I am sympathetic to Kagan's argument on standing and similarly I understand why Roberts is trying to lower the pressure. In any case this seems to come back to Congress no longer passing legislation and instead relying on executive powers for all political requirements. Not really seeing a solution until primary rules change. Centrists are left unserved presently.
Centrists can go suck a fat one. The primary reason we're in this fascistic mess globally is the centrists' aversion to being inconvenienced for the rights of their fellow people and for the future of the planet.
That's what creates dictatorships, that's what starts world wars, in summary, that's what enables fascists.
Can you give me an example? Some purple states have protected reproductive health in response to the court overturning Roe. My perception is that the primary races are selecting increasingly polarizing candidates who's goal is just notoriety/fundraising over governing. MTG is a prime demonstration of this effect.
Thank you for your reply. What I am trying to articulate is that I see the trend toward extreme candidates cascading through many government systems. The origin being at the legislature in America's circumstance. The legislature holds nominations of judges in it's hands now which is why we are seeing the buck stop at the court. Congress gets to bemoan the fact that the court is responsible because they aren't offering any practicable solutions. Please note, I am not saying the court is without fault. There are certainly ethics rules issues at play and the court composition as it is now is due to the faults of congress in how the nomination process works.
My thought is that if primaries worked differently legislative candidates would run more moderate campaigns and we would see less brinkmanship at the court. Roberts I think is correctly concerned about the perception of the court and is genuinely worried about the last branch of US government losing the respect of the populace. With the decision on Roe v Wade, I think he should be.
The supreme court even as a concept is one of the most asinine yet accepted institutions in the world. On par with the Catholic church, but so much worse because it actually has enormous and direct power over 330+ million people. I am dreaming and pining for the day that someone in power, most likely a president, just legitimately tells them to fuck off. They have no enforcement power and they fucking know it. I'm yearning for someone to have the courage, but it's as clear as it possibly can be that it certainly won't be a Democrat.
The thing is that the court only has so much power right now because Congress is so fucking broken. If Congress where in working order it could just legislate all the shit that the court is blocking the executive on.
Is there any sense when Congress went off the rails? Some folks I have listened to say it was around the 90s but there were obviously very contentious times before then.
The Congress has never consistently functioned well, I'm not entirely convinced it's designed to. For the current mess, both in Congress and American politics in general, probably the most influential source is Newt Gingrich's electioneering policy of attacking wedges and saying anything you have to to get headlines without regards to the truthfulness of your statements. That's what reshaped the Republican party to be particularly welcoming to extremists, popularized science denial, and led to the modern wave of Christian Nationalism.
Can you elaborate on the comparison to the church? You don't like a panel having authority so you want to consolidate it to a president unilaterally ignoring the third branch? Would term limits on judges change how you see the court?
The Catholic church is an unjustifiable and ridiculous institution in the same way the supreme court is. The Catholic church also had a lot of control over the lives of many people for a very long time, although that influence has obviously waned in recent centuries and decades (although it's clearly still not completely gone). Now, as far as the president having control, I will also say fuck the presidency, but it would always be my hope that a person in that position would do anything in their power as a president and a person to stand up to unjustifiable institutions like the supreme court. Obviously a president couldn't abolish the supreme court single-handedly, nor do I think that would necessarily, inherently be a good thing, but I do think that a president could and should call out the obvious reasons for which the institution needs to be abolished, because it absolutely does. The fact that nine human beings can directly control the lives of millions and millions and millions of people is an absolute travesty. I don't even feel dissimilarly about congress, but obviously it's a bit better because they are actually elected. In general, though, I am a very strong proponent of direct democracy. Term limits are a starting point, but it would be akin to applying a bandaid to a gaping, oozing wound.
Rich people profit off of the pain and sorrow from society being divided over these issues. Please let's everyone focus on the rich folks hoarding and unfair share of money and working us to the bone. They like when we argue over shit like this. Divided people aren't aware of how much they're getting fucked up by the select few.
I find this line of thinking to be flawed. If race can be excluded as a factor for consideration, how is the most qualified people getting ahead a bad thing? I couldn't get into Harvard even if I had good blackmail on the Dean. Maybe I don't understand the argument but that's my take.
The people getting into Harvard, many of them get in because of social connection’s rather than merit. The social connections of their parents. It’s also super common to just buy their way in.
The students getting in on merit are the ones they let in because they have a reputation to maintain and can’t have everyone being dumb. That would look bad.
Further, even if that weren’t true, the reason “the most qualified” seem to be rich white kids from rich white families is simply because they can afford much better educations. So, if you want to promote diversity it can’t just be about academic qualifications because you have people who’ve always been in power buying academic quals for the kids- so they always will be in power.
Affirmative action isn’t about taking away from one group and giving it to another, it’s about giving back to a group that historically has been taken from- its about righting a past wrong- you can’t do that solely on merit, when the system was designed to perpetuate a certain kind of status quo
We don't need to right past wrongs. Just continue to be good people and give everyone and equal opportunity. That's what I do every day. Just be a good person to everyone you see, be willing to share knowledge to those who ask and elevate those around you. I don't specifically treat anyone differently than others based on "past wrongs".
Im sorry, but that's just a flawed way of thinking and perpetuates a divide.
Those "past wrongs" are still impacting people alive today. When one racer has been given a two hundred year head start, it's easy to look at the race when everyone's running and think it is fair.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.