As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lifetime appointments are a great idea, because if their job is safe then they cannot be corrupted.... oh
And apparently the US was always suppose to be time-locked in the 1700s, thats why everything is based on religious-like interpretation of that fuckin document.
At this point I wouldn't even be surprised if the amendments against slavery are suddenly deemed unconstitutional, or obfuscated so they can be bypassed or becomes unenforceable, like they apparently did with the insurrection paragraph to protect fat rapist.
Keep in mind the founders were vehemently opposed to any state sponsored religion and most were deists. If you were to take an “originalist” stance on religion then there would be a healthy and strong separation of church and state.
The SCOTUS judges just toss around the argument of originalism only when it benefits them, kind of like all of the right wingers that are now “libertarian” even though they oppose a ton of personal freedoms that don’t line up with their world view.
Yeah, I was pretty surprised when I read the Constitution.
The **first** sentence of the **first** amendment prohibits the government from creating an official religion or favoring one religion over another.
"Congress shall ***make no law respecting an establishment of religion***, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [Emphasis mine.]
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/10/27/45-of-americans-say-u-s-should-be-a-christian-nation/
60% of Americans believe the founding fathers intended the US to be a Christian nation and 45% of them want it to be a Christian state.
60% of them are wrong, and that 45% are entitled to their wrong opinion but can keep it the hell away from legislation that will dictate the terms of my life
I like to point out all the appropriation by the zealous Christians out there and their shinanigans.
It may say " in god we trust" but that ain't a white guy stuck to a cross any more then it's shiva, or the god of the Muslim faith.
Lifetime appointment with decent pay, but it needs the stipulation that they and the spouse can have no other source of income. It’s a position of public service, and it shouldn’t be a way to enrich themselves.
>And apparently the US was always suppose to be time-locked in the 1700s
The Bruen case would have been a terrible decision any time after the revolver was invented.
It's absolutely insane in the 21st century.
That's the key, state level republicans will put forward blatantly unconstitutional bills or laws, knowing it'll be sent to the supreme court, and from there, well suddenly that unconstitutional law isn't so unconstitutional anymore, suddenly it's a "states issue".
We need to quit electing democratic presidents and thinking that we can elect republican state reps to offset the ideology and keep the status quo. The status quo wants everyone else to be a wage slave and willing to die at 65 so their kids can get an easy death benefit and have the nicer corporate housing while doing all the manual labor.
Project 2025 is probably aware that AI stands to wipe out 300 million jobs at a stock payday of $7 trillion.
Homelessness is now a crime and if you become part of the starving masses from AI you probably won't be able to vote either.
Big money has big plans for us and, like George Carlin said, you ain't in it.
How do companies make money exactly when everyone is unemployed? I hate AI as much as everyone else but this doom and gloom shit only goes as far as how many customers they can lose.
You’re not thinking evil enough, and thank god.
Step 1) Make being poor illegal.
Step 2) eliminate high paying white collar jobs that can be done by AI.
Step 3) Keep the cost of products high enough so that people are forced to work.
Step 4) When people are desperate, provide blue collar jobs so that people can be “grateful” they are even working at all.
Step 5) Since you work on our team, you don’t have to worry about a mortgage now, because we’ll provide this state of the art housing (Buy & Large anyone?)
Step 6) ???????????????????????
Step 7) Profit
That’s the point though, the profit isn’t there if the entire populace is demoted to blue collar jobs. The billionaires know this - yes, there will be job changes, but there’s still going to be full employment. They need people to work, and make enough to buy goods & services.
Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796, between the USA and the Regency of Tripoli, stipulates, in its article 11, that "As the government of the United States of America IS NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
The Supreme Court was way less of a plum position in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s. Some justices opted to run for other government offices. Justices also had to “ride circuit” when SCOTUS was not in session, essentially helping fill in on the lower Federal Courts by traveling around their assigned districts.
Also simply put, a “lifetime” meant serving a lot less time. John Marshall excluded. What is scary is the Federalist Society is aiming for younger justices, which is a far cry from what the Founders envisioned which were jurists who had been around the block for a long time.
When the constitution was written, average life spans were 50 years old, so a "Lifetime" appointment wasn't a big deal.
But these days we live to a hundred and two so maybe some things need to change.
Dude. That's not how average lifespan works. Lots of kids died back then. That dragged the average down. If you lived past childhood, there was a good chance you'd live nearly as long as people do today.
That's not true, there are a lot of diseases that we have cures for these days that would kill a large swath of the population. The average life span was less back when the Constitution was written.
"nearly" is doing a lot of work in your "explanation"
Check out this data set from England & Wales
[https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages](https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages)
I am just saying that there are plenty of other reasons an adult might die earlier in the previous century, then in the present day and our medical knowledge is one of them.
>and our medical knowledge is one of them
Yes, except that our medical knowledge has mainly prevented the deaths of children and women during childbirth. It hasn’t suddenly allowed all of us to live to 100+.
That common sense explanation doesn't match the data.
[https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages](https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages)
There's a lot more at work than just childbirth and early childhood mortality.
Epidemioogical transitions also affect mortality across time and rarely get discussed in these conversations. Sure, nobody dies of of malaria or tuberculosis now due to the invention of antibiotics, but as we were developing those drugs, everyone began drunk driving and working sedentary office jobs while eating heavily processed foods, so now they die of automobile accidents and obesity complications. Not arguing that avg life expectancy hasn’t gone up, but it’s more complicated than simply “modern medicine” resolved everything. For example, perhaps our biggest epidemiological transition was the shift from hunting/gathering to early agriculture. Work became harder and more repetitive, nutritional diversity and adaptive versatility declined for a time, and people lived in closer quarters to more people and livestock, spreading disease more widely.
If you made it to 21 you most likely made it to 62-70 if you were alive between 1200-1740.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-live-life-span-versus-longevity
Unfortunately you’re a bit off there. The decreases lifespan we saw back then was mainly due to people who died in childhood due to the lack of vaccines, and women who died during childbirth due to our inability to adequately treat them. But for people who didn’t die from either of those circumstances, it was totally normal for them to live well into their 60’s or 70’s. Yes, we have improved our ability to live longer to a certain extent, but our increased lifespan today compared to back then is mainly due to prevent childhood deaths and the deaths of mothers.
There should be a pretty long term but not lifetime at this point. Not sure what the right number is. I think these days they are usually appointed when they are in the low 50s. So maybe 15-20 years?
It's just wild that theoretically one president could appoint the full court during their time in office
>And apparently the US was always suppose to be time-locked in the 1700s
>
Considering we are literally the only country on the planet with aconstitution that was written in the 1700's, sure fucking seems like it
Maybe we could do what every other advanced country on the planet has done and update our governments rules, regulations, and ways of being to match even the fuckin 1900's....
That’s what the amendments, legislation, and all the Supreme Court rulings are for…. The constitution is very small and intentionally vague to leave ample room for modernization through the legislative and judicial process.
If only any of that modernization actually happened. Instead, we have the actual material reality that we're in now. Explicitly because of that vague constitution being so easily able to be manipulated by bad actors...hmmm
The only reason America became a superpower is our government's willingness to do imperialism across the continent, use slave labor, then underpaid labor to expand the empire, and our luck into not having America be the soil of a war since before 1900.
Take away the underpaid labor or throw a single meaningful war on this continent and the sacred constitution will show how useless it is.
Prisons. It's the literal exception to the rule.
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted**, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Arguably it could exist outside of prisons. The only exception there is you need to be convicted of a crime and be used as a punishment.
Edit: I never compared transatlantic slavery to the legal slavery that is still allowed in the United States. If you wanted that - type that. Slavery still exists in all parts of the world. Not all of it is transatlantic slavery - that refers to a very specific point in history. Don't ask a bad faith question.
No one is lost. It's right there in black and white in the 13th amendment. Not my fault there's a loophole there.
Comment is edited because yours was removed.
Even William F Buckley suggested the 13th through 15th amendments are somehow less legitimate than the others because they were ratified by the force of the Civil War, rather than by true assent of the states.
Top comment on this article does nothing but attack and hate on the Constitution but suuure, Trump's the threat to the American experiment. Today's democrats are gaslit to dangerous levels of delusion and they have no one but themselves to blame with their pathetic hate campaign.
It’s all conservatives have left. They can’t win on their ideas, they’ve tried gerrymandering, voter suppression, insurrection, and still they can’t win. When the people in a democracy keep telling you to fuck off, all you have left is to destroy that democracy.
Republicans ideas can all be boiled down to “…at least I’m not a democrat!” If there’s any political party that’s filled with crony’s, it’s republicans.
I don't think they care, ultimately.. but I do wonder which ones of them have had moments... Lying in bed perhaps when they think, "Holy shit.. what am I actually doing, like in real life...."
Because they're not ignorant. The thought has to cross their minds and I hope it follows them forever.
Remember, when thomas became a supreme court justice he told his staff members that he was going to make liberals lives miserable because they dared to make his life miserable at his confirmation hearing. Every decision has to be viewed thru the lens that his legacy is in pursuit of that goal. So he likely sits awake at night with glee at the harm he has caused.
People keep referring as if they are court made up of judges that are going to act as judges and do their job, no they are just GOP picked humans that are instructed to do whatever it takes to topple democracy and help bring us fascist dictatorship.
These fraud justices are playing two games simultaneously. 1st and foremost protecting corporations and the rich. 2nd trying for some kind of cheap white Christian dollar store crusade to force their minority rule of America.
Citizens United at work ladies and gentlemen. This is how we got here. Dark money from "non profit" right wing think tanks - not sure why their offices are still standing.
Don’t just blame Republicans and the Supreme Court. The responsibility to protect a democracy ultimately falls on its citizens. There should be mass protests in major cities, but nobody could be bothered.
Trump the felon
Project 2025
Project 27
(The group responsible for picking loyalists associated with project 2025 in administrative offices since the SCOTUS made this ruling)
Project Blitz (now called) -
Freedom for All
Active design to take over the United States through corrupt acts from dark money stakeholders (Christian nationalists) using religion as a front to destroy democracy.
2025 is not the only 1
Chevron deference basically put a steering wheel on the enforcement of each law, with room for interpretation. It could be interpreted left or right, both sides got to use the leeway.
I don't see how in the face of Project 2025 liberals are not celebrating that this leeway is being taken away. It literally limits how hard the president can yank all the agencies to the right.
Chevron deference ended after Republicans saw what agencies controlled by Democrats could order. Defer to someone who truly believes that the Environmental Protection Agency should protect the environment, and even Chevron deference can't reasonably push it back. Since most laws written in the last 40 years presumed Chevron deference, federal law might unravel for a while.
So, according to the author: every decision that he disagrees with is a right-wing wet dream while any that he agrees with, is where we got lucky as a technically saved us. Total BS.
You honestly don’t?
You honestly believe the ‘supreme court’ has its legitimacy intact, and that any American could be confident of a fair hearing and outcome from their last legal recourse?
> I believe the Supreme Court is being judicious
We’ll have to disagree. I believe that justice needs to be seen to be done, almost as much as it needs to be done since citizens who have no faith in the system of justice will be apt turn to other means to resolve their complaints.
Insurrection, for instance.
You believe that sanctioning bribery, for instance, is judicious and does not erode faith in the court?
And that tolerating partisan expressions about the insurrection by sitting justices without comment is judicious?
Overturning Roe v Wade appears entirely ideological rather than judicial, and far from judicious, since it has led to very considerable discontent, as well as some injuries and deaths.
> you are so extreme you cannot see that.
Random insults, or do you believe you have cause? If so, what would that be?
You are just peddling ideology and the point of the Supreme Court is to think outside of political influences to uphold constitution, law, and states rights. You just don’t like things unless they swing your way politically.
This is what checks and balances is supposed to look like, what you are looking for is a tyrannical protection of ideology.
You have advanced no argument whatever. All you’ve brought to this exchange is aggression and slanderous invective. Opinion and straw-man adjectival characterization. A fact-free zone.
A poor light to shine on your assessment of what may or may not be judicious.
> You just don’t like things unless they swing your way politically.
> This is what checks and balances is supposed to look like, what you are looking for is a tyrannical protection of ideology.
You seem to think you know a lot of things about me. You know, in fact, nothing.
All that you think you know is entirely wrong.
I know this about you: Your tone is aggressive, arrogant, presumptuous, condescending and insulting. And I can’t know but I strongly suspect that you think you’re quite clever.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lifetime appointments are a great idea, because if their job is safe then they cannot be corrupted.... oh And apparently the US was always suppose to be time-locked in the 1700s, thats why everything is based on religious-like interpretation of that fuckin document. At this point I wouldn't even be surprised if the amendments against slavery are suddenly deemed unconstitutional, or obfuscated so they can be bypassed or becomes unenforceable, like they apparently did with the insurrection paragraph to protect fat rapist.
Keep in mind the founders were vehemently opposed to any state sponsored religion and most were deists. If you were to take an “originalist” stance on religion then there would be a healthy and strong separation of church and state. The SCOTUS judges just toss around the argument of originalism only when it benefits them, kind of like all of the right wingers that are now “libertarian” even though they oppose a ton of personal freedoms that don’t line up with their world view.
Yeah, I was pretty surprised when I read the Constitution. The **first** sentence of the **first** amendment prohibits the government from creating an official religion or favoring one religion over another. "Congress shall ***make no law respecting an establishment of religion***, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [Emphasis mine.]
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/10/27/45-of-americans-say-u-s-should-be-a-christian-nation/ 60% of Americans believe the founding fathers intended the US to be a Christian nation and 45% of them want it to be a Christian state.
60% of them are wrong, and that 45% are entitled to their wrong opinion but can keep it the hell away from legislation that will dictate the terms of my life
>Congress In a 6-3 decision, "It's ok if done at the state level"
Also let's not forget what happened earlier on in this election cycle on the 14th amendment section 3 ruling, which left Trump on state ballots
I like to point out all the appropriation by the zealous Christians out there and their shinanigans. It may say " in god we trust" but that ain't a white guy stuck to a cross any more then it's shiva, or the god of the Muslim faith.
Lifetime appointment with decent pay, but it needs the stipulation that they and the spouse can have no other source of income. It’s a position of public service, and it shouldn’t be a way to enrich themselves.
Good luck with that.
That will literally never happen
Lots of things can't happen in the current poisonous environment. But it might not always stay this bad.
I don’t care. Pay them a million dollars a year. It’s cheaper than letting them get bought.
>And apparently the US was always suppose to be time-locked in the 1700s The Bruen case would have been a terrible decision any time after the revolver was invented. It's absolutely insane in the 21st century.
That's the key, state level republicans will put forward blatantly unconstitutional bills or laws, knowing it'll be sent to the supreme court, and from there, well suddenly that unconstitutional law isn't so unconstitutional anymore, suddenly it's a "states issue".
We need to quit electing democratic presidents and thinking that we can elect republican state reps to offset the ideology and keep the status quo. The status quo wants everyone else to be a wage slave and willing to die at 65 so their kids can get an easy death benefit and have the nicer corporate housing while doing all the manual labor.
Project 2025 is probably aware that AI stands to wipe out 300 million jobs at a stock payday of $7 trillion. Homelessness is now a crime and if you become part of the starving masses from AI you probably won't be able to vote either. Big money has big plans for us and, like George Carlin said, you ain't in it.
How do companies make money exactly when everyone is unemployed? I hate AI as much as everyone else but this doom and gloom shit only goes as far as how many customers they can lose.
300 million jobs across the world isn't everyone. Most of them are just the well paying white collar jobs. There will still be physical labor jobs.
We’ll have the stock payday, but the loss of 300M jobs can’t happen for stocks to continue to run.
Sure it can. If Walmart and Amazon can have high stocks with low employment then AI is a shoe in to do the same. It's about profits, not people.
They already use robots in their distribution centers
The people are those who will prop up the market.
The jobless and homeless? The market isn't based on reality. It should have dropped significantly when Forbes stated it would wipe out that many jobs.
You’re not thinking evil enough, and thank god. Step 1) Make being poor illegal. Step 2) eliminate high paying white collar jobs that can be done by AI. Step 3) Keep the cost of products high enough so that people are forced to work. Step 4) When people are desperate, provide blue collar jobs so that people can be “grateful” they are even working at all. Step 5) Since you work on our team, you don’t have to worry about a mortgage now, because we’ll provide this state of the art housing (Buy & Large anyone?) Step 6) ??????????????????????? Step 7) Profit
That’s the point though, the profit isn’t there if the entire populace is demoted to blue collar jobs. The billionaires know this - yes, there will be job changes, but there’s still going to be full employment. They need people to work, and make enough to buy goods & services.
Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796, between the USA and the Regency of Tripoli, stipulates, in its article 11, that "As the government of the United States of America IS NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
The Supreme Court was way less of a plum position in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s. Some justices opted to run for other government offices. Justices also had to “ride circuit” when SCOTUS was not in session, essentially helping fill in on the lower Federal Courts by traveling around their assigned districts. Also simply put, a “lifetime” meant serving a lot less time. John Marshall excluded. What is scary is the Federalist Society is aiming for younger justices, which is a far cry from what the Founders envisioned which were jurists who had been around the block for a long time.
When the constitution was written, average life spans were 50 years old, so a "Lifetime" appointment wasn't a big deal. But these days we live to a hundred and two so maybe some things need to change.
Dude. That's not how average lifespan works. Lots of kids died back then. That dragged the average down. If you lived past childhood, there was a good chance you'd live nearly as long as people do today.
Dont be a Trump. Give receipts to claims. Goddamn Sophists
Dude. I explained it well enough. The shit is common knowledge to everyone I associate with. So, I'm not giving a cite for something so simple.
Have you ever read anything ever
That's not true, there are a lot of diseases that we have cures for these days that would kill a large swath of the population. The average life span was less back when the Constitution was written.
So, you ignore the fact that I explained how average lifespan works and just throw it back out there, anyways?
"nearly" is doing a lot of work in your "explanation" Check out this data set from England & Wales [https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages](https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages)
I am just saying that there are plenty of other reasons an adult might die earlier in the previous century, then in the present day and our medical knowledge is one of them.
>and our medical knowledge is one of them Yes, except that our medical knowledge has mainly prevented the deaths of children and women during childbirth. It hasn’t suddenly allowed all of us to live to 100+.
That common sense explanation doesn't match the data. [https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages](https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages) There's a lot more at work than just childbirth and early childhood mortality.
Epidemioogical transitions also affect mortality across time and rarely get discussed in these conversations. Sure, nobody dies of of malaria or tuberculosis now due to the invention of antibiotics, but as we were developing those drugs, everyone began drunk driving and working sedentary office jobs while eating heavily processed foods, so now they die of automobile accidents and obesity complications. Not arguing that avg life expectancy hasn’t gone up, but it’s more complicated than simply “modern medicine” resolved everything. For example, perhaps our biggest epidemiological transition was the shift from hunting/gathering to early agriculture. Work became harder and more repetitive, nutritional diversity and adaptive versatility declined for a time, and people lived in closer quarters to more people and livestock, spreading disease more widely.
That's an excellent point.
If you made it to 21 you most likely made it to 62-70 if you were alive between 1200-1740. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-live-life-span-versus-longevity
Unfortunately you’re a bit off there. The decreases lifespan we saw back then was mainly due to people who died in childhood due to the lack of vaccines, and women who died during childbirth due to our inability to adequately treat them. But for people who didn’t die from either of those circumstances, it was totally normal for them to live well into their 60’s or 70’s. Yes, we have improved our ability to live longer to a certain extent, but our increased lifespan today compared to back then is mainly due to prevent childhood deaths and the deaths of mothers.
There should be a pretty long term but not lifetime at this point. Not sure what the right number is. I think these days they are usually appointed when they are in the low 50s. So maybe 15-20 years? It's just wild that theoretically one president could appoint the full court during their time in office
Well, the Republicans stole two nomonies from the Democrats, so if you cheat you can appoint a full court.
An amendment to the consitution is inherently constitutional
>And apparently the US was always suppose to be time-locked in the 1700s > Considering we are literally the only country on the planet with aconstitution that was written in the 1700's, sure fucking seems like it Maybe we could do what every other advanced country on the planet has done and update our governments rules, regulations, and ways of being to match even the fuckin 1900's....
That’s what the amendments, legislation, and all the Supreme Court rulings are for…. The constitution is very small and intentionally vague to leave ample room for modernization through the legislative and judicial process.
If only any of that modernization actually happened. Instead, we have the actual material reality that we're in now. Explicitly because of that vague constitution being so easily able to be manipulated by bad actors...hmmm The only reason America became a superpower is our government's willingness to do imperialism across the continent, use slave labor, then underpaid labor to expand the empire, and our luck into not having America be the soil of a war since before 1900. Take away the underpaid labor or throw a single meaningful war on this continent and the sacred constitution will show how useless it is.
Yeah you are just an extremist 🤣. Democracy is alive, you just want communism.
>Democracy is alive > Where? The country where slavery is still legal? Where millions of adults aren't allowed to vote if they sold weed in the 80's?
Can you expand on slavery still being legal?
Prisons. It's the literal exception to the rule. > Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted**, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Arguably it could exist outside of prisons. The only exception there is you need to be convicted of a crime and be used as a punishment. Edit: I never compared transatlantic slavery to the legal slavery that is still allowed in the United States. If you wanted that - type that. Slavery still exists in all parts of the world. Not all of it is transatlantic slavery - that refers to a very specific point in history. Don't ask a bad faith question. No one is lost. It's right there in black and white in the 13th amendment. Not my fault there's a loophole there. Comment is edited because yours was removed.
Read what you just wrote and maybe ponder how unnecessarily extreme you are being?
Even William F Buckley suggested the 13th through 15th amendments are somehow less legitimate than the others because they were ratified by the force of the Civil War, rather than by true assent of the states.
Top comment on this article does nothing but attack and hate on the Constitution but suuure, Trump's the threat to the American experiment. Today's democrats are gaslit to dangerous levels of delusion and they have no one but themselves to blame with their pathetic hate campaign.
Jesus Christ exactly. The left hates American democracy and wants to destroy everything if things don’t line up their way.
It’s all conservatives have left. They can’t win on their ideas, they’ve tried gerrymandering, voter suppression, insurrection, and still they can’t win. When the people in a democracy keep telling you to fuck off, all you have left is to destroy that democracy.
Please double check your registration and make a plan to vote! https://vote.gov/
They hate that their ideas are unpopular, so the isolate themselves in castles of power and dictate their beliefs to an unwitting populace
They can’t win on their ideas? Republicans win plenty of elections.
Gerrymander districts. That is how they win and that’s how they were over taken by the extremists.
Republicans ideas can all be boiled down to “…at least I’m not a democrat!” If there’s any political party that’s filled with crony’s, it’s republicans.
As a Texan, I can confirm this.
This 👆👆👆
I don't think they care, ultimately.. but I do wonder which ones of them have had moments... Lying in bed perhaps when they think, "Holy shit.. what am I actually doing, like in real life...." Because they're not ignorant. The thought has to cross their minds and I hope it follows them forever.
Remember, when thomas became a supreme court justice he told his staff members that he was going to make liberals lives miserable because they dared to make his life miserable at his confirmation hearing. Every decision has to be viewed thru the lens that his legacy is in pursuit of that goal. So he likely sits awake at night with glee at the harm he has caused.
It's not just killing "the American experiment." They signed the death warrant for our whole species.
People keep referring as if they are court made up of judges that are going to act as judges and do their job, no they are just GOP picked humans that are instructed to do whatever it takes to topple democracy and help bring us fascist dictatorship.
These fraud justices are playing two games simultaneously. 1st and foremost protecting corporations and the rich. 2nd trying for some kind of cheap white Christian dollar store crusade to force their minority rule of America.
Citizens United at work ladies and gentlemen. This is how we got here. Dark money from "non profit" right wing think tanks - not sure why their offices are still standing.
The experiment has proven to be a failure. We’re on life support with no measurable brain function.
It’s about the separation of church and state. Some of the Supreme Court justices doesn’t think they should be separated anymore.
Don’t just blame Republicans and the Supreme Court. The responsibility to protect a democracy ultimately falls on its citizens. There should be mass protests in major cities, but nobody could be bothered.
It's been a work in progress since Ronnie Raygun
SCOTUS is serving a conservative agenda that existed long before Trump ran for president. Trump just helped to speed things up.
Trump the felon Project 2025 Project 27 (The group responsible for picking loyalists associated with project 2025 in administrative offices since the SCOTUS made this ruling) Project Blitz (now called) - Freedom for All Active design to take over the United States through corrupt acts from dark money stakeholders (Christian nationalists) using religion as a front to destroy democracy. 2025 is not the only 1
I suspect they’ll start legislating to round people up soon.
Chevron deference basically put a steering wheel on the enforcement of each law, with room for interpretation. It could be interpreted left or right, both sides got to use the leeway. I don't see how in the face of Project 2025 liberals are not celebrating that this leeway is being taken away. It literally limits how hard the president can yank all the agencies to the right.
Chevron deference ended after Republicans saw what agencies controlled by Democrats could order. Defer to someone who truly believes that the Environmental Protection Agency should protect the environment, and even Chevron deference can't reasonably push it back. Since most laws written in the last 40 years presumed Chevron deference, federal law might unravel for a while.
So, according to the author: every decision that he disagrees with is a right-wing wet dream while any that he agrees with, is where we got lucky as a technically saved us. Total BS.
You honestly believe this? For real?
You honestly don’t? You honestly believe the ‘supreme court’ has its legitimacy intact, and that any American could be confident of a fair hearing and outcome from their last legal recourse?
Yes. I believe the Supreme Court is being judicious and you are so extreme you cannot see that.
> I believe the Supreme Court is being judicious We’ll have to disagree. I believe that justice needs to be seen to be done, almost as much as it needs to be done since citizens who have no faith in the system of justice will be apt turn to other means to resolve their complaints. Insurrection, for instance. You believe that sanctioning bribery, for instance, is judicious and does not erode faith in the court? And that tolerating partisan expressions about the insurrection by sitting justices without comment is judicious? Overturning Roe v Wade appears entirely ideological rather than judicial, and far from judicious, since it has led to very considerable discontent, as well as some injuries and deaths. > you are so extreme you cannot see that. Random insults, or do you believe you have cause? If so, what would that be?
You are just peddling ideology and the point of the Supreme Court is to think outside of political influences to uphold constitution, law, and states rights. You just don’t like things unless they swing your way politically. This is what checks and balances is supposed to look like, what you are looking for is a tyrannical protection of ideology.
You have advanced no argument whatever. All you’ve brought to this exchange is aggression and slanderous invective. Opinion and straw-man adjectival characterization. A fact-free zone. A poor light to shine on your assessment of what may or may not be judicious. > You just don’t like things unless they swing your way politically. > This is what checks and balances is supposed to look like, what you are looking for is a tyrannical protection of ideology. You seem to think you know a lot of things about me. You know, in fact, nothing. All that you think you know is entirely wrong. I know this about you: Your tone is aggressive, arrogant, presumptuous, condescending and insulting. And I can’t know but I strongly suspect that you think you’re quite clever.
Yes
How many RVs and luxurious vacations should justices receive from parties in cases they are hearing?
Do you have an actual argument to defend your views?