260 points

Once they legalized coups, they lost all legitimacy in my opinion.

The SCOTUS situation is scarier than the POTUS situation which was already frightening enough.

permalink
report
reply
16 points

Frankly, the writing has been on the wall since they overturned the election in 2000; it’s just gotten a lot more blatant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points

*Coups are only legal if initiated by the President.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Presidents can have a little coup, as a treat

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Yes, but only Republicans, Amiright?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Correct. I think that’s the part many keep missing. SCOTUS just gave themselves the authority to determine if a Presidential act is immune from oversight. Which will no doubt be abused to help Republicans do whatever they want. But hamstring anything a Dem would attempt to accomplish.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

**Only official coups

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Don’t forget they legalized bribery long before making coups legal. That’s when they were testing the waters. Now they know they can be blatent with their rulings and noone will hold them accountable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Hmmm, I wonder if the left or any democracy loving peoples can create a temporary armed anti-coup force, just in case?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

If we can organize to that level, why not take it one step farther? We could have actual democracy. It’d be a lot more stable, and more people would be willing to fight (and die) for it than preserving a broken status quo that pretty much everyone hates.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Ehh, because revolution is insanely hard, while something more directed with a single goal is possibly more feasible. That’s what I’m thinking.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-16 points

The silver lining here is they have no power of enforcement themselves, and their decisions can be reversed if a sane court is built around them by leaders with enough spine to do so.

Democrats just need to get Biden out of the race so Trump can be kept out of office. And the house majority is very slim, so that can potentially be flipped too if the base can actually be energized instead of suppressed the way they have been. Democrats win when there is high turn out, so the name of the game needs to be showing people that Democrats are capable of listening.

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points

…if a sane court is built around them by leaders with enough spine

Lack of spine isn’t the issue. It’s lack of political power.

And even then what would the new court do? If they go back to operating the way they did before this judicial coup, that wouldn’t actually fix any of the damage done. Or remove the traitor sitting on the SCOTUS.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points
*

A court with more judges would water down the influence of any extremists.

But yes, packing the court alone doesn’t guaruntee the court can’t be captured again. What Elie Mystal suggested way back when the court majority had flipped was basically two things that should happen:

  1. expand the court by alot, maybe somewhere within 20-30, similar to the 9th circuit that’s just below the Supreme Court. This helps dilute the power of individual crazies like Alito and then

  2. Rotate judges out routinely to other federal positions. This allows for their life-time appointment still, but ensures also that, due to the high number of justices, every administration is getting an opportunity to appoint a few judges every time. That revolving door means it wpuld require multiple far-right administrations to pin the court down like it is now.

There’s no reason the court needs to be nine justices, we’ve had more and less throughout our history as a nation, and there’s no reason that the courts power needs to be concentrated into the hands of so few individuals, since the purpose of the court is suppose to be a moderating force of legal scholars, not an explicitly partisan body.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Lack of spine isn’t the issue. It’s lack of political power.

The court literally just gave Biden the power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

they have no power of enforcement themselves

…which is why they’re working in tandem with the corrupt GOP, which does have the power. There isn’t a separation of powers in practice, just Democrats and Republicans.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yes, what I’m saying is if you can keep the GOP out of power you hobble the supreme court. Like I said, it’s a source of hope and a goal to aim your political effort towards, not a permanent solution.

People downvoting this seem confused. I made the assumption people were able to understand I was talking longer term fight.

permalink
report
parent
reply
69 points

I wish the dnc didn’t fuck him over

permalink
report
reply
-41 points

Me too. Well, I guess I’ll support the dnc anyway and vote for biden/genocide because I prefer trump’s policies with biden’s veneer of politeness rather than trump’s policies with trump’s veneer of impoliteness.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

You’re free to commit terroristic political assassinations if you feel the two party system is too restrictive. It worked fine for Oswald.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-17 points

It also works well for the CIA, which has been rescuing Nazis and assassinating leftwing political leaders around the world for decades. Oswald was also working for them. Oh well, back to watching CIA talking heads on MSNBC / CNN / the New York Times / the glorified reddit with extra steps known as lemmy

permalink
report
parent
reply
185 points

So Bernie & AOC are the only ones I’ve heard that call for change of the SCOTUS.

Only ones serving the people & deserving of support in many aspects.

permalink
report
reply
84 points

That’s understandable since they are the most popular.

My city’s senator called it out on the news and it’s not getting any attention from mainstream media.

And remember that it’s only been about 48 hours since Biden can legally assassinate anybody so right now, the news is kinda uncertain how to play this out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

My city’s senator

You mean representative?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Ah yeah that was a slip

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Welcome to America, fellow voter

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

There are others that don’t get the coverage, but yeah, pretty fuckin lame anyway. If only for the fact that they don’t get the coverage.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-22 points
*

They have the luxury of saying things should change without providing an actual plausible path to achieving that change.

AOC championed expanding SCOTUS without worrying about how it could actually be done, or what the consequences would be 10 years down the line.

Bernie does the same. His public statements frequently gloss over the massive hurdles that make such idealistic ideas implausible, like requiring a super majority which is functionally impossible in today’s political climate.

To be fair, I do think that it’s important that idealists voice how things could be in a political utopia, if they also include a pragmatic breakdown of what it would take.

However, virtue signaling in itself without acknowledging reality is also dangerous.

Lemmy is a perfect example of it. Lots of dissatisfaction with the status quo, and a whole lot of impossible ideas floating around like “there are obvious solutions that establishment politicians just refuse to consider”, when they just aren’t feasible.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

The other side of that coin is that if there is no demand for change, no one will be pressured to work out the logistics required. All change starts with people demanding a solution.

We need a solution right now more than we need a perfect plan of execution. The solution is being called for, to expand the Supreme Court to balance the blatant corruption pouring from the conservative justices. That’s the first step

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

We need a solution right now more than we need a perfect plan of execution.

I agree. But IMO, the proposed solutions don’t have a chance in hell of being passed, because of the reality of needing a super majority. Either to impeach a SCOTUS judge, or to reform the SCOTUS rules.

And I think the messaging should focus on the need for a super majority to impeach these corrupt judges, as well as pass reform. The messaging should highlight the republican representatives refusing to cross the aisle to fight this blatant corruption.

And most importantly, highlight what can be done if voters give the Dems a super majority.

Yeah, it’s not going to happen, but instead of AOC and Bernie just floating impossible ideas, we need to focus on how voters can give the Dems the power to actually fix these problems. And without that super majority, there is very little that can be done.

Because the current approach makes the Dems seem ineffective and only serves to disenfranchise voters, when we really need to put a fire under voters to put a fire under the Republican half of our government to either cross the aisle or GTFO.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

They’re feasible with a voter mandate. You get that mandate by building it in your platform and getting elected on it with sufficient margins. The Democratic party, however, is not a revolutionary party but a status quo party and refuses to go that route because they’re afraid of losing. So they just lose by default.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

My point is that there is no good in this scenario. The proposed solutions are literally impossible.

See my other reply in this thread for a better explanation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
137 points

As correct as Bernie Sanders has been his entire life, he’s also right here.

Granting one branch of government absolute and unfettered authority is the end of stable government.

permalink
report
reply
20 points

SCOTUS has nearly unfettered authority as long as Congress remains dysfunctional in keeping them in check. They’re just passing the power along.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Passing the power along to only anyone they agree with. Biden? Not an official act. Trump? All official acts. They just gave more power to themselves and the presidency.

permalink
report
parent
reply
91 points

It’s not too late to pack that fucker. Sinema and Manchin could sit it out while Harris breaks the ties. Judicial nominations do not have the filibuster. If you’re looking for a campaign season pick me up, this kind of direct response to SCOTUS going off the rails is something that could do it.

Fucking fight Dems, and you’ll get backed up. We’re tired of watching you do nothing while the GOP pisses on everything. This would be a great way to demonstrate that a vote for Biden is for more than a neoliberal order controlling a sleepy old man.

permalink
report
reply
38 points
*

The Dems could also get rid of the filibuster right now. Getting rid of it completely only requires a majority and Republicans already proved they will drop it the moment it isn’t useful to them to obstruct Dems like they did with judicial nominations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Sinema and Manchin could sit it out

Big problem. They are Republicans in Democrat clothes. They will, as they always do, find a reason to vote against

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Then play hardball with them, get on board or get primaried by an opponent with the backing of the DNC.

It’s worked for the right, they’re terrified of their constituents.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

They don’t care. Both already got paid and are quitting last I read.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Yes it is. That opportunity passed in 2022 when the Dems lost control of the House.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Fun fact, the Constitution gives authority to make new SCOTUS judges to the Senate and the President. Congress as a whole only has the power to organize courts below SCOTUS. The entire idea that the house can set the size of the court is unsupported.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

I thought that eliminating the filibuster took a 3/5th vote in the senate. That’s 60 votes. We are nowhere close, though I support holding it to a vote to put it on the record, to highlight the hypocrisy later.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

The filibuster is already gone in regards to judicial appointments, The Republicans killed it and the Democrats didn’t bring it back. But also, yeah the chamber rules are a simple majority vote. It’s Manchin and Sinema keeping that from happening, but also without the house of representatives it’s kind of useless to get rid of it right now.

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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 9.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.5K

    Posts

  • 18K

    Comments