politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Your problem is you don't want to have a conversation about the 2nd Amendment, you want to reinforce the status quo because you like having guns.
There literally are. Tons of checks. The court's power extends only as far as its legitimacy. If Biden defied the Court on something and the Court says "you can't do that", all that is is words. That's literally how it was designed. The only thing making the corrupt Court a super legislature that can just make rules up law whole cloth is people like you saying "well, the court says so and they're the unitary decider".
And it doesn't have to be moderate timid Biden that defies them. Gavin Newsome and the California legislature can defy the Court tomorrow and their only recourse is whining about in in the op-ed pages. Unless the people of California believe that the Court is legitimate and vote them all out for it, that's the balance of powers alive and well. You may not like it, but that's just how the system works.
LOL. No. Shitting on the legitimacy of a corrupt Court is a good thing and an essential step toward correcting the mess we're in.
Rolling over for tyranny when the founding fathers very deliberately separated enforcement from legal judgement is not what it means to be an American. This is literally stuff written by the founding fathers in discussing the design of the nation. Yielding full rule making authority, whether in a misplaced devotion to authority or learned helplessness, is what they were fearful of. On its own, as a coequal branch, it's nothing.
It's not like the Founding Fathers just never considered that a Court could be bad and power hungry, or that supermajority impeachment alone would always be a simple remedy for such. They were quite explicit in that the Court is not all powerful because their only power is that of judgement and judgement alone doesn't do anything. Their power relies on adherence by the other branches, and such power exists only if the people will punish the elected branches for challenging them.
John Roberts isn't worried about the belief in the legitimacy of the court because he just wants historians to praise his tenure, he's worried about it because if they lose it, they can and will be defied. And that's a consequence there by design.
It's pretty clear you have no concept of how our system of government works.
The Supreme Court is the top tier of the Judicial Branch, the 3rd "Separate but Equal" part of our government.
You can't just decide "Well, I don't like you, I don't have to do what you say." Doing so cracks the very foundation of what our government is built on.
Same if someone decided to ignore the President (Executive Branch) or a ruling coming from the House and Senate (Legislative Branch).
The only difference is the President has the ability to sign or veto laws passed by Congress, and Congress can over-ride a veto.
There is no similar constraint on Supreme Court rulings. They are the arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional. That's their job. If you disagree with that, your options are 1) pass a new amendment or 2) a Constitutional convention.
Whether I like or dislike their definition of the 2nd amendment is irrelevant. It's THEIR definition. It's settled law. My liking it or disliking it doesn't change that.
Want to change it? Make sure we have Democratic Presidents exclusively for, oh, the next 20 to 25 years or so. Hope we don't have another block like they did with Merrick Garland.
Thomas (75) and Alito (73) are the next likely two to age out. If that happens under a Democratic President, it could shift the balance from 6-3 to 4-5. Given ages of court deaths and retirees that's probably 10-15 years from now.
The next three though are Sotomayor (69), Roberts (68) and Kagan (63). Say what you want about Roberts, but he has served as a key swing vote, siding with the "liberal" judges on multiple occasions. Losing any or all of them under a Republican President would lock in a conservative court long past my lifetime.
Kavanaugh (58), Gorsuch (56), Jackson (53) and Barrett (51) could all be with us for 30 years or more. So that's a baked in 3:1 disadvantage until maybe 2053? I'm 54 myself, so it's unlikely I'll live to see this.
I can't believe when confronted with deep theory of government from the Federalist papers you forged on to repeat a grade school description of government. Go read the Federalist papers.
And when confronted with the realization that politely waiting for deaths under an unbroken reign of Democratic regimes means you will literally live the rest of your life under a corrupt and illegitimately stacked conservative court, you dutifully knuckled under. My god.