T O P
AutoModerator

As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


ruthejef

It would be nice if somebody could just take a fucking stand for this and call it what it is. It’s a bunch of pasty old and semi-old theocrats telling half the population that they don’t have the authority to decide how to lead their lives. Land of the free smh.


DeepestShallows

It’s wise old elders interpreting the ancient texts to discover what the law is. It’s secular Bible study. It’s an absolute embarrassment in a modern democracy and makes a mockery of the idea that America is about the people ruling themselves.


mercfan3

The irony of course - is that they have blatantly interpreted it wrong. We know the Founders intended the constitution to be a living document. They literally wrote that down. So these justices pretending they are looking at “original intent” are not only full of shit, but also just blatantly wrong. Btw: I’m seeing a lot of “I don’t care what the founders” thought posts on social media..and I get it, but I also want to give the founders some credit and note that - they were the most progressive political thinkers of their time. Without question. Obviously they seem conservative and full of human rights violations now, but that’s because generations get more progressive. You can be 200 years ahead of your time, but still..at some point, you’ll be behind the times. So this “if the founders were alive today…” perspective from both sides seem strange to me. They were progressive thinkers, so why assume they’d have the same conservative beliefs instead of, you know, being 100 years ahead of most political thinkers?


theknightwho

They’ve ignored the 9th amendment. I don’t mind respecting court rulings if they’re reasoned well, but this is such an obvious abuse of power.


Appropriate_Mess_350

The scary thing is that they are no longer concerned about the ‘obvious’ part. They are basically in “that’s right. And what are you gonna do about it” mode. The Democrats, and/or the American people themselves, need to decide quickly.


RedLicoriceJunkie

Yes Thomas and Alito are the ringleader bullies on these moral issues now and the other three sign on. If it has anything to do with limiting voting rights, Roberts is the leader as long as it limits Democrats from voting or increases the influence of corporate money in politics.


Sutarmekeg

They ignore the parts of the constitution that aren't convenient for their agenda. Same fucking thing they do with their bible.


ApprehensiveTry5660

The founders lived during a time that women kept abortion recipes by the beside ala, *The Married Woman’s Best Friend.* They chose to quote Hale of, “Marital rape isn’t a thing because wives are property of their husband,” fame instead.


LiKwId-Gaming

Wasn’t he the one who believed witches were real as well?


ApprehensiveTry5660

Yessir. His Wikipedia is enough to make most rational people close the tab and look for a better source.


DhostPepper

Nothing secular about the conservatives on this court. It's a council of ayatollahs issuing fatwas.


bozeke

Fun fact, 7 of the 9 justices are Roman Catholic.


Jeffery_G

And this would have not been possible in the swinging 1950s. JFK was an edgy presidential candidate for being Catholic: new territory in the early 1960s.


theschlake

5 of the 9 justices were chosen by a president that lost the popular vote and 2 of 9 were accused of sexual harassment/assault.


san_serifs

>It’s wise old elders interpreting the ancient texts to discover what the law is. It’s secular Bible study. Nah, it's appeasing their masters who installed them on the SCOTUS to overturn things like this to satisfy a small number of religious extremists that reliably vote for them.


crossleingod

Basically the church is our government now


Silent_Transition308

Then we should be taxing religious institutions ASAP until church and state are separated once more.


abrandis

Ancient texts..aka the Bible = a book of FABLES.... It's sad to think in 2022 we let government be guided by this nonsense. Ultimately that's.really just a cover for authoritarianism and theocracy.


cheezeyballz

And they weren't even qualified. Serious question, they lied on the stand during confirmation which was under oath and they were pushed through by corrupt people. So we know the plan now, too, that they were installed to cause serious damage to our democracy. The decision over abortion has never happened like this. If we finally put away the corruption, can we impeach the judges? How do we get rid of the judges? They're not voted for.


dirtfork

Congress does it. Impeachment the same way they would the President. Only one SCOTUS judge had been impeached and it didn't clear the Senate so just like with 45


bozeke

And it was 220 years ago or so…for letting partisan politics affect his decisions on the bench. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase


kurtilingus

They serve IN GOOD BEHAVIOR, therefore removing a SC Justice has absolutely *none* of the same standards for **removal** (i.e. "convicted" isn't even a necessary term to user regardless of it being a proper impeachment, to be clear) that an incumbent president has set by way of "high crimes and misdemeanors".... Fat fucking chance any of us see that wonderful precedent set via tearing a symbolic pound of flesh as atonement right off the court for simply deciding things like a deluded piece of shit would and sending them a big FUCK. YOU. CHECKED AND BALANCE RESTORED. It's something they've needed to have asserted onto them since **literally forever** since it's literally never happened... Man I wish FDR had just been all, "Nope, too little too late, fuckheads, y'all fucked up. Congress regulates the courts, so since you are a court, now you get rules. I appoint Justices & the Constitution didn't say how many, so you might want to make some space in your now-communal chambers for accommodating your... let's say dozen new colleagues. Betcha this plays out much differently if history had provided SCOTUS with lasting evidence that no, they are NOT in some insulated bubble free from the consequences of stoking some properly righteous wrath into either one of the other two branches. Oh well.....


head-of-potatoes

Supreme Court Justices can be impeached by Congress, just like the president can be impeached. The charges are brought in the House, and then tried in the Senate. Further, Congress can and should implement ethics rules for Justices. There are none now, AFAIK. And finally, Congress could expand the court to have more Justices. Historically, the Supreme Court has typically had as many justices as there are federal districts. Currently that would mean the Supreme Court could have 13 justices, with the new ones appointed by the current president and confirmed by the senate. This last point is tricky, though, since if the GOP retakes power they could expand to 25 or 101 justices. It's a shame that this has happened in my country of 52 years.. the country where I was born, and that I volunteered to protect through the US Army when I was young and naive. I hope young people across the country will finally get off their asses and VOTE this Fall.


KillerDr3w

> Currently that would mean the Supreme Court could have 13 justices I can 100% guarantee you that the next time Republicans have the numbers to do this, they will add 4 more seats to the SCOTUS and plant 4 of their Justices in them too.


chicago_bunny

Congress can’t impose ethics rules on the Supreme Court, due to separation of powers issues. That’s why there are none now. The Supreme Court should at least hold itself to the same standard as it imposes on the lower courts but won’t even do that.


PunisherASM129

Both perjury and suborning perjury are felonies.


dirty_dan_4563

Land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy..


jdumm06

Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite All of which are American dreams


goatysix

All of which are American dreams


wynter_solstice_

A president who never won the popular vote, was impeached twice and commited treason because he lost should not be able to decide 1/3rd of the Courts power. SCOTUS in its current form should be abolished.


dongballs613

Yep. And Bush Jr. who also lost the popular vote appointed 2 justices. So 5 justices have been appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. We have an entrenched minority-rule right-wing extremist SCOTUS. The question now is; what do we do about it? One option is to expand the court but in order to do that you would need 60 votes, or 50 votes (+1 VP vote) with an abolished filibuster. Another option is to impeach a justice(s), which has actually happened multiple times throughout American history (though only once at the Supreme Court level). You would need a 2/3 majority of the Senate to remove, which in this current climate is not likely.


equityengineer

To be fair, Bush's nominations came after he won the popular vote in 2004. But you're right about expansion.


Ason42

To be balanced, it's questionable whether Bush 2 would have won without being a wartime incumbent. Also, his 2000 win is questionable as well, given that it was effectively handed to him via the Supreme Court stopping a recount that likely would have made Gore the winner.


OR13NT

Not to mention once you’re a supreme court justice, you can stay as long as you want. They limited the president, the vice president, governors, etc. but a supreme court justice NEVER has to leave. Free to ruin the country as long as they see fit.


throw_thisshit_away

Ironically, it was done to depoliticize the position. You can (supposedly) be a lot more impartial if you don’t have to worry about reelection


Snoo74401

I mean, they can just implement a term limit, it doesn't have to be an elected position. Twenty years sounds about right.


tamman2000

18 years would make it 1 justice every 2 years or 2 per presidential election. Sounds a lot better than our current system of death lottery and planned resignations to me.


DankandSpank

There needs to be a law stipulating that congress must vote on presidential nominees within X timeframe. Obama's law


Howunbecomingofme

Lifetime appointments are Divine Right of Kings shit. No one should be in a position of power indefinitely. Not in a democracy


MMO_Addict

A president who can barely fuckin read didnt decide shit. Trump should did in squalor but the conservative politicians who supported this farce should suffer wrath of the entire population


TSXNavi

Terrifying


Cfp0001-Iceman

Especially when you consider one of those judges likely had knowledge of attempted coup (his wife knew) and he didn't do anything about it. Thomas is a traitor and every decision he's been part of the deciding vote should be tossed.


Masterreeferr

The past 6 years have been terrifying. Republicans are on a blatant fast track to authoritarianism. Between stacking the courts low and high with conservative judges, changing election laws, and using fear and anger to rile up their base to violently hold their "ideals" in place. Americans are getting a first hand look at what Germany was like in 1932. There's no going back now. It's us or them.


Usedupdirt

The Constitution needs to be seen as an instruction manual not a holy edict handed down by living gods.


GoldPenalty7702

The supreme Court needs more justices simply because the population has expanded and so should the supreme Court.


hannaj0bananaj0

I agree 100%. One per US court of appeals seems like a good start.


Azguy303

This has been a conservative plan for years to hijack the supreme Court. Like President Trump tried to hijack the executive branch, they're trying to do the same thing in congress (on the state and federal level with redistricting from Trump's fucked 2020 census,gerrymandering, and voter suppression), just more organized and focused compared to trump. They're already winning on a state level in Key swing States like Wisconsin, florida, and Ohio, and they accomplished it already on the supreme Court. At the beginning of February (before the supreme court leak), [Gorsuch spoke at a federalist society event ](https://www.local10.com/news/politics/2022/02/01/media-barred-from-justice-gorsuch-talk-to-federalist-society/)in Florida as the key note speaker. Also in attendance was Mike pence and Ron DeSantis with the media not allowed to attend. One of the sessions was billed “The End of Roe v. Wade?” They're coming for gay marriage. They're coming for contraception They're coming for public education. They're coming for gun control. Doesn't matter if the supreme Court already decided on it. This Court feels morally superior, and 'chosen by God' to turn our country into a white Christian autocracy. They straight up lied at *all* their hearings about precedent and feel they "know better" then previous justices. Our whole supreme court is fucked. Fuckkkk you SCOTUS


Tyrxgow

Some Republicans somewhere down the line sat in a room and came up with a plan probly 50+ years ago and this is that plan starting to take shape. So now it's up to the people to decide If we're going to just let it happen, or if we have the will to take a stand and push back like so many before us have when the ruling class went to far over the line.


MoonubHunter

Read “democracy in chains”. It documents the publicly available evidence about all of this, with an emphasis on the Koch brothers and the absolute mess they created in the Libertarian and Republican parties. It’s everything you are saying.


Tyrxgow

Nice to know my brain didn't just make up some conspiracy theory lol...and then also quite depressing that it's real.


Different_Ad7655

Well in this case it's less of a conspiracy and just a well-known strategy. Really. It's always been the aspiration of Republicans to claw back the New deal of 1932 no secret. The ball really however got rolling finally with the real money and the push in the 1970s and finally in the '80s, getting Ronald Reagan elected. He was the beginning of the end and responsible for the foundation of the current movement. People are so fucking asleep. His repeal of the fairness doctrine open the door for all the bullshit we have in the media today .Repealing the fairness doctrine had enormous impact and guess what was founded the following year, Fox News. Fox News, 100% pure propaganda, pure entertainment by its own mission statement has been the greatest disservice to the American public but the most influential tool for the neocons of the GOP Taliban. It has weaned successive generations on its disinformation and swill


Azguy303

"Some Republicans "...1982 to be exact... It's the Federalist society. Any conservative worth anything judges or politician has or is been a part of it. It's a Constitutional/political ideology to apply the Constitution as literal (as the framers intended)so they can keep conservative values.


Dnt_dox_pls

> It's a Constitutional/political ideology to apply the Constitution as literal (as the framers intended)so they can keep conservative values. Which is really just pretext and a cover for white supremacy, theocracy, and fascism.


nononoh8

It's selective and hypocritical of them.


JesusSavesForHalf

Considering they completely ignored the 9th Amendment to reach this conclusion, while exercising an authority not enumerated anywhere in said document they just wiped their ass with. Highly.


gaspergou

Yep. Anybody interested in the legitimacy of any so-called “judicial philosophy” should look into the theory of legal realism, as set forth by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Jerome Frank, and others.


Rusty-Shackleford

Thanks to the Federalist society, SCOTUS is no different than the legislative and executive branch, it can be bought and paid for through dark money contributions from powerful millionaires and billionaires. It's not an apolitical entity, it never really was, and it definitely never will be. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/1106363363/meet-the-man-who-helped-build-the-court-that-may-overturn-roe


AnticPosition

>keep conservative values Read: "we don't like gay people, women, or minorities"


tuxedo_jack

And the traitors at the [Project for a New American Century.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century)


MrFrequentFlyer

So I’m assuming they’ll toss out the constitution every 13 years like the framers wanted?


livinginfutureworld

>Some Republicans somewhere down the line sat in a room and came up with a plan probly 50+ years ago and this is that plan starting to take shape. It's not even that complicated. Our system gives excess political power to rural areas. The assholes in those areas run on xenophobic culture wars and get elected. One of the issues they sold to the country bumpkins was "what about the babies". The vast majority of Americans don't want this, but we're fucked because some dumbasses in Wyoming and other empty states get 2 Senators each. After gerrymandering, voter suppression, and culture wars we live in a tyranny of the minority government.


hysterical_landmark

Some of those states have popluations smaller than some US cities. Like there are roughly the same number of people in the city of Philidelphia as north dakota and south dakota combined. They get 4 US senators. Philidelphia gets 0.


Melody-Prisca

Rhode Island has less population and total land mass than LA County. So even if you say land matters things don't make sense. Maybe in the last states were more culturally diverse, but nowadays the biggest divide is in the parties, and urban vs rural, not in which state you live. People giving power these land borders we call states just doesn't make sense anymore.


sa5m_i_am

I have more in common with people in LA than Staten Island ffs. Manhattan has the highest population density in the country and almost 2 million people and yet we are bound by several states in the middle of the country that have less people overall. And our city politics are dragged by people who barely live anything similar to life in the actual city. People who don’t live in Manhattan vote for more police in the subway I live right next door to. None of it makes sense. It is so frustrating that we cannot just have a blanket ban on legislation regarding personal privacy and freedom. It is not a complicated concept.


GodOfAtheism

>The vast majority of Americans don't want this, but we're fucked because some dumbasses in Wyoming and other empty states get 2 Senators each. We're more fucked because in 1929 they decided to limit the number of representatives to 435, making the house a low key copy of the Senate. If it had actual scaling representation like intended, the Republicans would never control the house or presidency again.


jstan

Yes this seems to be a little known fact. The senate is setup as it was planned to be- 2 senators per state. The House should have continued to grow with the population, giving the states with a larger population a larger voice. > The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons. Thus, the size of a state’s House delegation depended on its population. At that rate New York would have almost 700 representatives. [The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929](https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/)


GodOfAtheism

Further, Electoral College votes are decided based on number of Senators and Representatives, hence why so many states get 3 votes. One for each of their senators and one for their one representative. Imagine California getting ~1300 electoral votes (Though I have to imagine reps would be set at a higher amount then one per 30,000 people, maybe following the proposed Wyoming rule.), all going to the popular vote winner in that heavily blue state.


vegiimite

Also more accessible to the average person, doesn't take millions of dollars to get elected by 30,000 people. And less corruptible, you need to buy off thousands of representatives instead of hundreds. They would also be less likely to screw over their constituents as you would probably have closer ties to the people in your district if it had 30k people instead of millions.


HermanCainsGhost

Yep, exactly this. Our House size is the biggest problem with our system not working. We need to expand the House closer to the levels of representation in the early republic


Mr_HandSmall

The repub Supreme Court doesn't only want to pass culture war stuff though. They also want to help the right keep a permanent hold on power.


WyoGuyUSMC

And those folks are still there smiling at there success. There is more to come for sure.....


MultiGeometry

When you’re approved with the lowest number of Senate votes in the history of our country, it may mean you carry a hell of a lot less respect than those who came before you. But they trample on their decisions all the same.


ArnoidTheAnnihilator

Didn't the bar association also say Amy wasn't qualified? Edit: no, that was a number of Trump's other judge appointees.


foxsable

I don’t get the contraception thing… everyone uses contraception. Literally every couple I know, including the most Christian of them. Who wants this?


Azguy303

I think the word you are looking for is hypocrisy. I was raised Catholic. They Preached abstinence and contraception means your having sex. It's very literally a religious ruling.


foxsable

But…married people use contraception too… I just can’t see anyone supporting this. And I know, minority Rule, but this just has to be the tiniest majority…


Azguy303

Yes, and look how many kids Amy coney Barrett has (I know 2 we're adopted but my point is her religion is against contraception.). My mom came from a family of ten. My dad 7. Both Catholic as well. "It's God's will" would be the "pro life" response to married people or victims of rape. No difference for them.


ProtossLiving

Actually, with regards to rape victims, I think many don’t even think it’s even about “God’s will.” Because many of those believe that it is impossible for a raped woman to become pregnant in the first place. They say that the body has defenses against it and a pregnancy would not be possible. One reason is that it used to be widely believed (and some still do) that a woman has to orgasm in order to become pregnant. And it used to be believed (and many, or even most, still do) that an orgasm means it was enjoyed. So if a woman got pregnant, they must have had an orgasm, therefore they must have enjoyed it, therefore they could not have been raped.


anewleaf1234

Because it is about governmental control. The government will be able to control which forms of birth control you can go on and who can go on it. At their digression.


Natolx

Lying for the Lord!


mok000

Why aren't they coming for cars? The Constitution says nothing about the right to own a car.


Natolx

>Why aren't they coming for cars? The Constitution says nothing about the right to own a car. Uh.. well... That is technically already in the hands of the states. The states haven't passed a law banning cars yet though, so the supreme court doesn't have anything to say one way or the other.


Known-nwonK

Eh didn’t California pass a bill to ban the sell of new combustion engines starting in like 2035 or something?


DivergingApproach

And no more lifetime appointments. I don’t need some ancient boomer telling me how things should be.


rezzyk

Some members of the Supreme Court were alive to remember pre-Roe v Wade.. we really need more current representation. This is nuts


FBI_Agent_82

Term fucking limits. There should be absolutely 0 for life positions in a democracy.


[deleted]

Amen. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the current court, term limits are a must. No one should be allowed to make such impactful decisions on our democracy for the rest of their lives without some accountability to the citizens they preside over


Coyote_OneOne

Term limits all around. No reason why 80-year olds need to be in charge of this country at any level. They don’t represent the average American and haven’t for a long time. Career politicians are vile!!!


TruckedFup

McConnell packed the court so that Obama got 2 justices in 8 years and Trump got 3 justices in 4 years. All congress needs to do is set a rule that each president gets 2 justices per term, with fixed term limits (16 years).


Jedi-El1823

> Trump got 3 justices in 4 years. One of which was because of a suspicious retirement.


Usedupdirt

I believe it was Justice Kennedys son who worked for Duetche Bank. The only bank that would loan dRumph money.


shawhtk

So should the House of Representatives. There should be at least 100 more in the House but they decided to cap the House numbers so many years ago and it seems almost everyone is fine with it for some weird reason.


escalation

That was a huge sleight of hand that increased the power of small population states beyond that which was originally given to them through separation of the house and senate


jimmy_dean_3

Nah, strip them down to original jurisdiction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping) then setup another court that has term limits that get appellate jurisdiction.


GoldPenalty7702

They definitely need term limits


Diegobyte

They should just rotate from the district court they oversee


pseudocultist

Not unreasonable. Then they wouldn't take on such celebrity status, with cults and exorbitant speaking rate schedules in the off season.


Diegobyte

And that way their lifetime appointment isn’t changed Maybe another clause where the greater district court can recall your ass if you’re nuts


TinyTaters

Their lifetime appointment needs to go. Giving 9 people who aren't elected the power to change the entire nation on a whim... For the remainder of their lifetime is ridiculous.


Diegobyte

It’s the whole federal bench that get lifetime appointments btw


TinyTaters

True. That should change too.


Jon-Stewart-2024

It also needs more justices because the current court is an example of minority rule.


Old-Feature5094

We need more reps in congress .


D00G3Y

The supreme court needs term limits, rbg spent the last years of her life in the position hoping that she would die after Bidens innauguration.


Aldeberuhn

She had the chance to bow out during Obama… She was old as fuck then too, but she chose to stay for her own selfish reasons.


escalation

She did the country a great disservice by clinging on to power rather than do the right thing and step down


Oxajm

Democrat here, RGB, is one of the reasons we are in this situation. She should have retired


Clear_Athlete9865

You need to amend the constitution


Anonymoushero1221

and term limits. no re-appointments either. Let's get 25 judges up there, and every 2 years the longest-serving must retire and POTUS gets to appoint a replacement, and the appointment is on the mid-term ballot as a yes/no approval by the general public like its the end of their job probationary period. also need more transparency in the court and more checks/balances than the congressional impeachment process which has been demonstrated to be a failure.


MyPupWrigley

25 justices with one being replaced every 2 years is a 50 year term. That’s basically a lifetime appointment


danc4498

He's not going to do this. He is going to leave it to the people to take control with their vote.


Okoye35

Then we are fucked.


Darzin

It is a brilliant Republican Strategy -- you stack the court and then you don't have to worry about laws, because you can use the court to make any law you want.


mabhatter

The Federalist strategy is to have SCOTUS knock down all the federal rulings and laws... leaving chaos that Republicans will refuse to legislate on.


M00n

*“This fall, Roe is on the ballot,” he said.* What he means is, we need 50+1 votes to go nuclear (senate) or 60 votes to go non-nuclear. We have 48.


nycola

Dear Pennsylvania - I know a lot of you don't bother to vote for midterms. Please vote for John Fetterman. I beg you. [Our state just took its gun control bill and turned it into a concealed carry bill](https://www.dailyitem.com/pennsylvania/news/house-committee-guts-gun-control-bill-to-propose-constitutional-carry-in-pa/article_fcaebe28-e74c-5732-89e9-7eddf7b28c87.html). Our state Congress is right fucked, but we still have the power to provide two Democratic senators to the Federal Legislature.


beaver_of_fire

Also vote Shaprio. It's the only way rural shitstain PA can't pass its batshit insane BS. I actually have no idea how this state has so many republican in the state legislature when most of the population is in Philly region or Pittsburgh Region.


Kzg

Hello! My name is [Gerry.](https://www.fairdistrictspa.com/the-problem/about-gerrymandering)


newpua_bie

The name's Mandarin. Gerry Mandarin.


[deleted]

Basically republicans cheat and democrats sing songs and get steamrolled


bubbuty

Can’t vote in PA but just donated $10 to his campaign


IFellToThisPlace

You are absolutely right, but at the same time, voting isn’t enough. As a woman, I am beyond tired of begging for scraps and trying to pretend that any pittance they happen to ALLOW us is enough. It isn’t. Not. Even. Close. This is a war against women and it is time - past time - that we acknowledge that. Voting doesn’t end wars. And certainly not in time to prevent casualties.


raginghappy

People not living in anti abortion states need to start boycotting them. Don’t spend money on products from them. Don’t do business with them. Don’t vacation in them. Blue states need to do the same, cut business with these states. Money talks. Not to mention now any pregnant out of state woman shouldn’t travel to states with anti abortion law’s because they will be medically unsafe there if their pregnancy isn’t perfect, like the recent woman in Malta.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ledfrisby

"Tax the FUCK out of the churches." - Frank Zappa


Escape_Relative

Something about separation of church and state


PerryJL

My tax dollars can now go to funding schools, you bet your ass churches need to be taxed now.


Escape_Relative

Shit forgot about that never mind


superhandsomeguy1994

In a world where the IRS is woefully understaffed/underfunded, how do you propose we reasonably audit the 380,000+ individual congregations in the US for compliance?


Snoo74401

Increase the budget for the IRS.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CombustibleShotgun

It’s funny, the Bible talks about this very thing happening in Revelation and how many people would be lead astray and fooled by “false prophets.” I think the people who support RvW’s overturn are incredibly misguided and may think they’re doing right and “God’s Will” but are actually just fulfilling prophecy that they probably never bothered to read and marginalizing and taking away rights from uterus people.. I think Jesus would be incredibly angry about this. Also tax churches.


waterdaemon

The court is invalid. If Roberts had any balls, he'd throw the yellow flag and come right out and tell us that his court is not functioning properly.


RosyPalm

He thought nobody would notice he voted to functionally overturn RvW, if he also threw a meaningless vote to the minority on actually overturning RvW. Robert's balls are as extinct as the Dodo.


AaronfromKY

Check Ginni Thomas' purse


dodecakiwi

The court is doing what Roberts wants, just more quickly and clumsily than he likes. Roberts would have effectively killed Roe without ever striking it down.


x_______name

Thank you. He owes the American people a fucking explanation.


Creepy_Helicopter223

I’ll give you the explanation. He is onboard with this and always was, he is just a spineless coward and didn’t want to lead the charge.


ashigaru_spearman

Roberts was in the majority! This is playing out EXACTLY as he wants.


Diegobyte

Robert’s voted for it!


GluggGlugg

He should. Then he should resign as a matter of principle. Just like those former Trump DOJ officials threatened to do.


nailz1000

I am more disappointed in Roberts than I ever thought possible.


TatumIsThatGuy

People keep saying that, but it has no meaning. They are valid as long as their rulings are enforced.


MrSlug

Why can’t dems take federal money away from red states in other programs as a counter to this, if they’re genuine in wanting to have an actual impact against it ?


ashigaru_spearman

Because they don't want to play hardball. Most of the leadership came of age in the Clinton era (or earlier) and still act as if they can triangulate. They don't have the intellectual or political toolset to deal with today's Republican party.


Randomwhitelady2

They need to adopt a new paradigm and forget the politics of long ago. Todays politics are scorched earth policy. Demand justice for the majority. don’t let 30% of the population dictate to the rest of us. It won’t turn out well for anyone


ElethiomelZakalwe

For fucks sake, do it. No one aside from the out of touch, geriatric old fools in Washington gives two shits about 'procedure' or 'bipartisanism'. We want results. Full stop.


TheKingsPride

I love Michelle Obama but her “they go low, we go high” speech was pretty off the mark. When you’re dealing with a pig covered in mud, you don’t try to debate the pig. You’ll just end up covered in mud and out of breath. You’re gonna get covered in mud either way. So pull out the knife. Decorum doesn’t work when your opponent has no beliefs. Shame doesn’t work when your opponent has no shame. If the democrats use force to do good, the right will cry foul play and call them hypocrites. But they’re already doing that. What they say means nothing anymore, and what they’re doing is infinitely more destructive than what they say. We’re not dealing with rational, well meaning people here. We’re dealing with an occupying force.


JohnJRenns

["You Go High, We Go Low"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A)


Adjective_Noun0000

America is in the middle of a fascist takeover, but the Dems aren't willing to play hardball. Just going to roll over and take it.


Altair05

aka, they don't have the balls to take an aggressive stance.


Red-Lightnlng

They can do this, but it will likely hurt them electorally, and might cost them elections before it forces states to change their laws. Then the new Republican government would give the funding back.


PurgatoryMountain

After the revelations of 1/6 and Ginni Thomas coordination with Trump Clarence should’ve been gone immediately. My opinion is that there’s a strong case to re-examine Kavanaugh as well. He lied during his interview.


[deleted]

Hopefully someone that needs this information sees this! California, Washington, and Oregon will not cooperate with states seeking to prosecute those that get abortions in their states. https://www.axios.com/2022/06/24/abortion-rights-california-washington-oregon I seem to recall Colorado stated the same, but can't confirm it yet. Be mad, be angry, be vocal, be an activist for women's rights, but please get this information out there so those that need it have it.


osprey94

Good. States need to protect their citizens against bullshit more.


7screws

Add Massachusetts to the list as well


Dragoness42

We had plenty of notice of this ruling. He should have taken a blowtorch BEFORE they ruled.


atters

I couldn't agree more. ***Today*** is the time to take severe, immediate, jaw-dropping, action. Cold-cock the enemy for once! This is the "Democrat problem." Democrats play politics like a boxer in the ring. Republicans, on the other hand, are in the same fight and treat it as a drunken alley street fight. Republicans are kicking Democrats in the balls, pulling their shirt over their head, picking up a rock and bashing them in the head, kicking out their knees and stomping their kidneys while they're down. The Republican SCOTUS overturns Roe. The Democrats give speeches saying "that's very bad." There is no viable way to win when Democrats fight clean and Republicans fight dirty.


elgul

Joe needs to vote Democrat and do it quick.


xenpiffle

Exactly. Maybe if the president and all democratic members of Congress just get out and *vote!* we can turn this around. Have the Democrats tried singing yet?


Wildfire9

I think he should get the DOJ to arrest and charge Ginni Thomas for seditious conspiracy.


Pertolepe

That's not how the relationship between the president and DoJ works. Which is why it was fucked up when Trump tried to have them do his bidding.


nomorerainpls

If you don’t believe the loss of Roe is enough to torch the SCOTUS, maybe look at some of other decisions this month. Nearly every decision eroded an important precedent (Miranda) or just poured fuel on a fire the country is desperately fighting (NY firearms restrictions).


pswdkf

This is on Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell and Co. Majority republican senate didn’t allow Obama to nominate a Supreme Court justice close to election. Then, pushed for Trump to be able to nominate a Supreme Court justice significantly closer to an election. It’s as if they are playing a game of Risk with the branches of government and treating us, the people, like just another plastic piece in their sick game of power.


[deleted]

Not super sure why your president and the Democratic party leadership are still playing politics like the old rules and norms still apply. > How hard, if at all, Biden chooses to attack the Supreme Court could shape the contours of an election cycle in which Democrats are bracing for potentially widespread losses. Most midterms are a referendum on the party in control of the White House, which in turn tries to turn them into a choice between the two parties. To date, Biden has attempted to do just that, deeming Republicans as enthralled with Trump’s “ultra MAGA” brand. He has picked fights with Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) over threats to entitlement programs and blasted Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) for putting Obamacare in the crosshairs. I think this take is more on the money. > And Brian Fallon, executive director of court reform group Demand Justice, said Biden should subordinate his institutionalist streak and unrelenting belief that he could help bring back an era of bipartisan comity. He urged the president to not squander the political opportunity before him to make “a villain out of these Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices issuing hugely unpopular decisions that are extremely relevant politically.” It is not explicit, but your country is basically at open civil war now. It is a cold war between different states and different branches of the government still controlled by different ideological factions, but it is very clear to anyone outside of your bubble that it is a war. There is exactly zero common ground in the future vision of the country now between the Republicans and Democrats and the Republicans have shown very clearly this past few years if not two decades that the norms of politics, like international conventions, are mere suggestions to them that they use to guilt their opponents into taking it raw in the ass. Your country actually needs to ditch these norms now. There are no norms when invaders wage total war against your country.


wahdahfahq

Absolutely spot on. And I'm willing to bet they wont realize until its too late


Jaketheparrot

You are entirely right


Shurigin

I know the supreme court justices aren't above impeachment. Are the judges who said they wouldn't touch Roe V Wade subject to perjury or were they even under oath at their confirmation hearings?


athornton79

In an ideal world, yes, they could all be removed. Unfortunately, you have 50 Republican Senators who would sell their own mothers into slavery before they allowed that to happen. Doesn't matter how corrupt the judges are nor any laws they could have broken, they will NEVER impeach one of the Conservative Justices. Ever. As Trump boasted himself about the fact he could go and shoot someone on Pennsylvania Avenue and get away with it, the six justices on the SC can do the same. They could go outside the court and start shooting the protesters and the GOP in the Senate would try to give them medals rather than impeach them.


shadowlarx

They were most definitely under oath at their confirmation hearings.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Meotwister

We've added justices before. And a radical bench is just the problem for this answer.


JPenniman

It’s now or never. It’s like a you are a passenger in a car about to drive off a cliff and you think you can still reason with the driver.


JustTheBeerLight

It’s like that, except we ALREADY WENT OFF THE CLIFF.


JPenniman

Lol you are right. We are actively falling and we are reasoning with the driver not to drive off the cliff


yellsatrjokes

A lot of folks are also saying "There's no way they'll drive off of the cliff!" too.


Skullmaggot

\#abortthecourt \#castrateSCROTUS


Wacky_Water_Weasel

At this rate, he's destined to be a 1 term President. May as well go down swinging and make it worth something.


ImaginationDoctor

The United States is collapsing. Today I have even less drive to do anything.... It seems people in authority are hellbent on forcing beliefs on people. And society could improve, but no. It seems lately that things always go in the opposite direction. What even is the point of life now anyway? There's always someone trying to fuck up your life.


cellocaster

This is how I’ve felt all day.


WeeklyManufacturer68

I have felt somber and defeated today.


trebory6

They want you to feel somber and defeated. It helps them because you're less likely to be a problem for them. Don't let them win. Get enraged, get active in politics. Participate in walkouts and boycotts. Do everything within your power to always fight back.


hyphaeheroine

Today, we mourn. Tomorrow, we fight. It’s okay to feel absolutely distressed, to cry. I know I did all day yesterday. But I woke up this morning enraged. I’m ready for some dick shriveling justice.


i_thrive_on_apathy

I feel nothing but disdain for half of this country.


FreezeFrameEnding

Don't give up until we're truly done. Groups organizing wider protests are on the move. A national strike is on the table in more and more conversations across the country. People are increasingly galvanized by these extremist policies, and we will not go down without a fight. I live in a red state, and I refuse to leave. They will not be losing my blue vote. Feel everything you feel. This is natural, and we cannot help it. But respond to your despair with hope. As long as we're here working together, we have a chance. Let's keep trying until the sun sets on us all. There is still light left. Look for the helpers, always.


allhailthenarwhal

Si vis pacem, para bellum


Financial_Slice_7375

I understand your disappointment. But I’m never going to give up. And if someday you want to join me in that, your life and mine will be improved, even if the results take awhile to really form.


Sliekery

When should the slogan be changed to “Land of the free white men”


sexyshadyshadowbeard

Man, if the Dems dont start fighting without their gloves like the GOP have been, we’re gonna be living in a dystopian Christian type of Taliban soon.


Nenor

Three immediate steps needed: - codify Roe as-is right away, Manchin committed to voting yes to that (even if that doesn't go as far as preferable) - pack the court - freeze any federal funding to states with anti-women laws Anything less would mean Democrats are more or less OK with it.


EmptyAirEmptyHead

But Manchin is also committed to keeping the filibuster. Exactly for this reason. He will never have to vote for the bill.


Hythy

If these bastards are going to legislate from the bench, then you effectively have a dictatorship. Those 6 justices can decide which laws they do and don't want.


MakeYouGoOWO

The government needs a fourth branch consisting entirely of just the citizen voter base and it should have the power to impeach and remove any government official immediately with a simple majority of %60.


SomeOzDude

It has been ingrained in their DNA for decades that the GOP and their supporters do not care about whether what they believe and tell others is true or not. Until Trump, they had to somewhat obsfucate this aspect of their DNA. Trump has emboldened them to no longer believe that they need to hide this aspect of their behaviour, or in their view be persecuted and oppressed. Until people are held accountable it will not just continue but get worse. If people have lied to get onto SCOTUS then action should be taken. If they have lied to get elected then action should be taken. If organisations lie and support dishonesty as a demonstrative part of their business practice then that should be dealt with. It’s not hard but it requires people to be prepared to hold others accountable. The GOP already creates drama to generate negative outcomes for their opponents and don’t care about being caught out about it. The only thing that will make a difference is to hold them accountable and actually take power away from them. Until people are prepared to do this, it will only continue to get worse.


newtoallofthis2

Multiple justices lied under oath about their views on this. Abortion aside Isn’t that a pretty fundamental issue for the US legal system?


MeatSuitRiot

There's only one reason those three justices are there, and it's to further a conservative agenda. They were installed. They are illegitimate in my opinion. The judicial branch is supposed to be non-partisan, giving virtue to the balance of power as a co-equal branch. They were appointed by a treasonous president and should be invalidated.


cubej333

He has to get a good election to be able to bring the court to heel. Will we give him one, or will be we be too concerned about moderate versus liberal versus progressive versus democratic socialist.


EyeOfSauro

I'm a progressive. I will be voting for democrats straight down the ballot, even though a lot of them will be centrists whose views I do not share. And if they win, they will do nothing. Again.