425
Supreme Court ruling shields presidents on official acts
(thehill.com)
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 01 Jul 2024
425 points (99.1% liked)
politics
19254 readers
2280 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
Biden should dissolve the supreme court and re-appoint the 9 most activist judges possible.
They made this bed, make them sleep in it.
I hope you can appreciate that this would be the move of a tyrant. You don't dissolve the cornerstone of law and order without actually destroying the foundation.
No matter how corrupt, this would be unconscionable.
Unconscionable, yes. Necessary, most likely. There are times when someone must wear the mantle of villain in order to be the hero who can actually do what is needed.
Also, the unconscionability of the act does squarely depend on one's philosophical definition of "justice". The conscionability of any decision is predicated on how one values the world around them. Personally, I lean towards a form of altruistic utilitarianism. As long as an act does not genuinely do harm, and it is for the benefit of the majority of people, it is good. If an act is harmful to some, but benefits the whole, it is justifiable. If an act harms many, but benefits few, it is unconscionable.
As for what OP said, I believe he mispoke or misunderstood the ramifications of the word "dissolve" in this context. What he described is not a dissolution of SCOTUS, but a forced full reset. Dissolution would be to eliminate it as one of the 3 federal houses of government, leaving only the Presidency and Congress to govern. Removing all members and pursuing filling the seats as the constitution dictates would not dissolve SCOTUS. It would be the same resultant event sequence if something happened and all of the justices died simultaneously. All sitting justicesl being replaced by the Democratic process of the country would be fine, and indeed, would be a good thing. As much as I love Sotomayor and Kagen, removing them would be necessary for it to not be a political action, but one which recognizes that the body is no longer able to do its sworn duty in its current state and it needs replaced.
You're right, but what is the solution?
The cornerstone of law and order destroying democracy, that can't stand.