• Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    13 hours ago

    They said the same old shit about “never being able to overturn roe v wade” but they fucked that up too.

    They can do whatever they want at any time doesn’t matter what bullshit law they passed this has been proven time and time again over the years

  • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    13 hours ago

    There is no reason to be against the Voting Rights Act beyond racism. That’s the only possible explanation.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I wouldn’t go that far. There is a lot of quid pro quo in politics. Not sure which is worse sometimes. Being racist because your racist, or being racist because someone has made it worth it for you to be so.

  • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    1 day ago

    I believe that this assumes precedent matters. The other thing this court has declared is that precedent means nothing. That’s the important take to have if things are going to get fixed.

    • superglue@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 day ago

      I was wondering the same thing. They keep declaring the previous supreme court wrong. Why do they get to be the final say then? If they are saying a supreme court ruling can be wrong, why are we even bothering with these idiots.

      • ryper@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Technically you’re right, but with the court having skewed the system to favour Republicans so much, it will be very difficult to get more people on to the Surpreme Court who want to overrule this one’s decisions.

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s interesting that these guys changed the law because they didn’t think it applied anymore. Not cause the law was wrong.

    • Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Honestly, with how often they use the emergency shadow docket these days, I was surprised they even tried to give the illusion of merit.

      Now Roberts is saying "the public should trust us! ".

      Nope. This is what ruling without merit gets you. Distrust.

    • edible_funk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 hours ago

      We’ve been fully engaged in a cold civil war since Nixon was made to resign. The heritage foundation with their federalist society judges have people in every key position to literally just take over the government, which is mostly what they’ve been doing. They openly declared they were engaging in a coup on the united states saying the revolution will be bloodless if the left allows it, and it sure looks like the left at large is allowing it.

  • ulkesh@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    Bullshit. The whole point of checks and balances within this system of government (though it’s not working presently) is that Congress can work to override the judiciary when they get it wrong. The Constitution can be amended to enshrine the VRA, etc – of course the states have to ratify which could be a tall order. And since the judiciary gave the president carte blanche to do whatever he/she wants, they could simply sign an executive order at this point to deal with this and say “Fuck you” to the Supreme Court.

    • I_Jedi@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      Or if the new president has a particularly large set of balls, they can, uh, conduct a re-enactment of the Red Wedding. No EOs required, and the president can pack the court afterwards with their own guys. It aligns SCOTUS term limits with the presidential ones nicely.

    • Asafum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The Constitution can be amended

      Which requires either a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress or a convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states…

      …and what part of our oh half century or so of bullshit makes it seem like this is even remotely possible?

      • ulkesh@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Just because it likely won’t happen doesn’t mean it can’t happen. And you seem to have purposefully left out the rest of my sentence: “to enshrine the VRA, etc – of course the states have to ratify which could be a tall order.”

        This is the kind of cherry-picking that runs rampant in discourse today and adds literally nothing to the conversation.

  • Akh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Kind of, it opened political gerrymandering to no limit so now just need to ban republican districts