The US Supreme Court and its decisions

[CoffeeHorse]

"Voting doesn't matter" is an odd take when the religious right pulled this off specifically by voting for it, every time, in every election cycle, no matter how discouraged they got when president after president failed to get their forever project done.

 

[Ironbite4]

Yeah ain't that amazing how voting somehow didn't matter until Trump got in.

Ironbite-and then everything fell in place for this.

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

Please also note that "codifying" is just a cope. Even if 51 Senators would ever vote for a Roe law, the law would be just as subject to judicial review as any other, and it would wind up in the same SCOTUS. The only way to circumvent SCOTUS is by passing a pro-choice Constitutional amendment, which would require 67 Senators and.... yeah.

It would at least require an entirely different justification to overturn an actual law than it took to (apparently) throw out that ruling. The justification Alito uses just won't cut it.

 

[Spin-Out]

honestly if it were up to me, i'd burn down everything. the democrats, the republicans, they all need to go. but we don't have a strong enough labor movement for that, and hell, most of the leaders of unions aren't socialists so they wouldn't even think of a revolution or even a general strike. america's basically fucked because the anti-communist/socialist propaganda that's been a thing since the 50's worked. there aren't enough people who want or support socialism right now for a revolution, and there never will be because anti-communism is too deeply rooted in the fiber of this country.

 

[Pocket]

It would at least require an entirely different justification to overturn an actual law than it took to (apparently) throw out that ruling. The justification Alito uses just won't cut it.

Yeah, there's a big difference between saying the Constitution doesn't contain some invisible amendment guaranteeing a particular right that only the 1973 court was able to see with their magic eyes, and saying it bans Congress from making a law guaranteeing said right. You would basically have to make up your own invisible amendment declaring fetuses to have the same rights as adults. Which I'm sure at least a couple members of the current court would gladly do, but not necessarily a majority.

 

[Nevermore]

honestly if it were up to me, i'd burn down everything. the democrats, the republicans, they all need to go. but we don't have a strong enough labor movement for that, and hell, most of the leaders of unions aren't socialists so they wouldn't even think of a revolution or even a general strike. america's basically fucked because the anti-communist/socialist propaganda that's been a thing since the 50's worked. there aren't enough people who want or support socialism right now for a revolution, and there never will be because anti-communism is too deeply rooted in the fiber of this country.

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

 

[Pocket]

Eh, my understanding is that the brand of "socialism" practiced today in most of the civilized world was well underway in America right up until Reagan came along (dat 93% tax bracket!) and any claims that there was widespread backlash to the New Deal is just historical revisionism concocted to hide the Republican Party's abrupt, radical jump to the right.

 

[Ungnome]

The Republican's fight against the New Deal started before the New Deal programs started, thought it wasn't as intense as it became. The recession and extreme inflation of the late 1970's and early 1980's their proposed 'trickle-down Reganomics' plan gave the Republicans and a selection of anti-New Deal Democrats the ammunition to REALLY go after those policies but they had been slowly rolling back New Deal policies at least since the early 1960's.

*edit* Apparently I was stupid and left in some extra words that I had originally intended to delete leaving grammatical errors that are worse than I usually make, fixed that, lol

 

[Ultra Magnus13]

Abortion Rights are really something that should have been cemented into place long before now as an actual part of the constitution. The original decision was always on shakey logic after all and was doomed to be torn apart the first time R had the majority in SCOTUS. Unfortunately that chance came and went in '93.

This. I am 100% pro choice, but the original Supreme Court decisions were complete garbage. I would absolutely be for choice being added to the constitution, but there is nothing currently in the constitution to justify the original ruling. The original ruling is exactly what the Supreme Court shouldn't be doing, deciding they want a specific outcome and just doing it without any legal merit.

 

[Pale Rider]

From the perspective of a cynical politician, the fragility of Roe v Wade could be seen as a feature rather than a bug.

Both sides have historically been able to leverage the perception that this house of cards is only one election away from being toppled.

Unfortunately for the establishment on both sides, however, SCOTUS now has enough zealous right-wing judges that are actually willing to take action on the matter after all this time.

 

[wonko the sane?]

So when are they going to start impeachments? Cause... like four of them lied under oath.

 

[Wheelimus]

So when are they going to start impeachments? Cause... like four of them lied under oath.

Absolutely never, because we don't have the votes to convict.

 

[KidTDragon]

So when are they going to start impeachments? Cause... like four of them lied under oath.

You mean make Republicans face consequences for their actions? Which country do you think this is?

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

Absolutely never, because we don't have the votes to convict.

Indeed, we have to stop talking about impeachment like it's a typical criminal trial, where evidence of wrongdoing generally leads to a conviction. Impeachment is, and has always been, a political tool, and will always be subject to the political leanings of the relevant people involved.

 

[wonko the sane?]

The punishment for lying under oath is perjury: perjury in the US carries up to five years in prison and thousands in fines.
It actually IS a crime.

And I don't give a ****.

They LIED to get onto the highest court in the land, and basically proven that they cannot be trusted to sit on that court. They need to be removed. Period. Impeachment is the act of removing them from their appointed positions. It's the very least the federal government needs to do regardless of how the republicans spin it, or what kind of violence it might cause because there will be inherently MORE violence in the long term if they are allowed to continue to sit because of the 1.) inherently cruel and oppresive ruling they will pass (or overturn, as the case may be.) and 2.) because it signals an absolute collapse in the rule of law. There is nothing left if the highest court in the land isn't even capable of policing itself.

 

[Wheelimus]

2/3rds majority in the Senate required to convict. Tell me the dozen plus Republicans who are going to vote to convict. You can't because they don't exist. Impeachment is a futile endeavor. All we can do is fight this on a state by state level until we have majorities in the House and Senate to codify Roe v Wade. All we can do. We'll never impeach a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court. Even if you feel they committed perjury they all tiptoed enough around the subject to survive that anyway. Other than voting it's hopeless.

 

[wonko the sane?]

Even with voting it's hopeless. The law no longer applies to any section of government at all unless they volunteer to it, and that ends the second the republicans (whom will lie, cheat and steal to do it.) get back into power.

Congrats, the republic has died.

 

[The Mighty Mollusk]

The republic has been bleeding out for decades. What a joy to see the final stages.

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

The punishment for lying under oath is perjury: perjury in the US carries up to five years in prison and thousands in fines.
It actually IS a crime.

And I don't give a ****.

They LIED to get onto the highest court in the land, and basically proven that they cannot be trusted to sit on that court. They need to be removed. Period. Impeachment is the act of removing them from their appointed positions. It's the very least the federal government needs to do regardless of how the republicans spin it, or what kind of violence it might cause because there will be inherently MORE violence in the long term if they are allowed to continue to sit because of the 1.) inherently cruel and oppresive ruling they will pass (or overturn, as the case may be.) and 2.) because it signals an absolute collapse in the rule of law. There is nothing left if the highest court in the land isn't even capable of policing itself.

In no part of my comments above did I suggest there was no crime here.

The problem is, the fact of a crime doesn't mean that there's a court that can convict. We're talking about the SUPREME court, after all. For them, the only mechanism isn't a criminal conviction, but a political one. Impeachment is a POLITICAL act. Proving the crime is merely one of the steps. It's not enough on its own.


And, again, STOP IT with the "voting is useless" talk. It doesn't help anything. Voting is insufficient, perhaps, but not useless.

Let's talk about what CAN be done.

Because there ARE things that can be done.

 

[wonko the sane?]

No, your comment was fine, but I felt it did bear some clarification. Plus, you know, my opinion of this... charlie foxtrot.

But let's also be clear here: MY vote is useless. And you know why.