SCOTUS Watch

[Drazzil]

Junta

Or a final acknowledgement that the supreme court as it is incompatible with running a democratic country.

If Biden were to wake up tomorrow, and say "Hey, the Supreme Court and Congress can go spin, I'm just going to do the stuff I need to, assuming that he had the sec def on side... I think the American people would just shrug and go about their business. I think if he managed to make real systemic change to how this country works for the better, he, or his successor would then be able to just carry on. It might even get the average American to really get involved in the political process and push for reform in the house and SC.

Honestly. I want one of the following:

1. A national divorce

or

2. Some sort of reshaping of the political system we have now to include a more powerful executive until we can put something better in place.

I don't believe in Democracy anymore. It failed.

[LawBeefaroni]

Junta

Or a final acknowledgement that the supreme court as it is incompatible with running a democratic country.

If Biden were to wake up tomorrow, and say "Hey, the Supreme Court and Congress can go spin, I'm just going to do the stuff I need to, assuming that he had the sec def on side... I think the American people would just shrug and go about their business. I think if he managed to make real systemic change to how this country works for the better, he, or his successor would then be able to just carry on. It might even get the average American to really get involved in the political process and push for reform in the house and SC.

Honestly. I want one of the following:

1. A national divorce

or

2. Some sort of reshaping of the political system we have now to include a more powerful executive until we can put something better in place.

I don't believe in Democracy anymore. It failed.

That's all very GOP of you.

If you can't beat 'em, be 'em.

[Smoove_B]

In -theory- states could just decide to not follow the ruling. Like NY (instead of crafting new laws on guns) could have just said no, we're still not going to issue carry permits for NY residents. Or random purple state could say no, we're still going to provide Plan B or medications (certain arthritis medications are now in the crossfire) that can induce abortions but aren't primarily used as such.

Instead there's an unwillingness to deal with the consequences of those decisions, and some of them are likely financial (fear of lawsuits), which is 100% what I'd expect for corporations to be doing.

Some states have already had state-level prosecutors saying they won't enforce anti-abortion laws that target women for punishment.

I don't disagree with you (broadly) - we can collectively decide their ruling is nonsense and do what the majority of people want (in a state). The problem is that we've then acknowledged that it's acceptable to ignore the rule of law. And perhaps it is justified in situations where half the population loses their rights with the stroke of a pen, but how we actually address it? I honestly don't know.

It feels like this would ultimately spiral into violence - where one group is saying they want something while the other is saying they don't. If courts and police can't resolve the differences in opinion, what's left?

I have no doubts the christofascists are ready for violence to get what they want. I'm not sure I believe that people pushing for women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, gun restrictions, etc... are largely equally as motivated for violence as their political/philosophical counterparts.

At that point the question (for me) is how does the side that isn't willing to engage in violence address the side that is? I don't have an answer.

[Drazzil]

Junta

Or a final acknowledgement that the supreme court as it is incompatible with running a democratic country.

If Biden were to wake up tomorrow, and say "Hey, the Supreme Court and Congress can go spin, I'm just going to do the stuff I need to, assuming that he had the sec def on side... I think the American people would just shrug and go about their business. I think if he managed to make real systemic change to how this country works for the better, he, or his successor would then be able to just carry on. It might even get the average American to really get involved in the political process and push for reform in the house and SC.

Honestly. I want one of the following:

1. A national divorce

or

2. Some sort of reshaping of the political system we have now to include a more powerful executive until we can put something better in place.

I don't believe in Democracy anymore. It failed.

That's all very GOP of you.

If you can't beat 'em, be 'em.

My point is, over 50 years the R's have managed to degrade the institutions to the point where if we don't walk into the door they just kicked down, the fascists will. There is NO rebuilding the door. You're either inside, or you're outside.

[Drazzil]

In -theory- states could just decide to not follow the ruling. Like NY (instead of crafting new laws on guns) could have just said no, we're still not going to issue carry permits for NY residents. Or random purple state could say no, we're still going to provide Plan B or medications (certain arthritis medications are now in the crossfire) that can induce abortions but aren't primarily used as such.

Instead there's an unwillingness to deal with the consequences of those decisions, and some of them are likely financial (fear of lawsuits), which is 100% what I'd expect for corporations to be doing.

Some states have already had state-level prosecutors saying they won't enforce anti-abortion laws that target women for punishment.

I don't disagree with you (broadly) - we can collectively decide their ruling is nonsense and do what the majority of people want (in a state). The problem is that we've then acknowledged that it's acceptable to ignore the rule of law. And perhaps it is justified in situations where half the population loses their rights with the stroke of a pen, but how we actually address it? I honestly don't know.

It feels like this would ultimately spiral into violence - where one group is saying they want something while the other is saying they don't. If courts and police can't resolve the differences in opinion, what's left?

I have no doubts the christofascists are ready for violence to get what they want. I'm not sure I believe that people pushing for women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, gun restrictions, etc... are largely equally as motivated for violence as their political/philosophical counterparts.

At that point the question (for me) is how does the side that isn't willing to engage in violence address the side that is? I don't have an answer.

I do. Engage in honest conversation, and try to settle things through the political process and protest until such time as the state or state backed actors uses violence to try and crush dissent. This time, instead of scattering like roaches when someone turns the lights on, and bemoaning our fate on social media and sending each other memes, we use self defense. We refuse to be dispersed. If they want to carry it further then... well. There's a lot more of us then them, and even passive sabotage works wonders.

My guess is that our side will continue to be stomped on till we organize and fight back. The right has an advantage in guns and numbers and willingness to do violence... for now. This will not always be true. The left has guns too. The weapons gap is closing quickly. It's a joy to watch.

There will be a ton of ways to support various movements. Not every member of the armed forces is a front lines fighter. I suspect that when the inevitable resistance/revolution movement rises a lot of the non violent types will be in support roles for those who are engaging with the enemy actively.

I have a suspicion that when you see people start to fight back and organize it will be like a dam breaking, It'll be everywhere. People are fed up, but most leftists are followers, as soon as that first shot is fired though... boy howdy.

[Blackhawk]

I have no doubts the christofascists are ready for violence to get what they want. I'm not sure I believe that people pushing for women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, gun restrictions, etc... are largely equally as motivated for violence as their political/philosophical counterparts.

At that point the question (for me) is how does the side that isn't willing to engage in violence address the side that is? I don't have an answer.

If they come out ahead in 2022 (and even more so in 2024), the GOP will be hoping for violent resistance. They would love to have the excuse to legislate in response - imagine them salivating at branding Planned Parenthood as a criminal organization, or adding extreme controls to Facebook for 'aiding in terrorism.' And don't forget the impact that ANTIFA had on the last election cycle - and organization that didn't even exist. Imagine what they could do with a real bogeyman!

[Drazzil]

In -theory- states could just decide to not follow the ruling. Like NY (instead of crafting new laws on guns) could have just said no, we're still not going to issue carry permits for NY residents. Or random purple state could say no, we're still going to provide Plan B or medications (certain arthritis medications are now in the crossfire) that can induce abortions but aren't primarily used as such.

Instead there's an unwillingness to deal with the consequences of those decisions, and some of them are likely financial (fear of lawsuits), which is 100% what I'd expect for corporations to be doing.

Some states have already had state-level prosecutors saying they won't enforce anti-abortion laws that target women for punishment.

I don't disagree with you (broadly) - we can collectively decide their ruling is nonsense and do what the majority of people want (in a state). The problem is that we've then acknowledged that it's acceptable to ignore the rule of law. And perhaps it is justified in situations where half the population loses their rights with the stroke of a pen, but how we actually address it? I honestly don't know.

It feels like this would ultimately spiral into violence - where one group is saying they want something while the other is saying they don't. If courts and police can't resolve the differences in opinion, what's left?

I have no doubts the christofascists are ready for violence to get what they want. I'm not sure I believe that people pushing for women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, gun restrictions, etc... are largely equally as motivated for violence as their political/philosophical counterparts.

At that point the question (for me) is how does the side that isn't willing to engage in violence address the side that is? I don't have an answer.

Also, RE: The other side is already not following the laws and norms. It's our side that doesn't get the memo. As long as we continue to sheepishly cling to what little we have left, the right will continue to steal it.

[Alefroth]

Can you be specific? Exactly what actions does the administration take to do that? Don't say RICO.

[YellowKing]

We're not going to fix in a year what Republicans have spent the last four decades breaking.

[Drazzil]

We're not going to fix in a year what Republicans have spent the last four decades breaking.

We absolutely could if our leaders ELECTED BY US laid out a game plan, got organized and did it. Biden could rain down so much shit on the GOP just by acting within the law and using every tool at his disposal. If you then discuss what he could do by suspending, or ignoring some of the bullshit the other side sprang on him, well...

[Drazzil]

Can you be specific? Exactly what actions does the administration take to do that? Don't say RICO.

Could you be more specific? Exactly what actions can we take to save ourselves? Don't say voting organizing or peaceful protest.

[Drazzil]

We're not going to fix in a year what Republicans have spent the last four decades breaking.

We don't have four decades to set it right. What now?

[Drazzil]

https://xlauren-mx.medium.com/kamala-ha ... 7a7d838905

[YellowKing]

We don't have four decades to set it right. What now?

We suffer under fascist authoritarian rule for at least the next 6 years, and probably longer. I don't know that there is an answer, because I think we're screwed. I literally think it's going to take decades to set it right, and in the meantime we're in for a rough ride.

[Drazzil]

We don't have four decades to set it right. What now?

We suffer under fascist authoritarian rule for at least the next 6 years, and probably longer. I don't know that there is an answer, because I think we're screwed. I literally think it's going to take decades to set it right, and in the meantime we're in for a rough ride.

We don't have decades. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a fool. We're all in this trap like an animal, and the animal is starved and tired hopeless and isn't even fighting back. I suppose the only realistic thing would be to plan an exit. While we still can, to where ever you figure you can get to and won't immediately collapse when America does.

The house is now an inferno, and its up to us individually to escape, regroup and fight from the outside. Like Alaska and Canada did when Gilead took over.

[Blackhawk]

Don't worry, climate change will tear it all down before that.

[Zarathud]

Drazzil, how about you get that mental health care before we read about your break in the newspapers? You’re making Rip seem sensible.

[Holman]

Can you be specific? Exactly what actions does the administration take to do that? Don't say RICO.

Could you be more specific? Exactly what actions can we take to save ourselves? Don't say voting organizing or peaceful protest.

Why not?

Voting, organizing, and peaceful protest have had the greatest impact in changing this country.

They're hard work, of course. They take time, effort, and cooperation. But you've indicated before that you can't commit to that.

[Kraken]

Can you be specific? Exactly what actions does the administration take to do that? Don't say RICO.

Could you be more specific? Exactly what actions can we take to save ourselves? Don't say voting organizing or peaceful protest.

Why not?

Voting, organizing, and peaceful protest have had the greatest impact in changing this country.

They're hard work, of course. They take time, effort, and cooperation. But you've indicated before that you can't commit to that.

If saving democracy is your objective, you need to do it through democratic means. Suspending it kinda defeats your purpose. Roman emperors throughout centuries promised to restore the republic as soon as conditions were right.

That said, we do need to push the edges of the possible.

[waitingtoconnect]

We don't have four decades to set it right. What now?

We suffer under fascist authoritarian rule for at least the next 6 years, and probably longer. I don't know that there is an answer, because I think we're screwed. I literally think it's going to take decades to set it right, and in the meantime we're in for a rough ride.

We don't have decades. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a fool. We're all in this trap like an animal, and the animal is starved and tired hopeless and isn't even fighting back. I suppose the only realistic thing would be to plan an exit. While we still can, to where ever you figure you can get to and won't immediately collapse when America does.

The house is now an inferno, and its up to us individually to escape, regroup and fight from the outside. Like Alaska and Canada did when Gilead took over.

A fascist US is more likely to look like the US we saw in the Purge movies or like the UK in V for Vendetta than that shown in Gilead. One party rule not two party rule with a long slow decline akin to Putins Russia. Inevitably like with Russia the federal Republic would become more of a centrally managed affair under " El Presidentes" direct control.

You would also likely see similarly weird choices like invading Mexico to stop immigrants and Canada to give everyone the right to own a gun and manifest destiny and all that.

The people who have money want to keep their money and make more of it. They are highly unlikely to allow a scenario that risks their money and prevents them touring blue states with their cover bands. Like the Winklevoss twins.

[waitingtoconnect]

Junta

Or a final acknowledgement that the supreme court as it is incompatible with running a democratic country.


I don't believe in Democracy anymore. It failed.

The supreme court should change so a body of legal scholars and judges pick three or four nominees for Congress to decide. And appointments should be for 10 years maximum not for life. As back when it was a lifetime appointment 10 years was al the judges had left.

Democracy has not failed. I am sad you feel that way. Each system is like a house and needs to be maintained.

[hepcat]

The house is now an inferno, and its up to us individually to escape, regroup and fight from the outside. Like Alaska and Canada did when Gilead took over.

You probably shouldn’t have brought a gas can and matches to the house in 2016.

[Drazzil]

The house is now an inferno, and its up to us individually to escape, regroup and fight from the outside. Like Alaska and Canada did when Gilead took over.

You probably shouldn’t have brought a gas can and matches to the house in 2016.

You're just doing this to annoy me, we both know whoever I voted for in 16 made no difference. You're *really* angry at all the other people who decided to gamble on Trump. Besides the house was already on fire long before that. You know that roo.

[ImLawBoy]

The supreme court should change so a body of legal scholars and judges pick three or four nominees for Congress to decide. And appointments should be for 10 years maximum not for life. As back when it was a lifetime appointment 10 years was al the judges had left.

Lifetime appointments are certainly not without issue, but can you imagine if the SCOTUS were a stepping stone to someone's next job in the private sector?

[hepcat]

The house is now an inferno, and its up to us individually to escape, regroup and fight from the outside. Like Alaska and Canada did when Gilead took over.

You probably shouldn’t have brought a gas can and matches to the house in 2016.

You're just doing this to annoy me, we both know whoever I voted for in 16 made no difference. You're *really* angry at all the other people who decided to gamble on Trump. Besides the house was already on fire long before that. You know that roo.

I'm doing this to remind everyone that your advice should always be viewed as coming from someone who voted to help get us where we are today. If the truth annoys you, that's not my fault.

[waitingtoconnect]

That is a good point, but the reality is they could resign and take up those positions now.

[Holman]

The supreme court should change so a body of legal scholars and judges pick three or four nominees for Congress to decide. And appointments should be for 10 years maximum not for life. As back when it was a lifetime appointment 10 years was al the judges had left.

Lifetime appointments are certainly not without issue, but can you imagine if the SCOTUS were a stepping stone to someone's next job in the private sector?

Not trying to be snarky, but can you imagine if a lifetime Justice were married to someone in a position to influence politics and positions and contracts in the private sector?

[ImLawBoy]

That is a good point, but the reality is they could resign and take up those positions now.

Yes, but they don't, which indicates the risk is much, much greater in a scenario where they are forced to leave after their term ends.

The supreme court should change so a body of legal scholars and judges pick three or four nominees for Congress to decide. And appointments should be for 10 years maximum not for life. As back when it was a lifetime appointment 10 years was al the judges had left.

Lifetime appointments are certainly not without issue, but can you imagine if the SCOTUS were a stepping stone to someone's next job in the private sector?

Not trying to be snarky, but can you imagine if a lifetime Justice were married to someone in a position to influence politics and positions and contracts in the private sector?

Can you imagine if a term-limited Justice were married to someone in a position to influence politics and positions and contracts in the private sector while they were also working on lining up their post term career in the private sector?

Again, I'm not arguing that lifetime tenure for justices is ideal. I'm simply saying that term limiting justices isn't the panacea that many make it out to be and is likely to make some elements significantly worse than today's status quo.

[malchior]

IIRC one of the more interesting proposals was to enlarge the court but also rotate the court. The personal interest angle is real so ideally both aspects would have to be designed to maximize dilution of each individual's actual power. It obviously wouldn't be perfect but it'd be one way to limit the damage and potentially de-politicize the nomination process.

[Kraken]

That is a good point, but the reality is they could resign and take up those positions now.

Yes, but they don't, which indicates the risk is much, much greater in a scenario where they are forced to leave after their term ends.

The supreme court should change so a body of legal scholars and judges pick three or four nominees for Congress to decide. And appointments should be for 10 years maximum not for life. As back when it was a lifetime appointment 10 years was al the judges had left.

Lifetime appointments are certainly not without issue, but can you imagine if the SCOTUS were a stepping stone to someone's next job in the private sector?

Not trying to be snarky, but can you imagine if a lifetime Justice were married to someone in a position to influence politics and positions and contracts in the private sector?

Can you imagine if a term-limited Justice were married to someone in a position to influence politics and positions and contracts in the private sector while they were also working on lining up their post term career in the private sector?

Again, I'm not arguing that lifetime tenure for justices is ideal. I'm simply saying that term limiting justices isn't the panacea that many make it out to be and is likely to make some elements significantly worse than today's status quo.

Instead of term limits, how about a mandatory retirement age? That would make openings predictable, and retired justices would be unlikely to want private sector careers after age 75 (or 72 or whatever).

[malchior]

Instead of term limits, how about a mandatory retirement age? That would make openings predictable, and retired justices would be unlikely to want private sector careers after age 75 (or 72 or whatever).

It wouldn't solve the immediate issue. And even then you're still looking at someone on the court for 30+ years.

[LawBeefaroni]

When the Court is politicized and weaponozed there isn't really an operational solution. If judges don't have integrity and objectivity the Court is broken, be it term limited or age limited or case lottery or whatever.

[malchior]

Even I'm sort of surprised. If this is true, this shows an incredible lack of judgement.

[Carpet_pissr]

All bets are off, Pandora's Box is open, the jackals are loosed.

I don't think anything would surprise me at this point, except any kind of integrity.

[malchior]

All bets are off, Pandora's Box is open, the jackals are loosed.

I don't think anything would surprise me at this point, except any kind of integrity.

That is sort of what I meant. I have a super low bar about belief in the integrity of these robed tyrants. Even this was below it. It's unacceptable. In my mind, absolutely impeachable. Not that it'd happen but these judges have ZERO integrity and legitimacy in my mind. If states in particular were to start ignoring them on religious rulings it'd be almost hard to fault them.

[Unagi]

Not almost, it would be very much hard to blame them.

[malchior]

Unfortunately SCOTUS doesn't have a code of ethics and lobbying the justices is totally legal.

[LawBeefaroni]

That's how you play the long game.

[Carpet_pissr]

Is that illegal?

[LawBeefaroni]

Is that illegal?

No. It's highly unethical and erodes any confidence in the court but it's not illegal.



If it were illegal, any case would probably get appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.