• @Blue_Morpho
    link
    2375 months ago

    The author came to the wrong conclusion. Yes the Supreme Court making themselves the authority on all federal policy will increase their case load. No, it does not mean they will actually need to do any more work. Cases will be backlogged for as long as they want.

    Businesses can now dump toxic waste onto public lands knowing that they are safe from judgement for decades.

    • @just_another_person
      link
      695 months ago

      It also means that lower courts in practically any state can issue injunctions on federal policy as well, which is going to open the floodgates for crazy. They’ve pretty much just begged everyone to vote Democrat, and get the seating of SC Justices rewritten. That, or pack the court.

      • @whygohomie
        link
        English
        585 months ago

        The court was already packed with activist judges appointed under suspicious or hypocritical circumstances who then lied to Congress during their confirmations about their deference to precedent on a host of issues only to the engage in a massive power grab from Congress. Subsequent action to rebalance the court is not court packing.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          245 months ago

          The term “court packing” has a very specific meaning. It refers to adding seats to the supreme court to shift the balance.

        • @retrospectology
          link
          18
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Court packing is the solution. It’s been suggested that the number of justices be increased to something like 20-30 (similar to the next lowest court is right now) and then judges be rotated out to other federal positions every few years (effectively a term limit in the SC itself).

          This achieves two things 1) It allows for each administration to make appointments to the court as a routine matter, making it difficult to capture the court for generations at a time 2) the amount of judges waters down the influence of the extremist dipshits. We know this works because, as we saw in the past, even lunatics like Alito were kept in check when the court was not majority far-right.

      • @Ensign_Crab
        link
        English
        185 months ago

        That, or pack the court.

        Yeah, Democrats are too married to do-nothing incrementalism to ever seriously consider doing that.

        • @Serinus
          link
          145 months ago

          It’d help if we had more than the very slimmest of majorities.

          • @Ensign_Crab
            link
            English
            165 months ago

            It would help if Democrats would wield the power we give them.

    • @mojo_raisin
      link
      English
      155 months ago

      As expected, the purpose of state is to facilitate relatively safe theft from classes not in control of it, and blocking justice is the primary method.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -95 months ago

        You get the state you vote for, including the people in unelected positions which are chosen by elected officials.

        • @mojo_raisin
          link
          English
          45 months ago

          This is true to some degree, but ignores several important factors, such as

          • The electoral system was set up before we were even around with the goal of limiting our power
            • therefore using the electoral system to fix the electoral system is extremely inefficient
          • We are subject to extremely effective propaganda and psyops
          • There are significant efforts by the right wing to keep people dumb and poor
            • queermunist she/her
              link
              fedilink
              05 months ago

              No, the electoral system was set up by slave owning terrorists that wanted to make sure they and their children would rule forever.

    • @smokin_shinobi
      link
      125 months ago

      I’d hate to be a truck driver taking waste out to the river and running into a 100 wildly angry locals.

    • deaf_fish
      link
      fedilink
      115 months ago

      Yeah I was confused by the article when they said they would regret it. Yeah if they cared, but they don’t.

      What price should cable be? Who gives a shit, 100 dollars. There I did, supreme Court’s justices can do it too.