Yes, that’s the point, Bill!

  • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Eh, it’d be a good step in the right direction if they did stack the court (though term limits and a code of conduct are laughable half-measures at best), but I have my doubts the dems will do anything. If they sincerely believed that the american right wanted to end democracy and put dem politicians in camps (to be clear, they’re fine with other people being in camps), one would assume they’d be using that newfound presidential immunity to start drone striking “threats to the republic”.

    Edit: oh and obviously whatever tools the dems use, the republicans will use more ruthlessly as they care far, far less about optics.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Yes, Barr. Having conservatives on our highest court, have undermined the meaning of American justice, and thus removing them and keeping them out is a good long term solution, intended by term limits and oversight.

  • Yeather@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Wouldn’t the Supreme Court then rule it illegal and block any code or term limits?

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      They could try that. But then the executive can literally kick them out of their offices. At a certain point magic legal words stops being an effective strategy. Like when you’ve obviously over stepped your authority.

      Congress and the president could also pass a law tomorrow invalidating the Marbury decision.

      • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Andrew Jackson was a piece of shit, but his views on SCOTUS are fairly applicable here. They don’t control the purse or the sword.

        “Let’s see them enforce it”, and then he did whatever the hell he wanted to anyways for a while.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    These judges are supposed to be impartial, Bill. They shouldn’t ascribe to any party, and they definitely shouldn’t do it publicly. Now, what’s going on here in reality is way worse than what I just said.

  • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench, and I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability, and I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.

    • “Chief” “Justice” John Roberts
  • WatDabney@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen that much projection in a single article before.

    Essentially every single thing that he accuses the left of planning to do is actually something that the right has already done, and is in fact one of the reasons that reform is necessary.

    The most frustrating part of it is that it’s not simply that he self-evidently has no integrity and no principles, but that he’s a short-sighted moron. Like every useful idiot in every authoritarian coup ever, he’s defending the autocrats simply because their actions currently align with his shallow self-interest, and is completely oblivious to the fact that they could just as easily (and sooner or later will) oppose his interests, and by then, in part specifically because of his shallow stupidity, it’ll be too late to do anything about it.

    • davel@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Bill Bar is not the least bit stupid nor short-sighted. He is not a useful idiot. He knows exactly what he is: a member of the capitalist class, and he knows exactly what he’s doing: fighting a class war against the working class.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    “If they win, that is exactly what will happen, and it only takes a majority vote and the signature of the President,” they wrote, pointing to a comment from Harris, who reportedly has said she is “open” to a conversation about increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

    Oh god no, not a majority vote.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Wait a minute, Congress and the President exercising their constitutional authority!?!

      Oh my God sound the alarms!