A new study published on Thursday and led by my colleague Chelsey Davidson found that since the 2012–13 term, more than 80 percent of election-related cases on the Supreme Court’s hand-picked docket could move the law only in a direction that degraded fair elections.
In that time, the Supreme Court accepted 32 cases involving core democracy issues such as redistricting, ballot access, campaign finance, and VRA enforcement. In 26 of them, the lower court had issued a pro-democracy ruling. This means that the best-case scenario at the court was affirmation of the status quo, while a reversal of the lower court would restrict voter participation. By contrast, the justices picked just six cases where they might reverse anti-democracy rulings.
You must log in or register to comment.
End life time appointments, now. Pack the court, now. Pray some of those fuckers keel over, quick.
There’s enough to impeach Kavanaugh and Clarence if the Dems had the presidency and congress.
Unless the senate itself is dramatically changed, Dems will never have the 2/3 majority needed to remove anyone, and I’m not holding my breath for the GOP to put country before party anytime soon.
The Democratic Party, as it exists today, is structurally incapable of what your suggesting. Their entire power structure is based on suppressing the left, and NOT activating / mobilizing their base for real political or societal changes towards leftist goals, or projects.
I am very smart
This guy.
Oh, my bad. Guess that isn’t the case, as evidenced by… what exactly?
Or is it just that pesky parliamentarian always getting in the way?
Or is it just that pesky parliamentarian always getting in the way?
Mostly just the constitution.
- You can’t impeach without a 50/50 vote in the house.
- You can’t convict (remove from office) without a 2/3s vote in the senate.
You are blaming democrat structure for something that is out of their control. Be mad at the dems for a lot of other things, but not the lack of ability to impeach supreme court justices. You aren’t wrong in your assessment that Dems suck when it comes to progressive politics. The last progressive president was a republican (FDR).
You might want to scroll up to the comment I first replied to, and reread it.
Edit: took out the snarky bits. I’m tired, and thought you were a different user.
I’m with you. Dems are pro-corporate, socially conciliatory, meaning they’ll never rock the boat ever.
Which means they’ll never produce a real leader. They will never make JFK capable of giving the nation a direction. They’ll squeak the loudest wheel and continuing to sell out the everyday Americans estates for end of Life health care, ensuring all money ends up at the top within a single lifetime and where you’re born is the caste where you’ll 99% of the time stay.
Entrenched oligarchy. Neo-fuedalism behind corporate slogans absolving shareholders of guilt and culpability.
They’re takind everything of worth before they lock themselves away, prob down on the soon to be one of the last temperate climes of the Antarctic peninsula.
There’s a military plan for climate change. It involves a lot of guns pointing out from around the richest and the “elites”. If you aren’t in those circles now, you ain’t getting there.
I used to think there’s no way America would lock its borders down to the ~500mill in Central America and Mexico, now I’m less naive. Not only will we lock it down, we got enough bullets to make the Colorado reach the ocean again, AND live up to it’s name.
Solve a problem or sacrifice the poor? Hmm. How has society treated every problem in the past 50 years?
…oh it’s gonna be bad.
The comment chain as I see it:
There’s enough to impeach Kavanaugh and Clarence if the Dems had the presidency and congress.
To which you responded
The Democratic Party, as it exists today, is structurally incapable of what your suggesting. Their entire power structure is based on suppressing the left, and NOT activating / mobilizing their base for real political or societal changes towards leftist goals, or projects.
(which, is the primary comment I’m referencing.)
After a snark comment, you further responded with
Oh, my bad. Guess that isn’t the case, as evidenced by… what exactly? Or is it just that pesky parliamentarian always getting in the way?
Which is where I dropped my comment.
I may have lost the trail, but it seems from the 2 comments you are suggesting that the Dems aren’t doing anything about the supreme court because they are trying to undermine progressives. I don’t really agree with that. (Hence my response).
I agree with you that dems tend to undermine progressives.
Judicial review isn’t even in the Constitution. The Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison.
Originalism ain’t in the constitution as well.
So they are doing what they were hired to do
If only we could have predicted this back in 2015!
/s
Of course they are. It’s their job.
Seems silly to characterize one of the key functions of the court (deciding what case to take) as rigging. I’m not saying that I don’t find this court a reactionary shit pile, just that they’re acting exactly as you’d expect them to
If they do it in bad faith to achieve a certain political outcome, I don’t see why it would be unreasonable to call it rigging.
