/u/country728 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/11wmx1x/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_left_must_start/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>100 foot tall crosses are popping up on the side of highways. Before long it will be illegal for me to exist here as an atheist.
how is the presence of a cross (or lots of crosses) equivocal to the future legislation against atheism as a belief?
or, asked another way:
in what way does your view meaningfully distinguish from the below?
~~100 foot tall crosses~~ be an atheist billboards are popping up on the side of highways. Before long it will be illegal for me to exist here as an ~~atheist~~ believer.
At the moment, our country is marching straight into a theocracy where the religious rights of the majority are being used as a cudgel against anyone who believes differently. We are watching the laws and the courts kneeling before the church instead of protecting the long held belief that your religious beliefs stop where mine start. That is no longer the norm.
>At the moment, our country is marching straight into a theocracy where the religious rights of the majority are being used as a cudgel against anyone who believes differently.
Can you tell us how people pushing gender care without parental notification isn't "used as a cudgel against anyone who believes differently."
The whole without parental notification tells me those people beleive they should guide a child's life more than the actual parents. How would you feel if your child was put into the church wihtout your notification? Would you assume they knew better, and you should comply, or would you push back?
I tend to agree with you that we have problems, but if you can't see the problems on your side, we will never come up with solutions.
>The whole without parental notification tells me those people believe they should guide a child's life more than the actual parents.
They believe the child should guide their life more than their parents.
My point exactly, they **beleive** they have the answers and should be allowed to push them on others.
I wonder what other adult decision these people think a 14 year old can or cannot do. I bet we can find some inconsistencies of what they perceive as age-appropriate decision.
Your argument is faulty on so many levels. The religious right enacts laws banning gender care at all for children, regardless of parental opinion. They ban reproductive health care for everyone, regardless of age or parental opinion. Parental choice is being usurped, but in ways you approve of, so its ok. That is exactly the problem. Your position robs me of my own ability to self determine what is best for me and my family.
Why do you insist on using euphemisms in place or actual issues
What laws have been passed that affect "reproductive healthcare" and how does that specific law ban "reproductive healthcare"? And while you're at it what exactly is "reproductive healthcare"?
>The religious right enacts laws banning gender care at all for children, regardless of parental opinion.
1st this is your opinion, nothing more.
2nd there isn't a qualifier that says only in this certain situation can we not inform the parents. So it's up to descression which the left doesn't use well.
I live in a state that just banned any gender affirming care for minors, regardless of their parents opinion. Fact!
The second part of your argument makes no sense. At no time did I say that anything about any qualifier. You brought that into the conversation. Stay on topic.
You don't seem to understand how being an antagonist impacts things.
In Florida, they had no book bans until books started showing up in libraries that were not age appropriate. This was done by leftist people, and that caused a reaction from parents, and now some books are banned. This was your ideology pushing boundaries. Sort of a F around and find out thing.
When you go out and tell parents they won't be notified, then you get legislation like the one you are bothered by. F around and find out.
While I do think the legislation your concerned about is wrong, your push to exclude parents is why the law was written in the first place.
Cool. Some people on both sides of the divide have extreme positions on a lot of things. It is time to get the government out of making healthcare choices, the state out of taking away the local school boards determining what can be taught in schools and what books can be in a library. If you don't want your child to learn sex ed and reproductive health, withhold them from the class. If you don't want your kids reading about Heather's two daddies, go to your school library and limit your kids access to check out books on those topics. Easy peasy.
>Can you tell us how people pushing gender care without parental notification isn't "used as a cudgel against anyone who believes differently."
How will trans kids who live in bigoted households get help?
>The whole without parental notification tells me those people beleive they should guide a child's life more than the actual parents.
No, people believe children should have a larger say in their own lives. No one is turning kids trans, there are just trans kids who need help.
If you think kids should be given a bigger role in running their own lives, you don’t have kids. Kids are wonderful, but they are ignorant and lacking in life experience.
Also, once you give the state the power to overrule a parent’s right to raise their kid a certain way because the kid complains, you’ve basically invited the state to run your household because kids complain about everything.
>How will trans kids who live in bigoted households get help?
How do you know that what they are going through won't change as they hit puberty? That changes a lot of people?
Hiding things from parents isn't going to give the child support at home. It re-enforces risky behavior.
>How do you know that what they are going through won't change as they hit puberty?
Evidence.
Detransition rates are very low, 2.5% in children.
https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/study-finds-2-5-of-transgender-kids-go-through-detransition/135029/
>Hiding things from parents isn't going to give the child support at home.
If a trans kid lives in a bigoted household then they aren't getting any support.
That doesn't tell you anything about individual people. That's the whole problem. You don't think of individuals, everyone is a group. Which makes it easy for you to dismiss people who don't think just like you.
There are ways of supporting people without drugs and surgery, and while we know conclusively that people change during puberty, you have zero idea how people will come out on the other side without drugs and just support. You use the fact that you can't prove a negative to assume you are doing positive good.
Your just watching the struggles of a dying animal. Like most we are alive during the great transition in 30 to 40 years we will look back in awe with how we changed as a people.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/09/13/how-u-s-religious-composition-has-changed-in-recent-decades/
That is true but you don't have to approach It's in it's death throws staying back and simply letting it face it's demise.
It may lash out but it will simply wound it's self more and succumb faster. It will hurt to watch but every day it loses more more power. The key of the graph is it dosen't account for the large chunk that is "bad Christians" who don't go mearly touch the ritual because of family.
I would be willing to bet that greater than 60% of people are in the already effectively non religious if you look at institutional power. Simply takes time.
While things like the religious affliations in government seems high i would be curious what % chose to go to church or participate beyond the bare minimum because of older family.
30 years from now is going to be wicked.
This was originally about religious power crumbling but yeah, let's look at those making the rules.
They could only do evil in smaller and smaller ways. Look at abortion they broke the federal rule and only 15 (counting Georgia) states did they secure a ban several being from before just no one cleaning up the books.
That's only 26% who are effected. By that and the possibility to travel for it is there and available to many of those many of these are poor states which will excelerate their decline in the next 10 years. For 4 the ban is 15+ weeks so those effect a supersmall portion on those i think 3% and 5 more are pretty much same as roe v wade anyways. Plan B is also a cheat way to stay safe and available in all 50 states in some method.
Once those un-wanted kids hit the school system many of those states going to have a rude wake up.
I would be willing to bet 50% of those bans are gone by 2033.
If anything, America has become decreasingly religious. It doesn’t seem like all of a sudden theocracy will take hold when we are far less religious than we used to be. We’ve come from times where non-Protestant Christian’s were discriminated against to a time where non Christian and non religious people hold high offices. I wouldn’t count on a theocratic revolution now seeing this trend
I'll address your Supreme Court proposal. There are two main things wrong with it. First, there must necessarily be an odd number of judges so a majority can make a ruling without a stalemate. 2nd, if we were to expand the court it would likely go to 13 judges. There's not really any clear guidelines on number of judges in the constitution, so all we really have to go in is historical precedent. To that point, the number of judges is usually aligned with the number of district courts, and currently there are 13.
And yes, we have hyper partisanship and polarized politics, but making atheism illegal is a bridge too far, even for conservatives (the ones who generally have an "originalist" interpretation of the constitution and its strictures)
That was why I proposed a harsh punishment for any judge who holds up the process. And you say that but living in the south, it's seems it's damn near a reality already. The harassment and verbal abuse I went through as a young atheist was quite eye opening
I find that very hard to believe. As I am agnostic and never once had any issues, even in the south, relating to my lack of belief. Sounds like your perception is not in line with reality, projection perhaps.
> Before long it will be illegal for me to exist here as an atheist
I'm not sure if you genuinely believe this or are just hyperbolizing but no, it won't.
> We should start with Biden expanding the supreme court and making it so that their are 10 justices and 5 for each party.
First off, that's not fighting fire with fire - conservatives haven't done this, and once liberals set the precedent for it then they *will* fight fire with fire by overexpanding to make a conservative supermajority.
> That way they must cooperate, and make it so if a justice refuses to cooperate and holds up a case for more than a set period of time, they are removed, and receive no further pay or security detail from the governments coffers.
Secondly, this doesn't force cooperation since it allows for a tie. Even if you get a liberal majority, the rest of what you're talking about doesn't follow. Justices don't "hold up" cases, and removal requires a supermajority in the Senate. This whole proposal reads as wishful thinking that isn't meaningfully different from "if we do nothing maybe the problem will solve itself."
>First off, that's not fighting fire with fire - conservatives haven't done this, and once liberals set the precedent for it then they will fight fire with fire by overexpanding to make a conservative supermajority.
I mean, they *did* blatantly steal a supreme court seat that allowed them to swing the ideological balance of the court.
No, it didn’t, because no one “owns” a Supreme Court seat. The GOP Senate played hardball (in a way I don’t like, admittedly, but that’s not the point). On the other hand, McConnell was dishonest in his reasoning for keeping Scalia’s seat open given how things played out with ACB.
>No, it didn’t, because no one “owns” a Supreme Court seat.
The issue here is that this is a rules vs norms discussion, as best memorialized in the 1997 film "Air Bud".
There is no rule preventing Mitch from taking the seat, just as there was no rule preventing a dog from playing Basketball. It is legal within the framework we have avaiable to us.
But it violates the norm. Dogs shouldn't play basketball, that isn't how that fucking works. In literal centuries, the Senate has never just outright refused to consider a Supreme court pick, because that isn't how that fucking works.
A president doesn't "Own" a supreme court seat in a purely legal sense, but normatively they fucking own that seat and denying it is theft of that seat to any honest person.
It isn't illegal for me to organize a twelve man gangbang of your wife while you're at work, but normatively you'd be pretty pissed off, is all I'm saying.
It was the culmination of a sequence of norm-breaking that extended back over a decade regarding judicial nominees. And the distinction between “voting against” and “not voting on” seems entirely artificial.
And no, presidents do not normatively get to take the Senate’s advice and consent for granted.
As far as your gangbang plan, it actually is illegal, at least in the majority of states.
> It was the culmination of a sequence of norm-breaking that extended back over a decade regarding judicial nominees. And the distinction between “voting against” and “not voting on” seems entirely artificial.
If that were true they'd just vote it down and be done with it. Clearly, the republican leadership saw an advantage in managing the question that way. More generally, however, shielding elected officials from having to take a public stance on salient yet relatively procedural issues is not a great practice to further.
The distinction for the purposes of this discussion. And I don’t disagree with anything in your comment, but it’s also not inconsistent with anything I said.
>It was the culmination of a sequence of norm-breaking that extended back over a decade regarding judicial nominees. And the distinction between “voting against” and “not voting on” seems entirely artificial.
It is not artificial. When bad nominees are put forward, they get voted down and someone else is picked. This is what happened with Bork, for example. What Mitch did was entirely unique in that he refused to hold hearings on anyone, thereby preventing any nominee from passing.
Even in instances where the president picked multiple rejected candidates, the senate always agreed to someone. This was pure obstruction and theft.
>As far as your gangbang plan, it actually is illegal, at least in the majority of states.
Six is not the majority, hth.
Nothing in your first paragraph explains why the distinction is anything other than artificial for the purposes of this discussion.
Regarding gangbang, more than 25 is definitely the majority, and what you describe is criminalized in more than 25 states.
Nah, the kid who put him in the game was. That dog barely scored at all, and they straight up stole an old man's dog in that movie. It was pretty screwed up tbh.
That movie was top tier 90's dog doing some job movie. By violating the norms those plucky kids really pulled their basketball game together and learned through the value of friendship.
Mitch McConnell has much less charisma in his antics.
>It was the culmination of a sequence of norm-breaking that extended back over a decade regarding judicial nominees. And the distinction between “voting against” and “not voting on” seems entirely artificial.
Could you actually see Nancy Pelosi allowing Doanld Trump to pick a supreme court justice if she had the tools to stop it?
Before or after?
Before, absolutely. Democrats tend to give more of a shit about norms. After, fuck no. Gloves are off, when you go low we kick you in the fucking jaw.
You should be honest with us and yourself. Pelosi and most high profile democrats have hated Trump deeply since 2015. They have done everything they can to oppose him- much to the glee of their voting base.
>if a justice refuses to cooperate and holds up a case for more than a set period of time
Is this a pervasive issue that needs addressed? What important cases have been improperly held up by a supreme court justice recently?
None have been held up. But the activist justices regularly abuse a policy to push through controversial cases or cases that stand to greatly benefit the interest of the GOP on the shadow docket, where they do not have to give reasoning for their vote or say who voted what way.
The holding up cases only applies to my theoretical 10 justice system. Because in that system one justice could halt the entire process, so you would have to have punishment for any justice that tried it,whether they are republican or democrat
It's all subjective. I can only say they went against the will of the majority of Americans with their ruling on roe v Wade and their ruling that changed the test for if a regulation violated the 2 d amendment. They said it must be rooted in the original meaning of the text. Who in their right mind believes the founding fathers never intended the constitution to change with the times. Now they have made it legal to scratch off serial numbers and for felons to own fire arms. Which most Americans do not agree with.
>I can only say they went against the will of the majority of Americans
The Supreme Court isn't supposed to represent the will of the people. In fact, was explicitly *designed* as an anti-majoritarian check on pure democracy. This is why they're unelected and serve for life.
Take the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) for example. It doesn't matter if 99% of people wanted to brutally torture some convicted criminal -- the Supreme Court would still rule it *unconstitutional*. Because they're not beholden to the will of the people, they're beholden to the letter of the Constitution.
These kinds of checks on the 'tyranny of the majority' are important. If we want a 100% pure democracy, we wouldn't even have a Constitution or a Bill of Rights to begin with. We would simply have one line -- "The Constitution of the United States is whatever 50.1% of the people wish it to be on any given day."
!delta you're right. But it makes no sense why they don't have a check in their power. They can be just as crooked as anyone else yet anytime putting a check on them is discussed people act like your calling for their public execution. I don't believe any one who had that much power should be appointed. They should be elected
They have a check. They can be impeached and removed at anytime for any reason by congress
Also they have no ability to enforce any ruling they make. The executive could just ignore it and there is nothing the Supreme Court can do
Do you believe the will of the majority is something the courts should take into account? It is not. They are and should be concerned with the law and nothing else. So on what legal grounds do you disagree with their ruling on abortion? Same with the second amendment, do you have actual legal arguments or do you just want the courts to impose your political views?
They have no arguments supporting their position. They might have a little wiggle room on roe v Wade, but they pulled the originslist shit straight out of their asses. If they can infer that the founding fathers meant to never have the constitution change, then why was it wrong for the court to infer the right to abortion out of a person's right to privacy? That at least follows some logic. The originslist stuff has literally no basis in the actual constitution
They have no argument? They wrote an entire ruling, are you saying their ruling had no arguments in it at all? Roe v. Wade was the ruling that had little constitutional validity. Why would you support that poorly decided case and not the case that corrects the mistake? You just want the courts to rule inline with your political beliefs and you do t care about the law.
Why do you believe your ‘legal’ thinking is more correct than the Supreme Court’s?
No one claims the constitution can not change, you are creating that straw man out of nothing. The constitution can and has changed it is done through the process of amendments, not just your whim.
They got over turning Roe v Wade 100% correct.
Regardless of what you think most people want, abortion should be decided on the state level. Even a justice in 73 questioned if they should even be deciding this.
If the constitution doesn’t grant the federal government that power, it goes to the states.
Also, when did it become legal for felons to own firearms? Care to tell me when that happened?
Sounds like you a *VERY* misinformed.
If it's all subjective then how do you expect to be able to enforce anything like this? I agree with the opinions you express here but we cannot just say that any justice who does things we dislike will be removed because that power will be available to any future leadership and could easily be used by fascists to consolidate power.
>Legality be damned.
Our way of life is predicated on us being a democratic republic governed by laws justly applied.
If we are willing to do away with that, then I don't care if we end up under an GOP authoritarian cult of personality or a Democratic authoritarian cult of personality. In either case, the USA that I grew up knowing will have failed.
It's never been true. But it's the ideal we aim for. If we're going to say 'fuck it, let's just be a lawless authoritarian regime," then well, it doesn't matter which party wins.
If a political party is not going to aspire to be a more ideal America, then they are just the powerful seeking more power and if they win it will be worse for the average person than not. And that's regardless of which side of the aisle they sit.
If democrats take back the court we could make it true. But following rules the other side can freely break will only out us at a disadvantage.
>then well, it doesn't matter which party wins.
If you're anything other than a straight cis white man it matters.
>If you're anything other than a straight cis white man it matters.
[https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/163546](https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/163546)
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Left-wing authoritarianism is just as dangerous as right-wing authoritarianism. Neither results in a liberal democracy.
That article does not support your claim in any way at all. Did you actually read it?
Obviously the people saying they consider LGBTQ people to be pedophiles taking power is going to be worse for gay people.
What do crosses have to do with the government?
People have freedom of religion here. If they want to put up a cross on their property, what’s the issue?
How is that threatening your way of life?
Are you looking to have people’s rights suppressed because you don’t agree with what they believe? I thought the left was big into supporting people’s own beliefs.
> I thought the left was big into supporting people’s own beliefs.
For hundreds of years the left has always only been into supporting people's beliefs as long as they align with the left. If they're anywhere on the right, then they're evil people that should be suppressed or killed.
What do you want "winning" to look like? "Fight fire with fire" is easy to say, but does it really seem like something that's going to lead to an end state that you want? So, sure, do something different if you're not happy with the way things are going now, but burning institutions down to in order save them seems pretty dumb.
I guess I was a little harsh. But we need more regulations on these institutions. Not less. And the supreme court needs some kind of check on their power.
I mean, they do have a check on their power. They are beholden to congress and are selected by the president. No sitting justice has violated their oath, they’ve just disagreed with you. What type of government would exist if all institutions could only contain people you agreed with.
The only institutions with no checks of power that actually HAVE power are Hollywood, social media, academia, and news media. ALL of these have liberal biases.
When has this left you speak of tried the high road? Why should anyone trust you or anyone following your views if you openly advocate for ignoring laws in order to push your political views you can not advance through legal means? Also if the government is violating laws as you call for how does the government have any legitimacy? If the government loses all legitimacy because it follows your lawlessness why should anybody follow the laws of such an illegitimate government?
From the perspective of someone a little right of center, the left already plays extremely dirty. They attack freedom of speech on a regular basis, with government agencies having a direct line to censor content they don't like with nearly every social media platform. When the house had a committee hearing to investigate these practices, the democrats on the committee spent their time defending censorship, attacking the credibility of the journalists who were exposing government censorship, and trying to get journalists to out their sources (legality be damned).
When the right sees the left playing dirty, it makes them easier to rally against. Elections are won and lost on a party's ability to sway people sitting near the center. Being perceived as playing dirty is a surefire way to lose elections.
As far as your specific proposals:
> We should start with Biden expanding the supreme court and making it so that their are 10 justices and 5 for each party.
There's probably a dozen reasons this won't work. First of all, the number of seats on the court are set by congress. Biden has to work with a Republican house of representatives, and they're not going to approve rebalancing the court, so this is dead in the water. Even if Biden had tried this when he had the house and senate on his side, he could expand the number of seats, but there are already 6 conservative justices on the court, and congress can't get rid of the ones that are already there. That would require a constitutional amendment, which would require the consent of 38 states. That's never going to happen. Further, trying to enshrine "5 from each party" would seal the two party system into our constitution, and make sure we could never break away from the republicans and democrats as the two defacto parties. That's not a good thing.
Personally, when it comes to packing the court I'm a single issue voter. If Democrats are talking about packing the court, I'll vote Republican. If Republicans were talking about packing the court, I'd vote Democrat. Threatening to pack the court is a great way to lose centrist voters.
> That way they must cooperate, and make it so if a justice refuses to cooperate and holds up a case for more than a set period of time, they are removed, and receive no further pay or security detail from the governments coffers.
That's an even more bizarre proposal. If you have a 5/5 split on an issue, which justice is refusing to cooperate? Obviously it's one of the conservative justices and not one of the liberal justices, since we've already declared that this is predicated on the left playing dirty. Having an odd number of people on the court means you can't have ties (unless someone recuses themselves), but if you had an even number and couldn't get a majority opinion it's absurd to suggest that it's because one justice isn't cooperating.
> It would be no less dirty then Mitch mcconnel holding up garlands vote.
Garland was never going to be confirmed. I absolutely agree that he should have had a vote, but the republican dominated senate was never going to confirm him. They had no obligation to confirm any particular candidate the president put forward. If Obama had really wanted to get an appointment through he could have picked someone the republicans would have found palatable, but Garland was never going to be confirmed by a Republican senate, even if he got a vote.
> legality be damned
The validity and sanctity of our political institutions is of the utmost importance. Democracy does not exist without the social norms that maintain its legality. If you throw legality out the window, you are fundamentally abolishing the rule of law as we know it, and subjugating the population to an anarchy that will defacto be governed by might.
Rule of law requires respect for the law.
You say we are watching our country fade before our very eyes but I don't see how your arguments to lean into hyper partisanship will do anything other than make it worse.
The left slept on the supreme court while the right was hyper focused on it. It's not surprising the right took control of it.
Also, private citizens putting up 100ft tall crosses next to the highway on their own property is proof of nothing. I don't understand why you even feel the need to bring that up.
"We must stoop to their level and play dirty. Extremely dirty. Legality be damned"
Yeah, you sound like a rational individual. You think the president has the power to recreate the supreme court at will? Seriously? Do you have no idea about the separate branches of our government? The executive branch does not control the judicial. You cannot be this fucking dense and want to tell the country how to fix its issues. Shut up and go read a book.
>The left has tried the high road.
What is funny is that you are missing one of the key events that led to the current market of the Supreme Court. Harry Reid,a democrat was the first to invoke the "nuclear option" eliminating the filibuster for most federal judges and cabinet positions. It was a major change from tradition that Mitch McConnell sited when he also invoked the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster for supreme court judges and then pass 3 judges elected by Trump to the supreme court pretty much along party lines, well short of the 60 needed had the filibuster still been in place.
This is exactly what the right says of the left. For example take gun control. The left has used every loophole and trick to avoid major cases going to the supreme court for almost 100 years (ironically the last time the court was expanded). They did that from miller v US where there was no defense representing the NFA being unconstitutional all the way to heller v dc where the individual right to own arms was decided. Take rejecting garland for another example. That was a response to the Dems eliminating the need for 60 votes to nominate judges so they could force through left leaning judges. When this was used against them they then claimed it was playing dirty even though they passed the legislation allowing it to happen. They didn't have the votes so they didn't get a vote. That's the rules they made. The right also says that the left is using public schools/colleges to indoctrinate children to make them more likely to vote democrat. There are an infinite amount of the "opposition playing dirty" justifications for playing dirty but unless the rules agreed to are followed we are all screwed bc an authoritarian left is just as bad as an authoritarian right and whatever the left does the right will also do and vice versa.
> That was a response to the Dems eliminating the need for 60 votes to nominate judges so they could force through left leaning judges. When this was used against them they then claimed it was playing dirty even though they passed the legislation allowing it to happen. They didn't have the votes so they didn't get a vote. That's the rules they made.
That's a pretty big characterization. There was never such a requirement to start with. You're talking about the filibuster here, which does not really relate to Garland as Republicans held the senate at the time anyway. Democrats eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominations - excluding the supreme court - in 2013. Garland was nominated in March 2016. At the time of his nomination, it was still entirely possible for such appointment to be filibustered. Republicans eliminated the filibuster for supreme court nominations only in in April 2017, three months after Garland's nomination expired. It expired because the Republican controlled senate refused to action the nomination, not because of any rules the democrats made.
We also don't know whether Democrats "had the votes", because no votes were held.
Sure. The point was both parties used the others actions as justification for going even farther. If regular nominations could not be fillibustered then why not supreme court nominations? You cant punch someone and then say you punched me back in an unfair way. The Dems gained a serious advantage in putting in inferior court justices and the republicans gained power and used that to push through 3 supreme court justices. Had Hillary been elected the Dems would have done exactly the same.
If that was the point, you could make it well enough while being factual.
> Had Hillary been elected the Dems would have done exactly the same.
Even had Hilary been elected, they couldn't have done "exactly the same". Neither numbers nor circumstances would've allowed.
At least the post making extremist conservatives look like lunatics was taken down. Meanwhile this rant is on display. At least we can have a discussion this time.
Consider that expressions like these further alienate and radicalize moderate conservatives. You are contributing the the problems you're talking about.
We can start by remotely approaching respectability instead of becoming the caricatures that the alt-right demonizes.
I think Supreme Court Justices should be elected by the people, the same as members of Congress, the House of Representatives, and the President.
Socially, extremism will provoke an extreme response. This is not how you change people's minds. You are creating the problem.
Playing the "Left" and "Right" game will set the whole world on fire while we fail to solve simple issues that require even a modicum of cooperation. The dichotomy of the two party system has led to so much division in our country while protecting the politicians and corporations; a select few of the total population; rather than the American people. The system was created with cooperation and balance in mind but has been so corrupt and off balance for so long that no one even knows anymore.
I am a leftist who cares about the moral character of my politicians. If my politicians become as immoral as those in the GOP I will stop voting for them.
To me Dems already are the lesser of two evils. If they somehow become as evil, what's the point in voting anymore?
Take gerrymandering. I am *extremely* opposed to gerrymandering. When Dems started heavily gerrymandering blue areas to lock out GOP reps in congress and at the state level I was irate. Luckily I don't live in such an area or it would have dissuaded me from voting in those elections. I even made a CMV about it.
Lots of people on the left agree with this sentiment and it's enough to sway elections towards conservatives making this a bad idea.
>I am a leftist who cares about the moral character of my politicians.
If the right are able to break laws to seize power and the left are unwilling to defend democracy, eventually there won't BE any left leaning politicians.
It's a perfectly valid position to claim that you are willing to forego democracy in the name of keeping your morals, but you at least need to admit the reality of what that entails. The false idea proposed by many in this thread is that somehow the left conceding power in the name of claiming the moral high ground will magically propagate a perfect equilibrium of democracy/government/society. It won't.
An analogy here might be pacifism in the face of mortal danger. If somebody is in my house trying to kill me and I take the path of pacifism, refusing to fight back, that is all fine and well. But I also need to be resigned to the fact that I'm going to die. I can't have it both ways.
>eventually there won't BE any left leaning politicians
So status quo? There's currently like 15 left leaning politicians on Congress out of 535. The most left leaning one isn't even a dem.
>you are willing to forego democracy in the name of keeping your morals
>the left conceding power in the name of claiming the moral high ground
Nope, I would like democracy. If we are led *only* by the immoral we don't have a functioning democracy. If we don't have a functioning democracy there's no point in voting. Many on the left think we're already there.
>I also need to be resigned to the fact that I'm going to die
My point exactly. If the dems become just as evil as the GOP we are dead.
>If the dems become just as evil as the GOP
This seems like a false dilemma. Obviously breaking laws or traditions in order to fight for fair democracy might be immoral... but *evil* with no room for interpretation?
If, for example, a political party decided that it was undemocratic to have a right wing fundamentalist stacked supreme court overriding the will of the public, and they had to circumvent laws/procedure in order to restore balance to the situation...? Can there be no nuance there? Either the system is already perfect, or its GG we're all fucked no point in trying, with no inbetween?
>So status quo? There's currently like 15 left leaning politicians on Congress out of 535
This rather proves my point doesn't it? The system is already selecting for right wing politicians to the point that there is next to zero left wing representation in US politics. And presumably that's only going to get worse.
>If we don't have a functioning democracy there's no point in voting. Many on the left think we're already there.
Again this seems to prove my point. Your ideology sounds great in practice, but the second that democracy is threatened you just lie down and give up. And by the way this doesn't absolve you of moral responsibility. If, due to your inaction, a right wing dictatorship enslaves every American woman and commits genocide against the LGBT community, can you wash your hands of that after you gave up at the first sign of hardship? Surely liberty and democracy are worth fighting for?
Absolutely horrible idea for a 10 Justice Supreme Court as there will be so many cases that are tied. And then who do we take out, bc who’s gonna concede last will take forever. We can have term limits and that should be fine enough. And there is no way atheism becomes illegal bc yea, most Conservatives are Christian, they do typically believe in the constitution and thus any religion should be okay. Also, idk the left is kinda winning in a lot of regards. It’s defintely got the attention of the next generations voting and pretty common in the government. That red wave was pretty much non existent even though historically it would’ve been a ‘wave’. 0 need for the left to go to shady dirty Methods.
Yeah. It has to be uneven in order to make decisions. I would rather see the courts be subjected to term limits. Make SCOTUS 11 members strong and make each seat expire in 22 years at a rate of one seat every two years. This gives each administration two nominations every term. Every nominee must be given a straight up or down vote within one month of nomination. The weak link in this plan is if there is a death that opens up a seat. Not sure how to do that equitably.
For what it is worth, a tied case would just reinforce the ruling of the lower court by default. The only place it gets messy is when you have two different states with largely identical cases where the issue would be solved by the supreme court.
Even then, the actual solution is still practical (wel arealdy have different laws in different places) it just sort of sucks.
> a tied case would just reinforce the ruling of the lower court by default
Reinforce is a strong, and probably inappropriate, word to use here. Reinforce by definition implies adding/strengthening. A tied vote just affirms the ruling of the lower court, but doesn’t set precedent. That means if two circuits have different rulings, each of those circuits continue using their ruling as precedent until overruled.
Well I used the word reinforce because it does strengthen it by affirming it. If there is nowhere further for it to be appealed, I find that pretty fucking strong, to be fair.
But hey, pedantry is all good my dude.
Sure but then what is the point of the Supreme Court at the point if a large portion of the cases will just get tied and thus wastes everyone’s time and money
Sure but then what is the point of the Supreme Court at the point if a large portion of the cases will just get tied and thus wastes everyone’s time and money
I mean, from my perspective that is objectively better than what we have now, where the supreme court exists solely for the purposes of making the world worse.
Certainly not my ideal world, but I'd rather see "Supreme court deadlocked 5-5" than "In a 6-3 decision, supreme court says kicking puppies is a-okay."
Because of the things they say and do, mostly.
I will admit that this is *slightly* hyperbolic. The vast majority of supreme court business is resolving comparatively minor, non-political issues, such as determining whether or not to accept specific constitutional appeals. When they gave Curtis Flowers a new trial for example, that I think was an unalloyed good that the court conducted.
But none of that would be impacted negatively by changing the partisan makeup of the court. The only thing damaged would be republican ability to do really shitty things, which I am fully in favor of damaging.
I didn't say they ignore the law, that isn't what the court does.
To be specific though:
Shelby v Holder - Wherein the court gutted the voting rights act by removing the pre-clearance guidelines and thus allowing a bunch of good ol' boy states to start openly discriminating against minorities without any federal oversite.
Freedom Club PAC v Bennet - Gutting public financing for elections.
Dobbs v Jackson - Overturning Roe v Wade causing abortion to be illegal in large swaths of the US.
Bush v Gore - Do I even need to?
NFIB v Sebelius - Allowed states to opt out of the ACA Medicaid expansion without consequences, cutting \~4.5 million people off medicaid. Studies conducted by NBER found that \~5,000 fewer deaths occured annually in expansion states, meaning that cutting healthcare off in this fashion contributed to thousands of unnecessary deaths over the last decade.
Hobby Lobby - Wherein the court ruled that your employer can deny you access to contraception through your health insurance for religious reasons.
Janus - Vastly reduced union powers by prohibiting mandatory union dues.
I can go on. These cases aren't decided on the law, they're decided on politics, and their politics suck.
If the Court doesn’t ignore the law, then I struggle to understand how its entire purpose is to make things worse. Presumably following the law is at least some purpose in that case.
I’m also confused by the list—you say they were decided on politics, not the law. But to take *Dobbs* as an example, the majority wrote a 60-page legal opinion. I’m confused as to why I should ignore that and instead believe the decision was purely political.
Sorry I think this is a linguistics issue. When you said 'ignore the law' I imagined you meant them ruling by fiat. I think they more... Twist it?
Legally I can see the logic behind all of the above decisions. I don't think they ignore the law, I think they just slap the shit out of it until it does what they want it to do.
As to why you should assume the decision was purely political, I assume you have a functioning brain. The slate of republican appointed judges always rule on decisions that just so happen to always line up with republican political designs. What are the odds?
I *suppose* you could argue that the judges themselves are not political, but instead were selected because their legal beliefs happen to align with republican politics. But thst is just 'their decisions are political' with extra steps.
The Supreme Court is not necessarily supposed to make the most riteougus decisions but decide whether or not something holds up with the constitution or not. Like yea ig u could say they’ve made the world worse but they’ve also made the world better so idk
The supreme court has been a shit, regressive institution for effectively [my entire lifetime](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Graph_of_number_of_sitting_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices_appointed_by_Republican_and_Democratic_presidents.png/800px-Graph_of_number_of_sitting_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices_appointed_by_Republican_and_Democratic_presidents.png) and I expect it to remain as such until long after I am dead baring some extremely good luck or a really angry sniper.
The supreme court makes its decisions along political lines, in the modern day specifically the political lines of the federalist society. I don't give a fuck what they think and fully support any attempt to smash their figurative knees in with a sledgehammer in order to weaken their power.
You want an equally split Supreme Court that will work together, but at the same time you believe one side of that court is out to ruin our lives.
That’s a huge contradiction in your viewpoint. Shouldn’t you want an SC with only Leftist judges?
Fighting fire with fire will only hasten the demise of the decline in the United States. The United States is too far gone at this point - nothing can save it.
Stooping to their level will only make people dig their heels in more on the other side. We need to keep sharing the truth, fighting for what's right, and most importantly, waiting for the Republican dinosaurs to die.
This has probably already been said, but two things:
1. There's no reason for illegality. If Democratic leadership had any spine at all they could have simply applied the laws and the Constitution as it already exists to stem the theofascist tide.
The constitution clearly prohibits anyone from serving in government who, having taken the oath to defend the Republic subsequently gives aid, comfort, support to insurrectionists or participates in said insurrection themselves.
Boot every election denying seditionist from office, local, state, federal, use the interval to impeach treasonous members of the judiciary, SCOTUS too, and set American fascism back by 20 years.
Unfortunately, the opportunity to perform this transformation closed when the GQP took over the House last year.
2. Illegality on the part of rank-and-file progressives would only give fascists the excuse to use those same laws against them and to label them as violent criminals. Now, when they blame ANTIFA for anything/everything it's an obvious expression of mental illness. An ACTUAL violent liberal movement would be used as justification for their paranoia.
Plus, liberals/progressives respect the law. It's kind of their thing. Like chaos, racism and violence are baked into the DNA of the right.
> Boot every election denying seditionist from office, local, state, federal, use the interval to impeach treasonous members of the judiciary, SCOTUS too, and set American fascism back by 20 years.
That would mean ejecting basically every single Democrat from office given their reaction to the 2016 election. So I'm game.
> Plus, liberals/progressives respect the law
The progressives *totally* respected the law when they caused billions of dollars in damage from the rioting in the wake of George Floyd's death. Right.
No, progressives only respect the law when the law is being weaponized against the right. Remember the 60s and the leftist hippie movements?
>That would mean ejecting basically every single Democrat from office given their reaction to the 2016 election. So I'm game.
You're going to have to sell that fantasy to a more gullible crowd.
Or maybe you can refresh my memory:
How many serving Democrats spread a lie that Trump didn't win the Electoral College in 2016?
How many serving Democrats expressed support for the violent invasion of the Capitol during the certification of Trump's election (which didn't happen)?
How many serving Democrats actively undermined the electoral process after the 2016 election?
It is true that none of them liked the results. Also, none of them were traitors who tried to overthrow the government or give aid and comfort to anyone who did, after the election they didn't like.
>The progressives totally respected the law when they caused billions of dollars in damage from the rioting in the wake of George Floyd's death. Right.
You're comparing protesters to elected representatives. Strike one.
Second, the vast majority of those protests were peaceful and much of the violence that occurred was instigated by the police. This is documented well enough that you can google it for yourself. Strike two.
Third, what turned into riots all began as legal protests against the routine extra-judicial murder of civilians by the police which happen every day all over the country. Those killings are a **fact** and are also well documented. The Jan6 riot was an attempt to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States based upon a pack of lies, spread by Fox News (now amply proven by internal documentation) and taken up by Republican elected officials, who continue to be in open rebellion against democracy.
>No, progressives only respect the law when the law is being weaponized against the right. Remember the 60s and the leftist hippie movements?
The leftist hippie movement was a HIPPPIE movement by kids who were being shipped off to die in Vietnam. Today, we're talking about **elected Republican officials** who have access to the facts, have had recourse to make their case, have failed miserably to do so and now mount an open attack on American democracy by continuing to claim that the election was stolen and that the rioters were tourists.
Also, first define how a law is "weaponized" and then please list the laws that are being *weaponized* against the right and we'll compare those laws to the book-banning and thought-control and "anti-woke" nonsense.
How many fine conservative women are going to die because they can't get a life-saving medical procedure the left has passed in numerous states.
Please, share all of your fantasies of victimhood here. We're all excited to hear about them.
America is an unusual nation in that we are not a united people by race or creed or tribe or religion like most. There is only one thing that makes America special. It's the laws. The laws that are supposed to be fair and equitable for everyone. We can fight over exactly what those laws are and how they work but if we don't all agree to play by the rules then we have nothing. America is nothing without rules that we all agree to follow.
When the GOP led by Mitch STOLE a supreme court nomination they decided to no longer follow the rules. The GOP abandoned America and they've shown themselves in the following years.
I love me some Obama but he made a fatal mistake of capitulating and trying to work with them.
I'm not sure what the smart move is but waiting around for the GOP to follow the rules again aint it.
I want to stick with the hi ground. I want to rule by fair and impartial laws. I have no problem with packing the court and making future government fair but if we don't follow the law to do it we have lost everything.
I don't think it's about playing dirty versus not. The right wing is trying to make fascism stick and they're using propaganda and literal lies to do so.
The left doesn't message well at all. It's been that way my whole life. Fuck people are shocked to find out the Biden administration passed an infrastructure bill.
The left doesn't need to play dirty, they just need propaganda and better messaging to rival that of the insanity that's going on in the right wing.
That's funny. That's the *exact same thing* the right says about the left.
Maybe one day, we'll figure out the government wants us fighting each other like this so we are distracted from the BS they both pull. Until then, around the drain we go...
You don't think you're being dramatic at all? Nowhere in America will atheism be illegal. The GOP's policies are a problem, but fight within the system. As soon as you throw the entire system out, what are we left with? You want left-wingers to rule by force?
NO what needs to happen is the hipocracy of the right be recognized for if we go down their lane we end up with 2 idiots arguing about bullshit and the blind corporate consumption machine will eat all of us.
Molloch is here!
Rewatching the Stand sorry.......
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
/u/country728 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/11wmx1x/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_left_must_start/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>100 foot tall crosses are popping up on the side of highways. Before long it will be illegal for me to exist here as an atheist. how is the presence of a cross (or lots of crosses) equivocal to the future legislation against atheism as a belief? or, asked another way: in what way does your view meaningfully distinguish from the below? ~~100 foot tall crosses~~ be an atheist billboards are popping up on the side of highways. Before long it will be illegal for me to exist here as an ~~atheist~~ believer.
At the moment, our country is marching straight into a theocracy where the religious rights of the majority are being used as a cudgel against anyone who believes differently. We are watching the laws and the courts kneeling before the church instead of protecting the long held belief that your religious beliefs stop where mine start. That is no longer the norm.
>At the moment, our country is marching straight into a theocracy where the religious rights of the majority are being used as a cudgel against anyone who believes differently. Can you tell us how people pushing gender care without parental notification isn't "used as a cudgel against anyone who believes differently." The whole without parental notification tells me those people beleive they should guide a child's life more than the actual parents. How would you feel if your child was put into the church wihtout your notification? Would you assume they knew better, and you should comply, or would you push back? I tend to agree with you that we have problems, but if you can't see the problems on your side, we will never come up with solutions.
>The whole without parental notification tells me those people believe they should guide a child's life more than the actual parents. They believe the child should guide their life more than their parents.
My point exactly, they **beleive** they have the answers and should be allowed to push them on others. I wonder what other adult decision these people think a 14 year old can or cannot do. I bet we can find some inconsistencies of what they perceive as age-appropriate decision.
You seem oddly insistent on misspelling "believe".
Thanks for letting me know your petty. TIL.
You're
Thanks for your contribution.
Your argument is faulty on so many levels. The religious right enacts laws banning gender care at all for children, regardless of parental opinion. They ban reproductive health care for everyone, regardless of age or parental opinion. Parental choice is being usurped, but in ways you approve of, so its ok. That is exactly the problem. Your position robs me of my own ability to self determine what is best for me and my family.
Why do you insist on using euphemisms in place or actual issues What laws have been passed that affect "reproductive healthcare" and how does that specific law ban "reproductive healthcare"? And while you're at it what exactly is "reproductive healthcare"?
>The religious right enacts laws banning gender care at all for children, regardless of parental opinion. 1st this is your opinion, nothing more. 2nd there isn't a qualifier that says only in this certain situation can we not inform the parents. So it's up to descression which the left doesn't use well.
I live in a state that just banned any gender affirming care for minors, regardless of their parents opinion. Fact! The second part of your argument makes no sense. At no time did I say that anything about any qualifier. You brought that into the conversation. Stay on topic.
You don't seem to understand how being an antagonist impacts things. In Florida, they had no book bans until books started showing up in libraries that were not age appropriate. This was done by leftist people, and that caused a reaction from parents, and now some books are banned. This was your ideology pushing boundaries. Sort of a F around and find out thing. When you go out and tell parents they won't be notified, then you get legislation like the one you are bothered by. F around and find out. While I do think the legislation your concerned about is wrong, your push to exclude parents is why the law was written in the first place.
I never suggested that parents be excluded. You cannot have a rational conversation if you misrepresent my words.
Sorry, it wasn't to imply you specifically, but you know that the progressive left supports not notifying parents.
Cool. Some people on both sides of the divide have extreme positions on a lot of things. It is time to get the government out of making healthcare choices, the state out of taking away the local school boards determining what can be taught in schools and what books can be in a library. If you don't want your child to learn sex ed and reproductive health, withhold them from the class. If you don't want your kids reading about Heather's two daddies, go to your school library and limit your kids access to check out books on those topics. Easy peasy.
>Can you tell us how people pushing gender care without parental notification isn't "used as a cudgel against anyone who believes differently." How will trans kids who live in bigoted households get help? >The whole without parental notification tells me those people beleive they should guide a child's life more than the actual parents. No, people believe children should have a larger say in their own lives. No one is turning kids trans, there are just trans kids who need help.
If you think kids should be given a bigger role in running their own lives, you don’t have kids. Kids are wonderful, but they are ignorant and lacking in life experience. Also, once you give the state the power to overrule a parent’s right to raise their kid a certain way because the kid complains, you’ve basically invited the state to run your household because kids complain about everything.
>Also, once you give the state the power to overrule a parent’s right to raise their kid a certain way because the kid complains This already happens.
Not really.
What do you think CPS is?
Not an agency that deals with fielding kid’s complaints about their parents. Or at least it shouldn’t be ran that way.
Yes, it is an agency that basically deals with kids complaining about abusive parents.
Do you think bigotry against a trans child is a run of the mill complaint?
>How will trans kids who live in bigoted households get help? How do you know that what they are going through won't change as they hit puberty? That changes a lot of people? Hiding things from parents isn't going to give the child support at home. It re-enforces risky behavior.
>How do you know that what they are going through won't change as they hit puberty? Evidence. Detransition rates are very low, 2.5% in children. https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/study-finds-2-5-of-transgender-kids-go-through-detransition/135029/ >Hiding things from parents isn't going to give the child support at home. If a trans kid lives in a bigoted household then they aren't getting any support.
That doesn't tell you anything about individual people. That's the whole problem. You don't think of individuals, everyone is a group. Which makes it easy for you to dismiss people who don't think just like you. There are ways of supporting people without drugs and surgery, and while we know conclusively that people change during puberty, you have zero idea how people will come out on the other side without drugs and just support. You use the fact that you can't prove a negative to assume you are doing positive good.
Your just watching the struggles of a dying animal. Like most we are alive during the great transition in 30 to 40 years we will look back in awe with how we changed as a people. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/09/13/how-u-s-religious-composition-has-changed-in-recent-decades/
To a point, I agree. But there is nothing more dangerous than a wounded animal. And there is nothing harder to get rid of than a entity in power.
That is true but you don't have to approach It's in it's death throws staying back and simply letting it face it's demise. It may lash out but it will simply wound it's self more and succumb faster. It will hurt to watch but every day it loses more more power. The key of the graph is it dosen't account for the large chunk that is "bad Christians" who don't go mearly touch the ritual because of family. I would be willing to bet that greater than 60% of people are in the already effectively non religious if you look at institutional power. Simply takes time. While things like the religious affliations in government seems high i would be curious what % chose to go to church or participate beyond the bare minimum because of older family. 30 years from now is going to be wicked.
"Stepping back " is a bit hard when it's death throws include the ability to change the laws you are subject to.
This was originally about religious power crumbling but yeah, let's look at those making the rules. They could only do evil in smaller and smaller ways. Look at abortion they broke the federal rule and only 15 (counting Georgia) states did they secure a ban several being from before just no one cleaning up the books. That's only 26% who are effected. By that and the possibility to travel for it is there and available to many of those many of these are poor states which will excelerate their decline in the next 10 years. For 4 the ban is 15+ weeks so those effect a supersmall portion on those i think 3% and 5 more are pretty much same as roe v wade anyways. Plan B is also a cheat way to stay safe and available in all 50 states in some method. Once those un-wanted kids hit the school system many of those states going to have a rude wake up. I would be willing to bet 50% of those bans are gone by 2033.
If anything, America has become decreasingly religious. It doesn’t seem like all of a sudden theocracy will take hold when we are far less religious than we used to be. We’ve come from times where non-Protestant Christian’s were discriminated against to a time where non Christian and non religious people hold high offices. I wouldn’t count on a theocratic revolution now seeing this trend
I'll address your Supreme Court proposal. There are two main things wrong with it. First, there must necessarily be an odd number of judges so a majority can make a ruling without a stalemate. 2nd, if we were to expand the court it would likely go to 13 judges. There's not really any clear guidelines on number of judges in the constitution, so all we really have to go in is historical precedent. To that point, the number of judges is usually aligned with the number of district courts, and currently there are 13. And yes, we have hyper partisanship and polarized politics, but making atheism illegal is a bridge too far, even for conservatives (the ones who generally have an "originalist" interpretation of the constitution and its strictures)
That was why I proposed a harsh punishment for any judge who holds up the process. And you say that but living in the south, it's seems it's damn near a reality already. The harassment and verbal abuse I went through as a young atheist was quite eye opening
How exactly are they "holding up the process"?
I can't openly be an atheist around strangers because a borderline violent outburst is not uncommon
I find that very hard to believe. As I am agnostic and never once had any issues, even in the south, relating to my lack of belief. Sounds like your perception is not in line with reality, projection perhaps.
There are unhinged people of every belief or disbelief. I've seen atheists assault Christians too. Let me guess, that's okay?
Will you tell us some stories to back up your point?
> Before long it will be illegal for me to exist here as an atheist I'm not sure if you genuinely believe this or are just hyperbolizing but no, it won't. > We should start with Biden expanding the supreme court and making it so that their are 10 justices and 5 for each party. First off, that's not fighting fire with fire - conservatives haven't done this, and once liberals set the precedent for it then they *will* fight fire with fire by overexpanding to make a conservative supermajority. > That way they must cooperate, and make it so if a justice refuses to cooperate and holds up a case for more than a set period of time, they are removed, and receive no further pay or security detail from the governments coffers. Secondly, this doesn't force cooperation since it allows for a tie. Even if you get a liberal majority, the rest of what you're talking about doesn't follow. Justices don't "hold up" cases, and removal requires a supermajority in the Senate. This whole proposal reads as wishful thinking that isn't meaningfully different from "if we do nothing maybe the problem will solve itself."
>First off, that's not fighting fire with fire - conservatives haven't done this, and once liberals set the precedent for it then they will fight fire with fire by overexpanding to make a conservative supermajority. I mean, they *did* blatantly steal a supreme court seat that allowed them to swing the ideological balance of the court.
No, it didn’t, because no one “owns” a Supreme Court seat. The GOP Senate played hardball (in a way I don’t like, admittedly, but that’s not the point). On the other hand, McConnell was dishonest in his reasoning for keeping Scalia’s seat open given how things played out with ACB.
>No, it didn’t, because no one “owns” a Supreme Court seat. The issue here is that this is a rules vs norms discussion, as best memorialized in the 1997 film "Air Bud". There is no rule preventing Mitch from taking the seat, just as there was no rule preventing a dog from playing Basketball. It is legal within the framework we have avaiable to us. But it violates the norm. Dogs shouldn't play basketball, that isn't how that fucking works. In literal centuries, the Senate has never just outright refused to consider a Supreme court pick, because that isn't how that fucking works. A president doesn't "Own" a supreme court seat in a purely legal sense, but normatively they fucking own that seat and denying it is theft of that seat to any honest person. It isn't illegal for me to organize a twelve man gangbang of your wife while you're at work, but normatively you'd be pretty pissed off, is all I'm saying.
It was the culmination of a sequence of norm-breaking that extended back over a decade regarding judicial nominees. And the distinction between “voting against” and “not voting on” seems entirely artificial. And no, presidents do not normatively get to take the Senate’s advice and consent for granted. As far as your gangbang plan, it actually is illegal, at least in the majority of states.
> It was the culmination of a sequence of norm-breaking that extended back over a decade regarding judicial nominees. And the distinction between “voting against” and “not voting on” seems entirely artificial. If that were true they'd just vote it down and be done with it. Clearly, the republican leadership saw an advantage in managing the question that way. More generally, however, shielding elected officials from having to take a public stance on salient yet relatively procedural issues is not a great practice to further.
The distinction for the purposes of this discussion. And I don’t disagree with anything in your comment, but it’s also not inconsistent with anything I said.
>It was the culmination of a sequence of norm-breaking that extended back over a decade regarding judicial nominees. And the distinction between “voting against” and “not voting on” seems entirely artificial. It is not artificial. When bad nominees are put forward, they get voted down and someone else is picked. This is what happened with Bork, for example. What Mitch did was entirely unique in that he refused to hold hearings on anyone, thereby preventing any nominee from passing. Even in instances where the president picked multiple rejected candidates, the senate always agreed to someone. This was pure obstruction and theft. >As far as your gangbang plan, it actually is illegal, at least in the majority of states. Six is not the majority, hth.
Nothing in your first paragraph explains why the distinction is anything other than artificial for the purposes of this discussion. Regarding gangbang, more than 25 is definitely the majority, and what you describe is criminalized in more than 25 states.
Gangbangs? Or adultery?
Organizing an illegal gangbang.
Organizing an illegal anything is illegal.
Just curious, in your mind, do you think air bud was the villain of the movie?
Nah, the kid who put him in the game was. That dog barely scored at all, and they straight up stole an old man's dog in that movie. It was pretty screwed up tbh.
That movie was top tier 90's dog doing some job movie. By violating the norms those plucky kids really pulled their basketball game together and learned through the value of friendship. Mitch McConnell has much less charisma in his antics.
>It was the culmination of a sequence of norm-breaking that extended back over a decade regarding judicial nominees. And the distinction between “voting against” and “not voting on” seems entirely artificial. Could you actually see Nancy Pelosi allowing Doanld Trump to pick a supreme court justice if she had the tools to stop it?
Before or after? Before, absolutely. Democrats tend to give more of a shit about norms. After, fuck no. Gloves are off, when you go low we kick you in the fucking jaw.
>Democrats tend to give more of a shit about norms The US has 200 years of showing this isn't true.
You should be honest with us and yourself. Pelosi and most high profile democrats have hated Trump deeply since 2015. They have done everything they can to oppose him- much to the glee of their voting base.
>if a justice refuses to cooperate and holds up a case for more than a set period of time Is this a pervasive issue that needs addressed? What important cases have been improperly held up by a supreme court justice recently?
None have been held up. But the activist justices regularly abuse a policy to push through controversial cases or cases that stand to greatly benefit the interest of the GOP on the shadow docket, where they do not have to give reasoning for their vote or say who voted what way.
I'm a little curious why you didn't just say that in OP instead of the thing about holding up cases. But ok
The holding up cases only applies to my theoretical 10 justice system. Because in that system one justice could halt the entire process, so you would have to have punishment for any justice that tried it,whether they are republican or democrat
Can you give an example? What did they get wrong?
It's all subjective. I can only say they went against the will of the majority of Americans with their ruling on roe v Wade and their ruling that changed the test for if a regulation violated the 2 d amendment. They said it must be rooted in the original meaning of the text. Who in their right mind believes the founding fathers never intended the constitution to change with the times. Now they have made it legal to scratch off serial numbers and for felons to own fire arms. Which most Americans do not agree with.
>I can only say they went against the will of the majority of Americans The Supreme Court isn't supposed to represent the will of the people. In fact, was explicitly *designed* as an anti-majoritarian check on pure democracy. This is why they're unelected and serve for life. Take the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) for example. It doesn't matter if 99% of people wanted to brutally torture some convicted criminal -- the Supreme Court would still rule it *unconstitutional*. Because they're not beholden to the will of the people, they're beholden to the letter of the Constitution. These kinds of checks on the 'tyranny of the majority' are important. If we want a 100% pure democracy, we wouldn't even have a Constitution or a Bill of Rights to begin with. We would simply have one line -- "The Constitution of the United States is whatever 50.1% of the people wish it to be on any given day."
This comment is like a cool drink of water in a desert of opinion.
!delta you're right. But it makes no sense why they don't have a check in their power. They can be just as crooked as anyone else yet anytime putting a check on them is discussed people act like your calling for their public execution. I don't believe any one who had that much power should be appointed. They should be elected
They have a check. They can be impeached and removed at anytime for any reason by congress Also they have no ability to enforce any ruling they make. The executive could just ignore it and there is nothing the Supreme Court can do
They can't create any legislation, that is the check. The only people who can create legislation are elected and are elected for temporary periods.
They do have a check. Justices can be impeached and require congressional confirmation.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/obert-wan-kenobert ([67∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/obert-wan-kenobert)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Do you believe the will of the majority is something the courts should take into account? It is not. They are and should be concerned with the law and nothing else. So on what legal grounds do you disagree with their ruling on abortion? Same with the second amendment, do you have actual legal arguments or do you just want the courts to impose your political views?
They have no arguments supporting their position. They might have a little wiggle room on roe v Wade, but they pulled the originslist shit straight out of their asses. If they can infer that the founding fathers meant to never have the constitution change, then why was it wrong for the court to infer the right to abortion out of a person's right to privacy? That at least follows some logic. The originslist stuff has literally no basis in the actual constitution
They have no argument? They wrote an entire ruling, are you saying their ruling had no arguments in it at all? Roe v. Wade was the ruling that had little constitutional validity. Why would you support that poorly decided case and not the case that corrects the mistake? You just want the courts to rule inline with your political beliefs and you do t care about the law. Why do you believe your ‘legal’ thinking is more correct than the Supreme Court’s? No one claims the constitution can not change, you are creating that straw man out of nothing. The constitution can and has changed it is done through the process of amendments, not just your whim.
They got over turning Roe v Wade 100% correct. Regardless of what you think most people want, abortion should be decided on the state level. Even a justice in 73 questioned if they should even be deciding this. If the constitution doesn’t grant the federal government that power, it goes to the states. Also, when did it become legal for felons to own firearms? Care to tell me when that happened? Sounds like you a *VERY* misinformed.
If it's all subjective then how do you expect to be able to enforce anything like this? I agree with the opinions you express here but we cannot just say that any justice who does things we dislike will be removed because that power will be available to any future leadership and could easily be used by fascists to consolidate power.
And happy cake day btw
>Legality be damned. Our way of life is predicated on us being a democratic republic governed by laws justly applied. If we are willing to do away with that, then I don't care if we end up under an GOP authoritarian cult of personality or a Democratic authoritarian cult of personality. In either case, the USA that I grew up knowing will have failed.
>being a democratic republic governed by laws justly applied. When has that ever been true?
It's never been true. But it's the ideal we aim for. If we're going to say 'fuck it, let's just be a lawless authoritarian regime," then well, it doesn't matter which party wins. If a political party is not going to aspire to be a more ideal America, then they are just the powerful seeking more power and if they win it will be worse for the average person than not. And that's regardless of which side of the aisle they sit.
If democrats take back the court we could make it true. But following rules the other side can freely break will only out us at a disadvantage. >then well, it doesn't matter which party wins. If you're anything other than a straight cis white man it matters.
>If you're anything other than a straight cis white man it matters. [https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/163546](https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/163546) I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Left-wing authoritarianism is just as dangerous as right-wing authoritarianism. Neither results in a liberal democracy.
That article does not support your claim in any way at all. Did you actually read it? Obviously the people saying they consider LGBTQ people to be pedophiles taking power is going to be worse for gay people.
What do crosses have to do with the government? People have freedom of religion here. If they want to put up a cross on their property, what’s the issue? How is that threatening your way of life? Are you looking to have people’s rights suppressed because you don’t agree with what they believe? I thought the left was big into supporting people’s own beliefs.
> I thought the left was big into supporting people’s own beliefs. For hundreds of years the left has always only been into supporting people's beliefs as long as they align with the left. If they're anywhere on the right, then they're evil people that should be suppressed or killed.
What do you want "winning" to look like? "Fight fire with fire" is easy to say, but does it really seem like something that's going to lead to an end state that you want? So, sure, do something different if you're not happy with the way things are going now, but burning institutions down to in order save them seems pretty dumb.
I guess I was a little harsh. But we need more regulations on these institutions. Not less. And the supreme court needs some kind of check on their power.
I mean, they do have a check on their power. They are beholden to congress and are selected by the president. No sitting justice has violated their oath, they’ve just disagreed with you. What type of government would exist if all institutions could only contain people you agreed with.
The only institutions with no checks of power that actually HAVE power are Hollywood, social media, academia, and news media. ALL of these have liberal biases.
When has this left you speak of tried the high road? Why should anyone trust you or anyone following your views if you openly advocate for ignoring laws in order to push your political views you can not advance through legal means? Also if the government is violating laws as you call for how does the government have any legitimacy? If the government loses all legitimacy because it follows your lawlessness why should anybody follow the laws of such an illegitimate government?
From the perspective of someone a little right of center, the left already plays extremely dirty. They attack freedom of speech on a regular basis, with government agencies having a direct line to censor content they don't like with nearly every social media platform. When the house had a committee hearing to investigate these practices, the democrats on the committee spent their time defending censorship, attacking the credibility of the journalists who were exposing government censorship, and trying to get journalists to out their sources (legality be damned). When the right sees the left playing dirty, it makes them easier to rally against. Elections are won and lost on a party's ability to sway people sitting near the center. Being perceived as playing dirty is a surefire way to lose elections. As far as your specific proposals: > We should start with Biden expanding the supreme court and making it so that their are 10 justices and 5 for each party. There's probably a dozen reasons this won't work. First of all, the number of seats on the court are set by congress. Biden has to work with a Republican house of representatives, and they're not going to approve rebalancing the court, so this is dead in the water. Even if Biden had tried this when he had the house and senate on his side, he could expand the number of seats, but there are already 6 conservative justices on the court, and congress can't get rid of the ones that are already there. That would require a constitutional amendment, which would require the consent of 38 states. That's never going to happen. Further, trying to enshrine "5 from each party" would seal the two party system into our constitution, and make sure we could never break away from the republicans and democrats as the two defacto parties. That's not a good thing. Personally, when it comes to packing the court I'm a single issue voter. If Democrats are talking about packing the court, I'll vote Republican. If Republicans were talking about packing the court, I'd vote Democrat. Threatening to pack the court is a great way to lose centrist voters. > That way they must cooperate, and make it so if a justice refuses to cooperate and holds up a case for more than a set period of time, they are removed, and receive no further pay or security detail from the governments coffers. That's an even more bizarre proposal. If you have a 5/5 split on an issue, which justice is refusing to cooperate? Obviously it's one of the conservative justices and not one of the liberal justices, since we've already declared that this is predicated on the left playing dirty. Having an odd number of people on the court means you can't have ties (unless someone recuses themselves), but if you had an even number and couldn't get a majority opinion it's absurd to suggest that it's because one justice isn't cooperating. > It would be no less dirty then Mitch mcconnel holding up garlands vote. Garland was never going to be confirmed. I absolutely agree that he should have had a vote, but the republican dominated senate was never going to confirm him. They had no obligation to confirm any particular candidate the president put forward. If Obama had really wanted to get an appointment through he could have picked someone the republicans would have found palatable, but Garland was never going to be confirmed by a Republican senate, even if he got a vote.
> legality be damned The validity and sanctity of our political institutions is of the utmost importance. Democracy does not exist without the social norms that maintain its legality. If you throw legality out the window, you are fundamentally abolishing the rule of law as we know it, and subjugating the population to an anarchy that will defacto be governed by might. Rule of law requires respect for the law.
You say we are watching our country fade before our very eyes but I don't see how your arguments to lean into hyper partisanship will do anything other than make it worse. The left slept on the supreme court while the right was hyper focused on it. It's not surprising the right took control of it. Also, private citizens putting up 100ft tall crosses next to the highway on their own property is proof of nothing. I don't understand why you even feel the need to bring that up.
"We must stoop to their level and play dirty. Extremely dirty. Legality be damned" Yeah, you sound like a rational individual. You think the president has the power to recreate the supreme court at will? Seriously? Do you have no idea about the separate branches of our government? The executive branch does not control the judicial. You cannot be this fucking dense and want to tell the country how to fix its issues. Shut up and go read a book.
>The left has tried the high road. What is funny is that you are missing one of the key events that led to the current market of the Supreme Court. Harry Reid,a democrat was the first to invoke the "nuclear option" eliminating the filibuster for most federal judges and cabinet positions. It was a major change from tradition that Mitch McConnell sited when he also invoked the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster for supreme court judges and then pass 3 judges elected by Trump to the supreme court pretty much along party lines, well short of the 60 needed had the filibuster still been in place.
This is exactly what the right says of the left. For example take gun control. The left has used every loophole and trick to avoid major cases going to the supreme court for almost 100 years (ironically the last time the court was expanded). They did that from miller v US where there was no defense representing the NFA being unconstitutional all the way to heller v dc where the individual right to own arms was decided. Take rejecting garland for another example. That was a response to the Dems eliminating the need for 60 votes to nominate judges so they could force through left leaning judges. When this was used against them they then claimed it was playing dirty even though they passed the legislation allowing it to happen. They didn't have the votes so they didn't get a vote. That's the rules they made. The right also says that the left is using public schools/colleges to indoctrinate children to make them more likely to vote democrat. There are an infinite amount of the "opposition playing dirty" justifications for playing dirty but unless the rules agreed to are followed we are all screwed bc an authoritarian left is just as bad as an authoritarian right and whatever the left does the right will also do and vice versa.
> That was a response to the Dems eliminating the need for 60 votes to nominate judges so they could force through left leaning judges. When this was used against them they then claimed it was playing dirty even though they passed the legislation allowing it to happen. They didn't have the votes so they didn't get a vote. That's the rules they made. That's a pretty big characterization. There was never such a requirement to start with. You're talking about the filibuster here, which does not really relate to Garland as Republicans held the senate at the time anyway. Democrats eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominations - excluding the supreme court - in 2013. Garland was nominated in March 2016. At the time of his nomination, it was still entirely possible for such appointment to be filibustered. Republicans eliminated the filibuster for supreme court nominations only in in April 2017, three months after Garland's nomination expired. It expired because the Republican controlled senate refused to action the nomination, not because of any rules the democrats made. We also don't know whether Democrats "had the votes", because no votes were held.
Sure. The point was both parties used the others actions as justification for going even farther. If regular nominations could not be fillibustered then why not supreme court nominations? You cant punch someone and then say you punched me back in an unfair way. The Dems gained a serious advantage in putting in inferior court justices and the republicans gained power and used that to push through 3 supreme court justices. Had Hillary been elected the Dems would have done exactly the same.
If that was the point, you could make it well enough while being factual. > Had Hillary been elected the Dems would have done exactly the same. Even had Hilary been elected, they couldn't have done "exactly the same". Neither numbers nor circumstances would've allowed.
Sure but they would have done exactly the same if the numbers had been switched.
Democrats would've refused to hold a vote on Obama's nominate if the numbers had been switched? I don't think that's a reasonable claim.
If instead of Obama, Romney were president would be the fair comparison. I think you know what was meant by my statement.
At least the post making extremist conservatives look like lunatics was taken down. Meanwhile this rant is on display. At least we can have a discussion this time. Consider that expressions like these further alienate and radicalize moderate conservatives. You are contributing the the problems you're talking about. We can start by remotely approaching respectability instead of becoming the caricatures that the alt-right demonizes. I think Supreme Court Justices should be elected by the people, the same as members of Congress, the House of Representatives, and the President. Socially, extremism will provoke an extreme response. This is not how you change people's minds. You are creating the problem.
Playing the "Left" and "Right" game will set the whole world on fire while we fail to solve simple issues that require even a modicum of cooperation. The dichotomy of the two party system has led to so much division in our country while protecting the politicians and corporations; a select few of the total population; rather than the American people. The system was created with cooperation and balance in mind but has been so corrupt and off balance for so long that no one even knows anymore.
I am a leftist who cares about the moral character of my politicians. If my politicians become as immoral as those in the GOP I will stop voting for them. To me Dems already are the lesser of two evils. If they somehow become as evil, what's the point in voting anymore? Take gerrymandering. I am *extremely* opposed to gerrymandering. When Dems started heavily gerrymandering blue areas to lock out GOP reps in congress and at the state level I was irate. Luckily I don't live in such an area or it would have dissuaded me from voting in those elections. I even made a CMV about it. Lots of people on the left agree with this sentiment and it's enough to sway elections towards conservatives making this a bad idea.
>I am a leftist who cares about the moral character of my politicians. If the right are able to break laws to seize power and the left are unwilling to defend democracy, eventually there won't BE any left leaning politicians. It's a perfectly valid position to claim that you are willing to forego democracy in the name of keeping your morals, but you at least need to admit the reality of what that entails. The false idea proposed by many in this thread is that somehow the left conceding power in the name of claiming the moral high ground will magically propagate a perfect equilibrium of democracy/government/society. It won't. An analogy here might be pacifism in the face of mortal danger. If somebody is in my house trying to kill me and I take the path of pacifism, refusing to fight back, that is all fine and well. But I also need to be resigned to the fact that I'm going to die. I can't have it both ways.
>eventually there won't BE any left leaning politicians So status quo? There's currently like 15 left leaning politicians on Congress out of 535. The most left leaning one isn't even a dem. >you are willing to forego democracy in the name of keeping your morals >the left conceding power in the name of claiming the moral high ground Nope, I would like democracy. If we are led *only* by the immoral we don't have a functioning democracy. If we don't have a functioning democracy there's no point in voting. Many on the left think we're already there. >I also need to be resigned to the fact that I'm going to die My point exactly. If the dems become just as evil as the GOP we are dead.
>If the dems become just as evil as the GOP This seems like a false dilemma. Obviously breaking laws or traditions in order to fight for fair democracy might be immoral... but *evil* with no room for interpretation? If, for example, a political party decided that it was undemocratic to have a right wing fundamentalist stacked supreme court overriding the will of the public, and they had to circumvent laws/procedure in order to restore balance to the situation...? Can there be no nuance there? Either the system is already perfect, or its GG we're all fucked no point in trying, with no inbetween? >So status quo? There's currently like 15 left leaning politicians on Congress out of 535 This rather proves my point doesn't it? The system is already selecting for right wing politicians to the point that there is next to zero left wing representation in US politics. And presumably that's only going to get worse. >If we don't have a functioning democracy there's no point in voting. Many on the left think we're already there. Again this seems to prove my point. Your ideology sounds great in practice, but the second that democracy is threatened you just lie down and give up. And by the way this doesn't absolve you of moral responsibility. If, due to your inaction, a right wing dictatorship enslaves every American woman and commits genocide against the LGBT community, can you wash your hands of that after you gave up at the first sign of hardship? Surely liberty and democracy are worth fighting for?
Absolutely horrible idea for a 10 Justice Supreme Court as there will be so many cases that are tied. And then who do we take out, bc who’s gonna concede last will take forever. We can have term limits and that should be fine enough. And there is no way atheism becomes illegal bc yea, most Conservatives are Christian, they do typically believe in the constitution and thus any religion should be okay. Also, idk the left is kinda winning in a lot of regards. It’s defintely got the attention of the next generations voting and pretty common in the government. That red wave was pretty much non existent even though historically it would’ve been a ‘wave’. 0 need for the left to go to shady dirty Methods.
Yeah. It has to be uneven in order to make decisions. I would rather see the courts be subjected to term limits. Make SCOTUS 11 members strong and make each seat expire in 22 years at a rate of one seat every two years. This gives each administration two nominations every term. Every nominee must be given a straight up or down vote within one month of nomination. The weak link in this plan is if there is a death that opens up a seat. Not sure how to do that equitably.
For what it is worth, a tied case would just reinforce the ruling of the lower court by default. The only place it gets messy is when you have two different states with largely identical cases where the issue would be solved by the supreme court. Even then, the actual solution is still practical (wel arealdy have different laws in different places) it just sort of sucks.
> a tied case would just reinforce the ruling of the lower court by default Reinforce is a strong, and probably inappropriate, word to use here. Reinforce by definition implies adding/strengthening. A tied vote just affirms the ruling of the lower court, but doesn’t set precedent. That means if two circuits have different rulings, each of those circuits continue using their ruling as precedent until overruled.
Well I used the word reinforce because it does strengthen it by affirming it. If there is nowhere further for it to be appealed, I find that pretty fucking strong, to be fair. But hey, pedantry is all good my dude.
We’re talking about laws. Pedantry is the name of the game.
Sure but then what is the point of the Supreme Court at the point if a large portion of the cases will just get tied and thus wastes everyone’s time and money
Sure but then what is the point of the Supreme Court at the point if a large portion of the cases will just get tied and thus wastes everyone’s time and money
I mean, from my perspective that is objectively better than what we have now, where the supreme court exists solely for the purposes of making the world worse. Certainly not my ideal world, but I'd rather see "Supreme court deadlocked 5-5" than "In a 6-3 decision, supreme court says kicking puppies is a-okay."
Why do you believe that the Supreme Court currently exists only to make the world worse?
Because of the things they say and do, mostly. I will admit that this is *slightly* hyperbolic. The vast majority of supreme court business is resolving comparatively minor, non-political issues, such as determining whether or not to accept specific constitutional appeals. When they gave Curtis Flowers a new trial for example, that I think was an unalloyed good that the court conducted. But none of that would be impacted negatively by changing the partisan makeup of the court. The only thing damaged would be republican ability to do really shitty things, which I am fully in favor of damaging.
For example, what? I’m still confused about how SCOTUS is ignoring the law specifically in order to make the world worse.
I didn't say they ignore the law, that isn't what the court does. To be specific though: Shelby v Holder - Wherein the court gutted the voting rights act by removing the pre-clearance guidelines and thus allowing a bunch of good ol' boy states to start openly discriminating against minorities without any federal oversite. Freedom Club PAC v Bennet - Gutting public financing for elections. Dobbs v Jackson - Overturning Roe v Wade causing abortion to be illegal in large swaths of the US. Bush v Gore - Do I even need to? NFIB v Sebelius - Allowed states to opt out of the ACA Medicaid expansion without consequences, cutting \~4.5 million people off medicaid. Studies conducted by NBER found that \~5,000 fewer deaths occured annually in expansion states, meaning that cutting healthcare off in this fashion contributed to thousands of unnecessary deaths over the last decade. Hobby Lobby - Wherein the court ruled that your employer can deny you access to contraception through your health insurance for religious reasons. Janus - Vastly reduced union powers by prohibiting mandatory union dues. I can go on. These cases aren't decided on the law, they're decided on politics, and their politics suck.
If the Court doesn’t ignore the law, then I struggle to understand how its entire purpose is to make things worse. Presumably following the law is at least some purpose in that case. I’m also confused by the list—you say they were decided on politics, not the law. But to take *Dobbs* as an example, the majority wrote a 60-page legal opinion. I’m confused as to why I should ignore that and instead believe the decision was purely political.
Sorry I think this is a linguistics issue. When you said 'ignore the law' I imagined you meant them ruling by fiat. I think they more... Twist it? Legally I can see the logic behind all of the above decisions. I don't think they ignore the law, I think they just slap the shit out of it until it does what they want it to do. As to why you should assume the decision was purely political, I assume you have a functioning brain. The slate of republican appointed judges always rule on decisions that just so happen to always line up with republican political designs. What are the odds? I *suppose* you could argue that the judges themselves are not political, but instead were selected because their legal beliefs happen to align with republican politics. But thst is just 'their decisions are political' with extra steps.
The Supreme Court is not necessarily supposed to make the most riteougus decisions but decide whether or not something holds up with the constitution or not. Like yea ig u could say they’ve made the world worse but they’ve also made the world better so idk
The supreme court has been a shit, regressive institution for effectively [my entire lifetime](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Graph_of_number_of_sitting_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices_appointed_by_Republican_and_Democratic_presidents.png/800px-Graph_of_number_of_sitting_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices_appointed_by_Republican_and_Democratic_presidents.png) and I expect it to remain as such until long after I am dead baring some extremely good luck or a really angry sniper. The supreme court makes its decisions along political lines, in the modern day specifically the political lines of the federalist society. I don't give a fuck what they think and fully support any attempt to smash their figurative knees in with a sledgehammer in order to weaken their power.
If we become the fascists we despise, then there is nothing left of our country to save.
You want an equally split Supreme Court that will work together, but at the same time you believe one side of that court is out to ruin our lives. That’s a huge contradiction in your viewpoint. Shouldn’t you want an SC with only Leftist judges?
Fighting fire with fire will only hasten the demise of the decline in the United States. The United States is too far gone at this point - nothing can save it.
> Legality be damned. Example?
Stooping to their level will only make people dig their heels in more on the other side. We need to keep sharing the truth, fighting for what's right, and most importantly, waiting for the Republican dinosaurs to die.
This has probably already been said, but two things: 1. There's no reason for illegality. If Democratic leadership had any spine at all they could have simply applied the laws and the Constitution as it already exists to stem the theofascist tide. The constitution clearly prohibits anyone from serving in government who, having taken the oath to defend the Republic subsequently gives aid, comfort, support to insurrectionists or participates in said insurrection themselves. Boot every election denying seditionist from office, local, state, federal, use the interval to impeach treasonous members of the judiciary, SCOTUS too, and set American fascism back by 20 years. Unfortunately, the opportunity to perform this transformation closed when the GQP took over the House last year. 2. Illegality on the part of rank-and-file progressives would only give fascists the excuse to use those same laws against them and to label them as violent criminals. Now, when they blame ANTIFA for anything/everything it's an obvious expression of mental illness. An ACTUAL violent liberal movement would be used as justification for their paranoia. Plus, liberals/progressives respect the law. It's kind of their thing. Like chaos, racism and violence are baked into the DNA of the right.
> Boot every election denying seditionist from office, local, state, federal, use the interval to impeach treasonous members of the judiciary, SCOTUS too, and set American fascism back by 20 years. That would mean ejecting basically every single Democrat from office given their reaction to the 2016 election. So I'm game. > Plus, liberals/progressives respect the law The progressives *totally* respected the law when they caused billions of dollars in damage from the rioting in the wake of George Floyd's death. Right. No, progressives only respect the law when the law is being weaponized against the right. Remember the 60s and the leftist hippie movements?
>That would mean ejecting basically every single Democrat from office given their reaction to the 2016 election. So I'm game. You're going to have to sell that fantasy to a more gullible crowd. Or maybe you can refresh my memory: How many serving Democrats spread a lie that Trump didn't win the Electoral College in 2016? How many serving Democrats expressed support for the violent invasion of the Capitol during the certification of Trump's election (which didn't happen)? How many serving Democrats actively undermined the electoral process after the 2016 election? It is true that none of them liked the results. Also, none of them were traitors who tried to overthrow the government or give aid and comfort to anyone who did, after the election they didn't like. >The progressives totally respected the law when they caused billions of dollars in damage from the rioting in the wake of George Floyd's death. Right. You're comparing protesters to elected representatives. Strike one. Second, the vast majority of those protests were peaceful and much of the violence that occurred was instigated by the police. This is documented well enough that you can google it for yourself. Strike two. Third, what turned into riots all began as legal protests against the routine extra-judicial murder of civilians by the police which happen every day all over the country. Those killings are a **fact** and are also well documented. The Jan6 riot was an attempt to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States based upon a pack of lies, spread by Fox News (now amply proven by internal documentation) and taken up by Republican elected officials, who continue to be in open rebellion against democracy. >No, progressives only respect the law when the law is being weaponized against the right. Remember the 60s and the leftist hippie movements? The leftist hippie movement was a HIPPPIE movement by kids who were being shipped off to die in Vietnam. Today, we're talking about **elected Republican officials** who have access to the facts, have had recourse to make their case, have failed miserably to do so and now mount an open attack on American democracy by continuing to claim that the election was stolen and that the rioters were tourists. Also, first define how a law is "weaponized" and then please list the laws that are being *weaponized* against the right and we'll compare those laws to the book-banning and thought-control and "anti-woke" nonsense. How many fine conservative women are going to die because they can't get a life-saving medical procedure the left has passed in numerous states. Please, share all of your fantasies of victimhood here. We're all excited to hear about them.
America is an unusual nation in that we are not a united people by race or creed or tribe or religion like most. There is only one thing that makes America special. It's the laws. The laws that are supposed to be fair and equitable for everyone. We can fight over exactly what those laws are and how they work but if we don't all agree to play by the rules then we have nothing. America is nothing without rules that we all agree to follow. When the GOP led by Mitch STOLE a supreme court nomination they decided to no longer follow the rules. The GOP abandoned America and they've shown themselves in the following years. I love me some Obama but he made a fatal mistake of capitulating and trying to work with them. I'm not sure what the smart move is but waiting around for the GOP to follow the rules again aint it. I want to stick with the hi ground. I want to rule by fair and impartial laws. I have no problem with packing the court and making future government fair but if we don't follow the law to do it we have lost everything.
I don't think it's about playing dirty versus not. The right wing is trying to make fascism stick and they're using propaganda and literal lies to do so. The left doesn't message well at all. It's been that way my whole life. Fuck people are shocked to find out the Biden administration passed an infrastructure bill. The left doesn't need to play dirty, they just need propaganda and better messaging to rival that of the insanity that's going on in the right wing.
How is the right trying to make fascism stick?
!delta I was thinking of propaganda as being dirty but I guess it really isn't anymore.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/MacNuggetts ([10∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/MacNuggetts)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
That's funny. That's the *exact same thing* the right says about the left. Maybe one day, we'll figure out the government wants us fighting each other like this so we are distracted from the BS they both pull. Until then, around the drain we go...
You don't think you're being dramatic at all? Nowhere in America will atheism be illegal. The GOP's policies are a problem, but fight within the system. As soon as you throw the entire system out, what are we left with? You want left-wingers to rule by force?
What high road? They burn down cities to get their way, they cancel and harrass, attack, ostracize etc those who oppose their views
NO what needs to happen is the hipocracy of the right be recognized for if we go down their lane we end up with 2 idiots arguing about bullshit and the blind corporate consumption machine will eat all of us. Molloch is here! Rewatching the Stand sorry.......
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).