• @logicbomb
    link
    10111 months ago

    I never try to be too hopeful with the current Supreme Court, but if they struck down the Private Right of Action, that would mean that if you brought a Private Right of Action case to the Supreme Court, they would refuse to even hear your case, because you don’t have standing to bring the case.

    However, the Supreme Court has recently heard cases that were brought as Private Right of Action cases. So, ruling against Private Right of Action would be going against the precedent of this exact Supreme Court with the exact Justices who are currently seated. If they were going to strike down the Private Right of Action in the future, then they should not have heard those recent cases in the past.

    So, there might be reason to be hopeful.

    However, if I have my numbers right, all of the conservative Justices except one swore, under oath, in their confirmation hearings that they considered Roe v Wade to be precedent. And despite that, all of them struck down Roe v Wade, which means they were lying under oath in their confirmation hearings. So, these conservative Justices are obviously not afraid to be lying hypocrites.

    I think ideally that lying in your confirmation hearing should be enough reason to remove you from your position, especially if the position is that of a judge. You were confirmed under false pretenses.

    • El Barto
      link
      3911 months ago

      I think ideally that lying in your confirmation hearing should be enough reason to remove you from your position

      Man, in a functioning system, there would be no “should,” but “MUST,” and with criminal charges.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2211 months ago

      You expect Chief Justice Robert’s Supreme Court to follow set rules precedents and ethics? LoL! They’d vote for A on Tuesday and against A on Wednesday if it meant getting a fatter paycheck!

    • Ab_intra
      link
      711 months ago

      Is that possible tho? Is there a scenario where it would be possible to throw the justices that did in fact lie under oat?

      • mars296
        link
        fedilink
        1611 months ago

        They didn’t actually lie under oath. They say that the ruling is precedent and settled law. They do not say that they would not overturn precedent.

        And they will always argue that you do not want a justice that is not willing to overturn pass precedents. If not for overturning past precedents, segregation, etc. would still be legal.

        I think its expected for a conservative to make bad-faith arguments. In principle I agree that since justices are not supposed to be partisan politicians should not be asking how the justice would rule on a future case. But it is bullshit that the nominee doesn’t have to give real answers to their thoughts on past cases.

    • @jordanlundM
      link
      611 months ago

      Came here to point all of this out, thank you for saving me the time! Updooted!

  • Syo
    link
    fedilink
    2611 months ago

    It always bothered me when in law class they said court “opinion” matters and can set “precedence”. Then we go over case from 100 years ago saying they are still valid today.

    I’m like … is everything just loosely “understood” with final “constitutional” decision being made on the spot every time it’s challenged? That’s just asking for abuse of the system, try until you get what you want… Prof at that time convinced me there’s more to that so don’t worry.

    Long behold, look at what extremists are doing at the SC today, and absolutely no rails to guard it.

    • NoSpiritAnimal
      link
      611 months ago

      Lo-and-behold, but otherwise 100% with you

  • @x4740N
    link
    English
    2411 months ago

    Removed by mod

    • El Barto
      link
      -1811 months ago

      Where is this perfect place you live in?

      Also, don’t form an impression of a whole country solely based on what you read online (exceptions apply.)

      • be_excellent_to_each_other
        link
        fedilink
        14
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Where is this perfect place you live in?

        A place doesn’t have to be perfect to be a better choice for someone than another place. What an overprotective strawman. Other people are allowed to be happy they live someplace else.

        If I could pick up my job and family and do a cut and paste into a country that’s got socialized healthcare, affordable education, and less gun violence, with no fallout from doing so, I’d do it tomorrow.

        • El Barto
          link
          911 months ago

          I concede I was overtly dramatic, and you, of course, have a point.

          I did what you described for s bit, and it was amazing. I just think it’s silly when people write stuff like the above without knowing much about the U.S. other than what they read online.

          I remember when I visited Germany for the very first time as a very young, very inexperienced individual decades ago. I was very afraid of what I was about to face. I read about neo-nazism, anti-immigration policies, everything being mad expensive, etc, etc. And wbat do you know - Germany turned out to be alright.

          I still want to know where OP lives, though.

          • @x4740N
            link
            English
            611 months ago

            Removed by mod

            • El Barto
              link
              -1
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Fait enough.

              But where do you live, though?

              • @x4740N
                link
                English
                111 months ago

                Removed by mod

                • El Barto
                  link
                  111 months ago

                  You don’t. Your secrecy and comment history leads me to believe that you come from (or fled) an oppressive regime, though. I get it.

          • be_excellent_to_each_other
            link
            fedilink
            611 months ago

            I concede I was overtly dramatic, and you, of course, have a point.

            Fair enough, and I was still within the depths of fresh out of bed grumpiness in my reply. Apologies for that! 🙂

      • spaceghoti
        link
        fedilink
        611 months ago

        As an American who has lived abroad, I regret coming back to the States. Other nations have their problems, sure, but none are as close to becoming a fascist hellscape as we are.

        • El Barto
          link
          111 months ago

          Italy, Turkey and Hungary beg to differ.

          • spaceghoti
            link
            fedilink
            6
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Fair enough. No other first world nation is as close to facism as we are now. And not a lot of third world nations, either.

            Yay, American Exceptionalism.

            • El Barto
              link
              311 months ago

              Did you mean fascism? Because racism is alive and well in the U.S.

          • @killeronthecorner
            link
            English
            211 months ago

            That’s a lot of rotten cherries to pick all at once

      • @x4740N
        link
        English
        111 months ago

        Removed by mod

        • YeetPics
          link
          fedilink
          111 months ago

          We’d love to hear what country you’re from so we can make a reference to whatever social issue happens there. When you get the time. No rush ✌️

          • @x4740N
            link
            English
            211 months ago

            Removed by mod

        • El Barto
          link
          -111 months ago

          You still haven’t said where you live. At least, give us a continent, dude.

          I am indeed a U.S. citizen, born and raised in a 3rd world country and currently living in northen Europe.

          • kase
            link
            311 months ago

            Speak for yourself, I want a street address. /s

  • @Ensign_Crab
    link
    English
    2011 months ago

    Just in case anyone thought they still had credibility to lose.

    • Hegar
      link
      fedilink
      1711 months ago

      Thousands of dead school children agree!

      • @Kbobabob
        link
        -511 months ago

        Thousands? Have there actually been that many from school shootings?

        • Matt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          911 months ago

          680 fatalities and 1,926 injuries, but the damage from school shootings is much more than physical. Thousands of children and parents have been mentally traumatized and that’s a much bigger issue.

        • @SupraMario
          link
          -1811 months ago

          Nope, but it won’t stop anti-gun types from lying…

          • @kurwa
            link
            311 months ago

            Don’t worry, we’ll get there soon just for you and your play things.

      • kase
        link
        611 months ago

        Supporters of the Confederacy might disagree.

        'Course, they’re idiots, and they lost despite the 2nd amendment shocked pikachu

      • @Eatspancakes84
        link
        511 months ago

        How would people even expect that to work? Do they believe there will be somebody in charge that everyone believes is a tyrant?

        Let’s say Trump did not leave office in 2021. Would there be a sufficient mass of people in favour of a violent uprising? First, half the country already supported him. Second, the first time somebody uses violence they will be called terrorists and the vast majority will be in favour of stricter anti-terror measures instead of supporting the rebellion. Examples across the world of democracies that devolved into tyrannies, and never has a violent uprising been successful. Most people will always prefer authoritarian order over violent chaos.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          011 months ago

          It’s not just for one bad instance, it also forces the government to consider armed resistance to their actions. You also have a private right to defend yourself.