The Supreme Court May Be Poised to Kill the Voting Rights Act Once and for All
The Supreme Court May Be Poised to Kill the Voting Rights Act Once and for All
It always bothered me when in law class they said court "opinion" matters and can set "precedence". Then we go over case from 100 years ago saying they are still valid today.
I'm like ... is everything just loosely "understood" with final "constitutional" decision being made on the spot every time it's challenged? That's just asking for abuse of the system, try until you get what you want... Prof at that time convinced me there's more to that so don't worry.
Long behold, look at what extremists are doing at the SC today, and absolutely no rails to guard it.
Lo-and-behold, but otherwise 100% with you
Amen.
Where is this perfect place you live in?
Also, don't form an impression of a whole country solely based on what you read online (exceptions apply.)
Where is this perfect place you live in?
A place doesn't have to be perfect to be a better choice for someone than another place. What an overprotective strawman. Other people are allowed to be happy they live someplace else.
If I could pick up my job and family and do a cut and paste into a country that's got socialized healthcare, affordable education, and less gun violence, with no fallout from doing so, I'd do it tomorrow.
As an American who has lived abroad, I regret coming back to the States. Other nations have their problems, sure, but none are as close to becoming a fascist hellscape as we are.
Just in case anyone thought they still had credibility to lose.
Good thing we have the Second Amendment!
Number of times it's been used to oppose tyranny: 0
Supporters of the Confederacy might disagree.
'Course, they're idiots, and they lost despite the 2nd amendment shocked pikachu
How would people even expect that to work? Do they believe there will be somebody in charge that everyone believes is a tyrant?
Let’s say Trump did not leave office in 2021. Would there be a sufficient mass of people in favour of a violent uprising? First, half the country already supported him. Second, the first time somebody uses violence they will be called terrorists and the vast majority will be in favour of stricter anti-terror measures instead of supporting the rebellion. Examples across the world of democracies that devolved into tyrannies, and never has a violent uprising been successful. Most people will always prefer authoritarian order over violent chaos.
Harumpf
I never try to be too hopeful with the current Supreme Court, but if they struck down the Private Right of Action, that would mean that if you brought a Private Right of Action case to the Supreme Court, they would refuse to even hear your case, because you don't have standing to bring the case.
However, the Supreme Court has recently heard cases that were brought as Private Right of Action cases. So, ruling against Private Right of Action would be going against the precedent of this exact Supreme Court with the exact Justices who are currently seated. If they were going to strike down the Private Right of Action in the future, then they should not have heard those recent cases in the past.
So, there might be reason to be hopeful.
However, if I have my numbers right, all of the conservative Justices except one swore, under oath, in their confirmation hearings that they considered Roe v Wade to be precedent. And despite that, all of them struck down Roe v Wade, which means they were lying under oath in their confirmation hearings. So, these conservative Justices are obviously not afraid to be lying hypocrites.
I think ideally that lying in your confirmation hearing should be enough reason to remove you from your position, especially if the position is that of a judge. You were confirmed under false pretenses.
Man, in a functioning system, there would be no "should," but "MUST," and with criminal charges.
You expect Chief Justice Robert's Supreme Court to follow set rules precedents and ethics? LoL! They'd vote for A on Tuesday and against A on Wednesday if it meant getting a fatter paycheck!
Is that possible tho? Is there a scenario where it would be possible to throw the justices that did in fact lie under oat?
They didn't actually lie under oath. They say that the ruling is precedent and settled law. They do not say that they would not overturn precedent.
And they will always argue that you do not want a justice that is not willing to overturn pass precedents. If not for overturning past precedents, segregation, etc. would still be legal.
I think its expected for a conservative to make bad-faith arguments. In principle I agree that since justices are not supposed to be partisan politicians should not be asking how the justice would rule on a future case. But it is bullshit that the nominee doesn't have to give real answers to their thoughts on past cases.
Lol
Came here to point all of this out, thank you for saving me the time! Updooted!