490
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2023
490 points (97.3% liked)
politics
19283 readers
2369 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
thats some solid optimism against a supreme court proven to be corrupt
Luxury fishing trips and anonymously repaid debts enter the chat
Same SCOTUS that already refused to hear Trump's earlier election case (not this week's story)?
Same SCOTUS who refused to hear Alabama's redistricting case, allowing a lower court's judgement to stand?
Y'all need to learn the difference between "conservative" and "partisan".
I tend to agree with your point, but they also dragged out legal precedent from ≈1850 to justify striking down abortion. They could just as easily go back to the pre-amendment version and say that the Framers never intended the 14th amendment to be a part of the Constitution; their conservatism isn't exactly grounded in anything reasonable
1850 would have been considered the space age to the guy Alito used as justification
Yes, Alito literally quoted this guy, who was born in 1609, as a defense for ending Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Sounds to me like a distinction without a difference. The reactionary judges are happy to work with the reactionary party to accomplish their goals. How can political actors be nonpartisan when their political philosophy is one and the same as that of a major political party?
It's a distinction with context. Partisan could be for any side. In this case it's by conservatives who are define morality through the execution of toxic capitalism and profit without room for nuance.
Taking two completely fake cases designed to set conservative legal precident isn't partisan enough for you? They're pretending to have some level of actual impartiality currently because of the scrutiny over roe, Clarence Thomas, etc. Plus those rulings they didn't touch were legally sound enough that overturning them would cause riots outside their homes.
So do most "conservatives".
What? They aren't corrupt, they unanimously agreed they weren't /s