this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
239 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19159 readers
5480 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A new study published on Thursday and led by my colleague Chelsey Davidson found that since the 2012–13 term, more than 80 percent of election-related cases on the Supreme Court’s hand-picked docket could move the law only in a direction that degraded fair elections.

In that time, the Supreme Court accepted 32 cases involving core democracy issues such as redistricting, ballot access, campaign finance, and VRA enforcement. In 26 of them, the lower court had issued a pro-democracy ruling. This means that the best-case scenario at the court was affirmation of the status quo, while a reversal of the lower court would restrict voter participation. By contrast, the justices picked just six cases where they might reverse anti-democracy rulings.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

You might want to scroll up to the comment I first replied to, and reread it.

Edit: took out the snarky bits. I'm tired, and thought you were a different user.

[–] SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

I'm with you. Dems are pro-corporate, socially conciliatory, meaning they'll never rock the boat ever.

Which means they'll never produce a real leader. They will never make JFK capable of giving the nation a direction. They'll squeak the loudest wheel and continuing to sell out the everyday Americans estates for end of Life health care, ensuring all money ends up at the top within a single lifetime and where you're born is the caste where you'll 99% of the time stay.

Entrenched oligarchy. Neo-fuedalism behind corporate slogans absolving shareholders of guilt and culpability.

They're takind everything of worth before they lock themselves away, prob down on the soon to be one of the last temperate climes of the Antarctic peninsula.

There's a military plan for climate change. It involves a lot of guns pointing out from around the richest and the "elites". If you aren't in those circles now, you ain't getting there.

I used to think there's no way America would lock its borders down to the ~500mill in Central America and Mexico, now I'm less naive. Not only will we lock it down, we got enough bullets to make the Colorado reach the ocean again, AND live up to it's name.

Solve a problem or sacrifice the poor? Hmm. How has society treated every problem in the past 50 years?

...oh it's gonna be bad.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The comment chain as I see it:

There’s enough to impeach Kavanaugh and Clarence if the Dems had the presidency and congress.

To which you responded

The Democratic Party, as it exists today, is structurally incapable of what your suggesting. Their entire power structure is based on suppressing the left, and NOT activating / mobilizing their base for real political or societal changes towards leftist goals, or projects.

(which, is the primary comment I'm referencing.)

After a snark comment, you further responded with

Oh, my bad. Guess that isn’t the case, as evidenced by… what exactly? Or is it just that pesky parliamentarian always getting in the way?

Which is where I dropped my comment.

I may have lost the trail, but it seems from the 2 comments you are suggesting that the Dems aren't doing anything about the supreme court because they are trying to undermine progressives. I don't really agree with that. (Hence my response).

I agree with you that dems tend to undermine progressives.

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Reread the first comment I replied to, again:

There’s enough to impeach Kavanaugh and Clarence if the Dems had the presidency and congress.

Your comment implied that I was talking about something the Democrats could do at the moment, but wouldn't, for the reasons I mentioned. At least, that is how you worded it.

The comment I was replying to was imagining a near term future scenario where Kavanaugh and Thomas were still on the court, but that Democrats held all necessary levers of power in Congress and Executive, which is what I was responding to when I said the party would be structurally incapable/unwilling to act.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

And, as I pointed out, they don't need the executive. They need 2/3s of the Senate. That's just a scenario that's not going to happen.

The best we could hope is packing the court, but that won't remove the conservatives on the court, just lessen their power.

We came pretty close to doing just that, but sinama and manchin blew it up.