The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent term ended with a flurry of conservative-leaning decisions that have been met with shock and disapproval, particularly from the left. This conservative trend is seen as a reflection of the 6-3 conservative majority established during Trump’s presidency. Noteworthy rulings include siding with a web designer who refused services to same-sex couples, ending affirmative action in colleges, and dismissing President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan.
Maybe the judgements are conservative leaning because…the constitution is fairly conservative?
I’m glad this supreme court is ruling based on the constitution rather than having a pseudo legislative role.
If the people want legislation, they should go through the legislative branch.
How is that a reasonable expectation? I don’t mean to be glib, this is a legitimate question. The chances that any given policy gets passed through congress and becomes a law is 30% regardless of public support:
So even when 99% of the population agrees on a bill, it still only has a 30% chance of passing. Bills that share the interests of the rich do not have this effect. They instead have this effect:
I don’t mean to say that legislation should be through the judicial branch, but to me, treating the issue as simple as “go through the legislative branch” seems to miss the context that our legislation branch isn’t good for anything other than giving money to the rich. So if the people want legislation, how should they reasonably be expected to make it happen?
Just because you don’t like that your bills aren’t getting passed, doesn’t mean that we should actively go against our foundation of the nation. Sorry weed isn’t legalized, doesn’t mean that we should remove the judicial branch from the government.
You can thank the Chevron Deference case for that. Hopefully this SC court rules on that next year.
Get involved. Vote for better candidates.
Already covered that part:
“I don’t mean to say that legislation should be through the judicial branch”
The supreme court is also in the pockets of the rich though.
I do, and then those candidates typically don’t get very far because they get called communists for daring to say that maybe healthcare shouldn’t be for profit.
Maybe. Are you able to prove this at all?
Just because people disagree with you doesn’t mean the system is wrong. Maybe your ideas aren’t popular. Don’t worry, most people have some unpopular ideas.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-ethics-documents-conflicts-9fa2847e60e11601c872c3ba3eea12a3
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-investigation-reveals-potential-conflicts-of-interest-for-supreme-court-justices (Same root source but a 2nd take on it)
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/more-clarence-thomas-undisclosed-freebies-rich-1234785233/
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1168649656/justice-thomas-trips
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/04/08/high-court-has-been-siding-with-rich-against-poor-since-nixon/
I never said the system is wrong because people disagree with me.
I’m just pointing out that these solutions you are giving aren’t anywhere near as effective as you seem to think they are.
You’re showing some conflict of interest, but come on. You’re trying to prove something here, all you have are a couple articles of going on trips?
He just ruled on roe v wade, show me how he’s in the pockets of the rich for that ruling. Or anything, come on, you said it, make your point.
You said the system is broken and it’s because you get called a communist by someone online.
So you’re sad because vote isn’t overriding every one elses?I don’t know what you want me to say, to you not getting your way every election.
Yup, that’s generally what “in the pocket of the rich” means. It means you have a conflict of interest to rule in favor of the rich because they have given you shit. I sincerely do not understand what part of that you’re hung up on.
Just because somebody is in the pocket of the rich doesn’t mean that every single ruling will have something to do with money. You have an unrealistic expectation here as well.
If you’re looking for rulings that blatantly side with the rich, the citizens united ruling is the place to start.
Here is another good place to start: https://time.com/5793956/supreme-court-loves-rich/
See the above links.
No I did not. If you’re going to spend the time to debate you should at least understand what people have said.
Nope. Never said that either.
I want you to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a simple solution for these problems. You keep saying “oh, just do X if Y doesn’t work”, but that’s not the reality of the situation, these problems require significant and complicated change.
Any conflict of interest? LOL you’d be hard pressed to find any politician that hasn’t had some COI transactions.
That’s why I asked you, tell me what case he’s ruled on that he got bought off. I’m encouraging you to show me.
That’s court cases from the 80’s. How does that prove your point that our current SC is in the pocket of the rich?
You’d have to do more than show that sometimes the cases go against the ‘marginalized’ - you have to prove it’s bad law. The SC is supposed to rule on if the law supports one side or not - it’s not their place to empathize with one party over the other. You want the SC to rule more friendly to you? Get ‘better’ law makers in office.
You: The systems broken, I can’t get what I want!
Me: It’s up to your representatives, get involved, get better people in office
You: They call me a communist :(