• @cerevant
    link
    English
    121 year ago

    My greater concern here is less how they ruled, an more that they ruled along “party lines”. This isn’t a situation where the court is reaching outside its mandate (as some could argue with social rights issues) - they are adjudicating a fundamental check and balance between the Legislature and Executive. There really should be some consensus on how this works.

    • @Beardliest
      link
      English
      24
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The court is a sham at this point. Damn near every ruling these days is a party line vote and it’s disappointing. Why even haven them hear cases if we already know the outcome?

      • @cerevant
        link
        English
        121 year ago

        The odd thing is that when they do agree, they still get it wrong: their ruling against faithless electors was unanimous, but in their statements they justify the decision by saying that if they ruled based on the text there would be chaos. Folks, that’s not your job. If the constitution needs to be fixed it needs to be fixed through proper channels. You don’t get to decide something is constitutional (or not) just because you like it (or not).

        • @Beardliest
          link
          English
          51 year ago

          Exactly! That’s what they have been doing lately and it pisses me off.

      • artisanrox
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        I wish we’d stop complaining that SCOTUS judges have opinions, because they do, and they will along party lines.

        So we have to elect judges that don’t think the only non-dirtball people worthy of dignity, are hedge fund owners.