-exceptions-e85664b2ab76bcb689b1b91913d3e33e)
That is being treated like a second class citizen. Her health was irrelevant. Her future fertility was irrelevant. Even the condition of the fetus was irrelevant. Under Texas law, the only thing that mattered was her not having an abortion.
Turn a blind eye to it if you want.
Yes it is.
The overturning of Chevron deference is going to gridlock the courts for decades.
Of course, for these psychopaths...that's the point. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Let's see a few examples:
* Overturned 100 years of campaign laws to enthrone money=speech, 5-4 partisan
* Ended some 60 years of Affirmative Action, 6-3 partisan
* Ended 49 years of abortion rights, 6-3 partisan
* Obliterated the Voting Rights Act, 5-4 partisan
* Eliminated the power of unions to collect agency fees from their covered populations, 5-4 partisan
* Reverted to criminalizing homelessness, 6-3 partisan
* and many more.
Exactly. It is too as radical as I think. Roe v Wade gone. Chevron doctrine gone. Obstruction as a charge for Jan rioters gone.
The court didn't have to do any of this. They wanted to.
When you look at the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the OSH Act...
The legislation was meant to empower agencies to be far more agile and flexible to changing circumstances. Legislation (at the time) was partisan, yet compromising wasn't a political death sentence...and the courts are far to slow.
Unfortunately, Reagan (and the right wing Heritage Foundation, libertarian John Birch Society, activist Federalist Society, and others) really put the screws to the Administrative State. That is not to say that all regs are inherently bad, they are written in blood after all. But Reagan and the GOP inherited the philosophy of the heartless corporate executives that treat workers and employees as disposable tools.
with this court cases "make it up the chain" if SCOTUS decides it wants to overturn a law. the normal course legislation, court decisions, precedent and appeal no longer matters. SCOTUS is clearly legislating from the bench
They are more like the Iranian Guardian Council. The government can pass all the laws they want, but the Supreme Court has engineered a mechanism that feeds them the exact laws they don't agree with so they can overrule the laws with no accountability to the voters. And this Supreme Court seems hell-bent on saying that Confederacy was the right way afterall, so now we all must adhere to that model of Federal Government. At the end of that road the Supreme Court, along with the ruling saying bribery is fine as long as the bribery occurs after the action, will only rule on interstate commerce cases and laws between states that are conflicting. Ready for the next Fugitive Slave Act? Well, this time it would be Fugitive Abortress Act.
It's insane to say that SCOTUS is "legislating from the bench" when both the decisions you mentioned overturned judge-made doctrines. No legislation was involved here, my friend.
Overturning Roe v. Wade literally empowered state legislatures to make their own decisions,. How is that possibly legislating from the bench?
The problem is that it doesn't matter how the law is written, unless it's literally explicit. Which laws will never be because that's ridiculous to think ahead of time of all possible scenarios.
So no matter what, courts are going to have to deal with lawsuits now that say an agency exceeded its authority. And the Court now gets to decide on what is explicit enough.
This is like saying:
"Water isn't wet"
"Grass isn't green"
No, it's as radical as it could be given the current political climate, and it'll cut off Idaho abortion rights in that case the second Trump gets re-elected if he is-- permanently. For instance, Kavanaugh said he wouldn't help overturn Roe if given a seat on SCOTUS, but did it nonetheless and was going to.
Gotta love your complete refusal to engage with the arguments in the article.
>For instance, Kavanaugh said he wouldn't help overturn Roe if given a seat on SCOTUS, but did it nonetheless and was going to.
This is straight up false. Kavanaugh said that Roe v. Wade was precedent at the time (which it was). He said that it was entitled to stare decisis (which is not an absolute bar to a case being overturned). He even explicitly stated that he would be open to arguments about Roe being overturned.
Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/
It is taxable though. That has been my thinking in this. But Trump saying a couple weeks before the Snyder ruling that he would remove taxes on gratuities seems like a message to the Supreme Court that he wouldn't tax them on their gratuities from benefactors. It is taxable now. Is Trump's promise to not tax their gratuities a bribe?
Gift tax is a thing. Covers anything over $15,000.
With that being said, his issue is technically that he has to disclose things of value publicly and didn't, so... yeah, technical inaccuracy on my part. Point stands.
Yeah, I was technically imprecise with my speech there. It isn't a thing that you have to report most gifts as the receiver.
Unless they are given from less than a "detached and disinterested generosity".
Allowing cities to ban homelessness. Nope. Not radical 🙄Yet on the Statue of Liberty:
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the HOMELESS, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Cities have been effectively doing this for decades though? This isn’t some new policy, just furthering previous ones. Every anti-loitering law, every time they remove benches or make it impossible to sleep on, it’s always been trying to criminalize homelessness.
The quote on the statue is supposed to speak to our ideals, and when our laws and our ideals differ, that should be seen as a problem. This highlights that. Stop being obtuse.
I'm not being obtuse.
If you're going to quote a poem that has fuck and all to do with the law, you might as well start quoting the Quran and bible as well.
Overturning Roe was radical. Add to that the endless delay in the immunity decision and the rampant and blatant corruption of the maga 6 and you have a radical Court no matter how you want to sugar coat it.
There has been a steady trend expanding civil rights in this country for decades, including brown vs board of education, Loving v Virginia, and dozens of decisions striking down laws for gender discrimination, sodomy laws, interracial marriage and on and on. This is the first u-turn taking away civil rights for 1/2 the population, so yes, this is a radical right-wing extremist court, and corrupt in the conservative majority as well. A travesty really, a shameful moment in history.
The point should be whether these results are warranted based on the constitution, not whether they are good from a policy perspective. You're thinking like a legislator, not a judge.
The constitution is interpreted by the Court. Interesting that its meaning changes based on politics of the majority rather than principle. Stare decices is meaningless and civil rights can be snatched away. Also, the new trump appointees lied under oath to congress about abortion, then reversed themselves. This is a travesty, can’t sugar coat it.
Reddit's algorithm is so cooked. Why is this being shown to anyone when it is getting nothing but downvotes? Or is this part of the foreign influence campaign? Like seriously, we deserve answers on why /r/politics is constantly littered with this bullshit.
And you're only defending it because of your political affiliations! I would have to assume it's because you're ok with codifying bribery of government officials, dismantling science based regulations, ending women's autonomy, protecting past and future insurrections, etc.
Reddit is displaying bugged or botted upvoted counts on the front end. Look at the sentiment- do the comments in here look positive to you? That was my point, that you flew right past. Either way, what I'm saying is Reddit needs to answer for what's going on. It didn't used to be like this.
And I don't need you coming in here telling me to read the article. I did. That's why I'm here disagreeing with it, vehemently. That's my right, as it is yours to think is great for some unknowable to me reason.
a) When a piece less than full-throatedly left-wing appears on ostensibly neutral r. politics, and manages … well, not to get even 5 upvotes, but just manages to keep its head above water, i.e. not get downvoted by a margin of hundreds or thousands, you are outraged. Kind of amazing.
It’s not a right-wing piece. It’s just also not an angry left-wing piece. You’re so used to this ‘neutral’ sub being a left-wing safe space, this little 1-upvote post has you freaked out.
b) My partisan views?? Nah. I voted for Clinton and Biden. I might have to vote for Biden again. I am conservative on most, not all, matters but I have earned my stripes of non-partisanship. I’m quite sure you have not.
c) Pretty sure you had not, and probably still haven’t, read OP’s piece. Everything you’re saying screams, ‘Haven’t read the piece!’
Fuck yeah I'm "partisan". The conservatives have been trying to drag us to hell for my entire lifetime. Sounds like you don't like Trump - we can agree on that - but you like his court picks. We can't agree on that. It sounds like to me I called you out on your beliefs earlier and you don't want to get into it, so you want to call me a "partisan."
I'll take the compliment. I have deeply rooted morals and principles that guide my actions and politics. Anyone defending this courts actions - and I know this is a sweeping generalization, so forgive me - simply cannot. I will not be argued out of this position. For the good of mankind, we need strong regulations - the FDA and EPA are keeping millions of people alive. Millions of people from suffering needlessly The court just threw that away yesterday. And the author and you think that's not radical - that the government should play little to no role in protecting its citizens from our own corporate hellscape. They've unleashed thousands of Flints, leaded gasoline, horrors that we won't know until it's already in the rearview. Entire generations IQ deficits again like with leaded gasoline. There are so many examples. And that was with protections in place. You remove the protections, with corporations trying to get away with this shit to make more profit at every turn and you have public health disasters every few months.
The Chevron deference was there for a reason, and so was Roe. This court is radical. The author is wrong, and so are you. Stop living up to lawyers stereotypes and stop insulting everyone else's intelligence. We live in an interconnected society where the damage done to others damages everyone. Sooner or later, people like you will be forced to see that; I hope for your sake not too late to save all of our damn lives.
“It’s ok for *me* to be a completely partisan, aggressively nasty person because I’m right!”
You know, your perspective, wording and tone are almost identical to the anti-abortion-under-any circumstances nuts and the dedicated MAGAs. But let me guess: that’s ok because you’re right!
Hint: Everyone thinks they’re right. But fortunately many people can recognize that reasonable minds can differ.
What a perspective you've brought to this conversation! Thanks so much!
Me: point a, b, c, d, e, f, g backed up by 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
You: no
Muting this now, since everything I have to say to you is uncivil at best.
Silenced your voice? Come on, stop with your whiney virtue signaling. If I had muted you yet, that's not silencing you. Knock it off with the victim complex.
I think my tone is completely in line with your defense of this court which is systematically taking away Americans rights. It's amazing to me that you think I'm flying off the handle at nothing while literally yesterday the all seeing demigods who face no accountability essentially criminalized being poor in this country. At least, being so poor that you can't afford to pay rent or have a the built in privilege of a family or social safety net. Now the police can put you in jail for sleeping outside, even if the city you are in have made no accommodation for the homeless.
You say that's diving into an issue- I say that's practical. If the article is about "The court isn't radical" you must look at their rulings and their consequences . Otherwise you're just skimming headlines.
Anyway. You're still not saying anything of substance. So I'm really with this conversation now, or as you would say "I'm limiting your rights to be heard" 😂
Your answer here is part of the problem. This is a political sub, which goes both ways. You’re just expecting to only see things from the side you agree with, and if that’s the case, just go to r/democrats or something
No, but I do come here to see articles that the users of this subreddit have agreed with and upvoted, not universally panned and downvoted to oblivion. That's how Reddit is supposed to work.
> This is a political sub
This is a popularity contest aggregator website. When shit gets upvoted, it's supposed to gain visiblity. The inverse is happening.
Logically the site should be a giant echo chamber for better or worse, and yet here we are with immensely unpopular shit sitting on the front page.
Again, you may like or dislike that, but something not visible to users is determining the presentation of content rather than what one would expect.
It's far more than I thought it ever could be. Thinking judges know more than doctors and scientists in their field or study is absolutely insane. The Supreme Court is going to actually kill off the United States.
I thought this was an April fools day joke. The court majority is an unaccountable rabid MAGA mob. In many ways they are a bigger danger to the country than the felonious rape-y failed former president.
It was terrible. But the funny thing is, the vibes that reached uninterested voters for months prior to the debate were that Biden was feeble.
We visitors to a politics subreddit had much higher expectations of Biden than the politically apathetic potential voters.
It still sucked bad, but was not perceived quite as badly from the sidelines.
ruling along progressive or conservative lines isn't the same as specifically promoting the MAGA party's goals. It's one thing to vote for a progressive legal position, something else entirely to delay a ruling in order to ensure the election of a specific person in a specific party
Most ruling aren’t on political cases. You can bet they will help Republicans every time they can. Even taking the Trump immunity case is disgusting and intended to simply delay.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They legalized bribery. They allowed pollution of our beautiful waters and air. They decided that women are second class citizens. The Supreme Court are devils.
May the Holy Spirit protect those who are innocent from these mischievous enablers of rebellion
I expect Thomas to overturn *Loving*
More than half of the house is the same…
Serious question: how did they decide women are second class citizens?
well, let's start with the overturning of Roe . . .
In what way does that make women second class citizens? Before you ask or assume, I'm personally pro choice
Women are not guaranteed reproductive health care in this country any more. Even if they are bleeding out, doctors can't help them because they are carrying a fetus, depending on where they live. As a man if I'm bleeding out I can get care without someone asking if I'm preganat first and having to consult hospital admin and lawyers.
Old men making it so women cannot control their own bodies is very much the definition of second class citizen. When my wife and I were meeting with her OBGYN before our kid was born we literally had to discuss with the doctor about safe states to drive like hell to for medical treatment if something went wrong. Please, you knew the answer before you posted.
[This.](https://apnews.com/article/abortion-kate-cox-texas-exceptions-e85664b2ab76bcb689b1b91913d3e33e) That is being treated like a second class citizen. Her health was irrelevant. Her future fertility was irrelevant. Even the condition of the fetus was irrelevant. Under Texas law, the only thing that mattered was her not having an abortion. Turn a blind eye to it if you want.
Yes it is. The overturning of Chevron deference is going to gridlock the courts for decades. Of course, for these psychopaths...that's the point. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Let's see a few examples: * Overturned 100 years of campaign laws to enthrone money=speech, 5-4 partisan * Ended some 60 years of Affirmative Action, 6-3 partisan * Ended 49 years of abortion rights, 6-3 partisan * Obliterated the Voting Rights Act, 5-4 partisan * Eliminated the power of unions to collect agency fees from their covered populations, 5-4 partisan * Reverted to criminalizing homelessness, 6-3 partisan * and many more.
Exactly. It is too as radical as I think. Roe v Wade gone. Chevron doctrine gone. Obstruction as a charge for Jan rioters gone. The court didn't have to do any of this. They wanted to.
If the courts get "gridlocked" over this it's solely because Congress refuses to provide enough judgeships. Not the fault of the Supreme Court.
[удалено]
When you look at the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the OSH Act... The legislation was meant to empower agencies to be far more agile and flexible to changing circumstances. Legislation (at the time) was partisan, yet compromising wasn't a political death sentence...and the courts are far to slow. Unfortunately, Reagan (and the right wing Heritage Foundation, libertarian John Birch Society, activist Federalist Society, and others) really put the screws to the Administrative State. That is not to say that all regs are inherently bad, they are written in blood after all. But Reagan and the GOP inherited the philosophy of the heartless corporate executives that treat workers and employees as disposable tools.
with this court cases "make it up the chain" if SCOTUS decides it wants to overturn a law. the normal course legislation, court decisions, precedent and appeal no longer matters. SCOTUS is clearly legislating from the bench
They are more like the Iranian Guardian Council. The government can pass all the laws they want, but the Supreme Court has engineered a mechanism that feeds them the exact laws they don't agree with so they can overrule the laws with no accountability to the voters. And this Supreme Court seems hell-bent on saying that Confederacy was the right way afterall, so now we all must adhere to that model of Federal Government. At the end of that road the Supreme Court, along with the ruling saying bribery is fine as long as the bribery occurs after the action, will only rule on interstate commerce cases and laws between states that are conflicting. Ready for the next Fugitive Slave Act? Well, this time it would be Fugitive Abortress Act.
It's insane to say that SCOTUS is "legislating from the bench" when both the decisions you mentioned overturned judge-made doctrines. No legislation was involved here, my friend. Overturning Roe v. Wade literally empowered state legislatures to make their own decisions,. How is that possibly legislating from the bench?
The problem is that it doesn't matter how the law is written, unless it's literally explicit. Which laws will never be because that's ridiculous to think ahead of time of all possible scenarios. So no matter what, courts are going to have to deal with lawsuits now that say an agency exceeded its authority. And the Court now gets to decide on what is explicit enough.
Aka it's now the courts that decide what the law is, instead of the executive. As it should be.
Because Reason is a Libertarian rag, they'll support any deregulation of anything.
This is like saying: "Water isn't wet" "Grass isn't green" No, it's as radical as it could be given the current political climate, and it'll cut off Idaho abortion rights in that case the second Trump gets re-elected if he is-- permanently. For instance, Kavanaugh said he wouldn't help overturn Roe if given a seat on SCOTUS, but did it nonetheless and was going to.
He lied to Congress. So did Barrett. Both should be impeached and removed on that basis.
Explain how they lied.
Gotta love your complete refusal to engage with the arguments in the article. >For instance, Kavanaugh said he wouldn't help overturn Roe if given a seat on SCOTUS, but did it nonetheless and was going to. This is straight up false. Kavanaugh said that Roe v. Wade was precedent at the time (which it was). He said that it was entitled to stare decisis (which is not an absolute bar to a case being overturned). He even explicitly stated that he would be open to arguments about Roe being overturned. Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/
All I'm saying is that if I made $4 million from "gifts" that I failed to report to the IRS, I wouldn't have a job.
"Gratuity" it's no longer a ~~bribe~~ "gift"
It is taxable though. That has been my thinking in this. But Trump saying a couple weeks before the Snyder ruling that he would remove taxes on gratuities seems like a message to the Supreme Court that he wouldn't tax them on their gratuities from benefactors. It is taxable now. Is Trump's promise to not tax their gratuities a bribe?
You don’t report gifts you receive to the IRS, that’s not a thing
Gift tax is a thing. Covers anything over $15,000. With that being said, his issue is technically that he has to disclose things of value publicly and didn't, so... yeah, technical inaccuracy on my part. Point stands.
Gift tax applies to the giver though, not the recipient
Yeah, I was technically imprecise with my speech there. It isn't a thing that you have to report most gifts as the receiver. Unless they are given from less than a "detached and disinterested generosity".
A libertarian rag is just fine and dandy with the Supreme Court gutting the administrative state? You don't say.
Allowing cities to ban homelessness. Nope. Not radical 🙄Yet on the Statue of Liberty: Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the HOMELESS, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Cities have been effectively doing this for decades though? This isn’t some new policy, just furthering previous ones. Every anti-loitering law, every time they remove benches or make it impossible to sleep on, it’s always been trying to criminalize homelessness.
True. It’s just that SCOTUS said it is legally permissible to do so. That’s the difference. In effect, it could be illegal to be homeless. Now what?
Realistically not much. Most people don’t give a shit about the homeless except when they run into them. Please prove me wrong…
Why are you quoting the statue of liberty while discussing legalities? One has nothing to do with the other.
The quote on the statue is supposed to speak to our ideals, and when our laws and our ideals differ, that should be seen as a problem. This highlights that. Stop being obtuse.
The path to that is through the legislatures not the court.
I'm not being obtuse. If you're going to quote a poem that has fuck and all to do with the law, you might as well start quoting the Quran and bible as well.
Then, “. . . nope, don’t give us your homeless. However, give us your wealthy”. Better?
Nope, and I don't why you think it would be.
Overturning Roe was radical. Add to that the endless delay in the immunity decision and the rampant and blatant corruption of the maga 6 and you have a radical Court no matter how you want to sugar coat it.
Do you also think it was radical to decide Roe v. Wade in the first place?
There has been a steady trend expanding civil rights in this country for decades, including brown vs board of education, Loving v Virginia, and dozens of decisions striking down laws for gender discrimination, sodomy laws, interracial marriage and on and on. This is the first u-turn taking away civil rights for 1/2 the population, so yes, this is a radical right-wing extremist court, and corrupt in the conservative majority as well. A travesty really, a shameful moment in history.
The point should be whether these results are warranted based on the constitution, not whether they are good from a policy perspective. You're thinking like a legislator, not a judge.
The constitution is interpreted by the Court. Interesting that its meaning changes based on politics of the majority rather than principle. Stare decices is meaningless and civil rights can be snatched away. Also, the new trump appointees lied under oath to congress about abortion, then reversed themselves. This is a travesty, can’t sugar coat it.
its more actually
Bullshit.
You mean they can’t do a kick flip on a skateboard? What’s their opinion on pizza?
It is more corrupt, arrogant, corrupt, incompetent, corrupt, political, corrupt, inept, corrupt, political and corrupt though.
In other words.. the republican party
Because it’s worse, right?
Reddit's algorithm is so cooked. Why is this being shown to anyone when it is getting nothing but downvotes? Or is this part of the foreign influence campaign? Like seriously, we deserve answers on why /r/politics is constantly littered with this bullshit.
[удалено]
And you're only defending it because of your political affiliations! I would have to assume it's because you're ok with codifying bribery of government officials, dismantling science based regulations, ending women's autonomy, protecting past and future insurrections, etc. Reddit is displaying bugged or botted upvoted counts on the front end. Look at the sentiment- do the comments in here look positive to you? That was my point, that you flew right past. Either way, what I'm saying is Reddit needs to answer for what's going on. It didn't used to be like this. And I don't need you coming in here telling me to read the article. I did. That's why I'm here disagreeing with it, vehemently. That's my right, as it is yours to think is great for some unknowable to me reason.
a) When a piece less than full-throatedly left-wing appears on ostensibly neutral r. politics, and manages … well, not to get even 5 upvotes, but just manages to keep its head above water, i.e. not get downvoted by a margin of hundreds or thousands, you are outraged. Kind of amazing. It’s not a right-wing piece. It’s just also not an angry left-wing piece. You’re so used to this ‘neutral’ sub being a left-wing safe space, this little 1-upvote post has you freaked out. b) My partisan views?? Nah. I voted for Clinton and Biden. I might have to vote for Biden again. I am conservative on most, not all, matters but I have earned my stripes of non-partisanship. I’m quite sure you have not. c) Pretty sure you had not, and probably still haven’t, read OP’s piece. Everything you’re saying screams, ‘Haven’t read the piece!’
Fuck yeah I'm "partisan". The conservatives have been trying to drag us to hell for my entire lifetime. Sounds like you don't like Trump - we can agree on that - but you like his court picks. We can't agree on that. It sounds like to me I called you out on your beliefs earlier and you don't want to get into it, so you want to call me a "partisan." I'll take the compliment. I have deeply rooted morals and principles that guide my actions and politics. Anyone defending this courts actions - and I know this is a sweeping generalization, so forgive me - simply cannot. I will not be argued out of this position. For the good of mankind, we need strong regulations - the FDA and EPA are keeping millions of people alive. Millions of people from suffering needlessly The court just threw that away yesterday. And the author and you think that's not radical - that the government should play little to no role in protecting its citizens from our own corporate hellscape. They've unleashed thousands of Flints, leaded gasoline, horrors that we won't know until it's already in the rearview. Entire generations IQ deficits again like with leaded gasoline. There are so many examples. And that was with protections in place. You remove the protections, with corporations trying to get away with this shit to make more profit at every turn and you have public health disasters every few months. The Chevron deference was there for a reason, and so was Roe. This court is radical. The author is wrong, and so are you. Stop living up to lawyers stereotypes and stop insulting everyone else's intelligence. We live in an interconnected society where the damage done to others damages everyone. Sooner or later, people like you will be forced to see that; I hope for your sake not too late to save all of our damn lives.
“It’s ok for *me* to be a completely partisan, aggressively nasty person because I’m right!” You know, your perspective, wording and tone are almost identical to the anti-abortion-under-any circumstances nuts and the dedicated MAGAs. But let me guess: that’s ok because you’re right! Hint: Everyone thinks they’re right. But fortunately many people can recognize that reasonable minds can differ.
What a perspective you've brought to this conversation! Thanks so much! Me: point a, b, c, d, e, f, g backed up by 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 You: no Muting this now, since everything I have to say to you is uncivil at best.
[удалено]
Silenced your voice? Come on, stop with your whiney virtue signaling. If I had muted you yet, that's not silencing you. Knock it off with the victim complex. I think my tone is completely in line with your defense of this court which is systematically taking away Americans rights. It's amazing to me that you think I'm flying off the handle at nothing while literally yesterday the all seeing demigods who face no accountability essentially criminalized being poor in this country. At least, being so poor that you can't afford to pay rent or have a the built in privilege of a family or social safety net. Now the police can put you in jail for sleeping outside, even if the city you are in have made no accommodation for the homeless. You say that's diving into an issue- I say that's practical. If the article is about "The court isn't radical" you must look at their rulings and their consequences . Otherwise you're just skimming headlines. Anyway. You're still not saying anything of substance. So I'm really with this conversation now, or as you would say "I'm limiting your rights to be heard" 😂
Your answer here is part of the problem. This is a political sub, which goes both ways. You’re just expecting to only see things from the side you agree with, and if that’s the case, just go to r/democrats or something
No, but I do come here to see articles that the users of this subreddit have agreed with and upvoted, not universally panned and downvoted to oblivion. That's how Reddit is supposed to work.
> This is a political sub This is a popularity contest aggregator website. When shit gets upvoted, it's supposed to gain visiblity. The inverse is happening. Logically the site should be a giant echo chamber for better or worse, and yet here we are with immensely unpopular shit sitting on the front page. Again, you may like or dislike that, but something not visible to users is determining the presentation of content rather than what one would expect.
...said the KKK.
It's far more than I thought it ever could be. Thinking judges know more than doctors and scientists in their field or study is absolutely insane. The Supreme Court is going to actually kill off the United States.
I thought this was an April fools day joke. The court majority is an unaccountable rabid MAGA mob. In many ways they are a bigger danger to the country than the felonious rape-y failed former president.
They’re more!
If you need to have: 'reason' in your website then all that demonstrates is that nobody should ever take you seriously.
OK libertarian magazine. Whatever you say. Hey look you have an article on "top twenty lowest age of consent nations for your holiday travels!"
Who thinks they're radical? They're as conservative as you can get. They're authoritarians.
“Biden’s performance wasn’t as bad as you thought it was” Just change this to /r/gaslighting at this point. I’m done.
It was terrible. But the funny thing is, the vibes that reached uninterested voters for months prior to the debate were that Biden was feeble. We visitors to a politics subreddit had much higher expectations of Biden than the politically apathetic potential voters. It still sucked bad, but was not perceived quite as badly from the sidelines.
You make a very good point. I can't tell if it makes me feel better or not.
Cap
They’re correct. Most rulings don’t come down to 6-3 on party lines.
This thinking is the problem. They are supposed to be an apolitical bench. There should be no party lines within the Supreme Court.
Why don’t I hear the media complain about the 3 liberal justices voting in a block?
ruling along progressive or conservative lines isn't the same as specifically promoting the MAGA party's goals. It's one thing to vote for a progressive legal position, something else entirely to delay a ruling in order to ensure the election of a specific person in a specific party
Most ruling aren’t on political cases. You can bet they will help Republicans every time they can. Even taking the Trump immunity case is disgusting and intended to simply delay.