You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
12 points
*

Who do you believe could just tell them no and have them comply?

It would be Congress, but Republicans control the House at the moment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

They could be subpoenaed into a house select committee to undergo questioning explaining their actions . It would at least be a bold move and have them try and explain their reasoning to an equal institution under the republic?

There is no magic bullet, but you need to return some heat or else go under without a fight. It would also completely unhinge the conservative forces hell bent on a dictatorship.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

You don’t need them to comply. All they can do is write words. If you tell them they’re making a power grab and you’re not going to just cede power to them, they don’t have anything they can do but write more words.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Defying the Supreme Court would set an extraordinarily terrible precedent. This only works if the masses are doing the defying. And it’s incredibly risky, as the Republicans would very quickly follow suit

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

What exactly is the risk when considering the very real danger the court is doing to the country? Tolerating intolerance will only take the country in one direction.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Congress could impeach Justices or increase the headcount to properly balance the Court. Those are the legitimate ways to challenge these rulings based on the checks and balances in our governmental design.

That would require Democrats to vote with high turnout for Senate and House elections.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Oh no! A bad precedent. Wouldn’t want to have one of those. Surely precedent will protect us from having reproductive rights stolen, or declaring the president a king, or declaring the regulatory state invalid. The fascists are already on the march and have demonstrated they’re willing to trash precedent without the Democrats making the first move.

But none of that matters. Is this an existential issue or not? If it is, a constitutional crisis is warranted to solve it. You can’t say something is existential and then worry about not doing anything too extreme.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Making the Judicial branch unelected lifetime appointments has proven to be a massive failure.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

But who, who is “you” in this scenario? Who do you think can just tell the court “no”? Let’s be specific.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 9.9K

    Posts

  • 164K

    Comments