368
'Shaken': Analyst claims John Roberts has been left reeling from immunity ruling backlash
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
368 points (96.2% liked)
politics
19223 readers
2658 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Maybe this columnist thinks he's "shaken", but I doubt it. The reason he acted in a more moderate way before was that the Christian Nationalist justices didn't have a strong majority and the ability to impose their agenda with impunity. The minute they had a 6-3 majority, he knew they could do whatever they wanted, and they have.
The only thing we can do about it now is elect as many Dems as possible to the House and Senate and pressure them to impose term limits and expand the Court, things that should have been done a long time ago.
And please, regardless of whether you think your vote for POTUS will count, vote anyway and fill out your full ballot because you have much more influence on your State legislature and local offices, which is where so many things that affect your life are decided.
Every single time the SC does something outrageous some version of this article comes out proclaiming his deep held belief in justice and whatever else. And every time it is complete bullshit.
It's like some journalists fucking fanfic desperately wishing that these people's consciouses are eating them up inside. Meanwhile they go home to their mansions and continue to happily live their comfortable lives. It's not even that they know they won't face consequences for their actions (which they won't), it's that they think they have done nothing wrong at all. They believe themselves to be morally in the right.
"Shaken"? Don't kid yourself. He's as content and happy as a pig in shit.
cover for the next batch of heinous shit they're gonna pull
No amount of voting will implement this pressure. This has been the chronic problem: electoral victories don't translate into pressure for any given policy.
Who said electoral victories translate into pressure for a given policy? Voting them into office gets them to where they have power and can then be pressured to wield it for our benefit, which is a different type of political action than an election. Voting in elections is how you try to get people who are closest to the values you're looking for into office--and the primaries are as important as the general for that.
Organizing around an issue, speaking out with meetings, in the media, with protests, etc., calling attention and building up support for a cause--all those things exert pressure on elected officials. Read about movements in American history -- the civil rights movement, women's liberation, etc. and BTW you want to know a movement that was very effective? The fucking Tea Party movement, which led to the maga takeover of the republican party.
For some reason (lack of proper civics education in schools is part of the problem), people have this simplistic idea that all they have to do is go vote for a president every four years, get pissed that they don't like the choices, and assume that the POTUS is supposed to somehow magically fix everything, not understanding the other branches of government involved, and when it doesn't happen fast enough or at all, they get pissed and either vote for someone else or give up and don't vote or fall for a populist conman or get violent or whatever. That's not how it works!
No wonder we're where we are today. I'm sick of even talking about it any more. If people refuse to educate themselves about how our system of government is supposed to work and act accordingly then it's over, and we as a country deserve to fall into the fascism brought to us by the people who did make the effort to figure out how to achieve their agenda and went out and did it.
I guess what I mean is uncritical votes for Democrats across the House and Senate doesn't guarantee any pressure. Shit that is probably the most viable arena for third party candidates or at least candidates caucusing on a specific policy issue that people get behind, especially during primaries for each and every cycle.
Maybe I'm just being salty because my entire downballot this year is all Democrats running on working with Republicans and Republicans running on working against the Democrats.
One democrat in my old district is literally running on opposing Biden and helping Republicans with the southern border. My state borders Canada.
Biden was very specific that he was against expanding the court, and Harris is taking up every single policy position Biden did, so we can probably take this up again in 4-8 years.
Term limits are defined by the Constitution and require an Amendment. See the 22nd:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
We are currently too divided to pass any Amendment right now.
Yes, but the proposal is to implement a senior status, benching (heh) justices after a period of time, calling them up in case a starter recuses or is otherwise incapacitated.
Technically still appointed, and composition is done by law not the constitution.
Only flaw is the body that decides if this approach is constitutional is the one being curtailed.