• Aa!@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    Defying the Supreme Court would set an extraordinarily terrible precedent. This only works if the masses are doing the defying. And it’s incredibly risky, as the Republicans would very quickly follow suit

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Congress could impeach Justices or increase the headcount to properly balance the Court. Those are the legitimate ways to challenge these rulings based on the checks and balances in our governmental design.

      That would require Democrats to vote with high turnout for Senate and House elections.

      • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        That would require Democrats to vote with high turnout for Senate and House elections.

        Instead we’ll give them a razor thin majority and complain when they don’t pass sweeping legislation that requires the GOP to sign on to.

    • slickgoat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      What exactly is the risk when considering the very real danger the court is doing to the country? Tolerating intolerance will only take the country in one direction.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      Oh no! A bad precedent. Wouldn’t want to have one of those. Surely precedent will protect us from having reproductive rights stolen, or declaring the president a king, or declaring the regulatory state invalid. The fascists are already on the march and have demonstrated they’re willing to trash precedent without the Democrats making the first move.

      But none of that matters. Is this an existential issue or not? If it is, a constitutional crisis is warranted to solve it. You can’t say something is existential and then worry about not doing anything too extreme.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Its long overdue for the Democrats to take some extreme measures. Without the opposing forces we’ll certainly not be a republic by November. I’m ready to protest en masse. Shit I’ll help plan.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Starting collective action has always been the big stumbling block for the left-of-center in America. Europeans would riot for far less. We need more unions and unions willing to be political to help act as a nucleus for mass protests to say they can’t just do whatever they want. People should believe they have power other than just voting or signing a petition.

          The Supreme Court made bribery semi-legal, elevated allied presidents to kings, and dismantled the regulations that do most of the heavy lifting to keep our air and water clean. While I concur with many Democrats correct statements about how bad these rulings are, they should be leading people to the streets. Hell, the three dissenting judges should be going before the senate to explain how antithetical to American democracy the most recent ruling is. Stop pretending the system is working when it’s in freefall with no correction in sight.

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Making the Judicial branch unelected lifetime appointments has proven to be a massive failure.