No real news here. Just the guy in charge of the human rights of 390 million people bragging that he is corrupt as fuck, easily bribed and will continue to get away with it.

The Supreme Court rules 9-0 to strike down Colorado's attempt to keep former president Donald Trump off of the presidential ballot in their state.

One should probably see a 9-0 ruling (which includes all of the Liberal judges) as an indication of the fact that one has gone overboard in one's willingness to bend the law for the sake of partisan goals.

This win was essential for saving democracy and a huge relief.

Friendly reminder 

this is not

American Islam

the American Taliban

sharia law.

This is white nationalist, American, Christian law. 

Now is not the time to project American issues on to racist stereotypes. 

Call it what it is. White. American. Christian. 

I'll keep saying it because it's true: the goal of the Roberts Court is to eradicate equal rights and delegitimize the courts. Expand/ change/ get rid of the corrupt judges of the supreme courts

Personally I think we should all start doing more to psychologically torment the members of the Supreme Court. I’m thinking cryptic threatening messages written in lambs blood, burning effigies with their faces type stuff. I want them to stay awake at night afraid of the country they’re helping to destroy.

More ideas would be appreciated :)

X

Looking on from abroad, I don't like any of the recent rulings by SCOTUS ideologically, but they're also clearly correct. The constitution is not in line with liberal or leftwing values. Like I'm not saying "thus these values should not be pursued", but the court's role is to say what the constitution says; and the constitution says "fuck the poor" etc.

They're not though. Before getting into it you need to be aware that there are proper and improper procedures for how these things are done. It makes sense, because otherwise the Supreme Court could pro-actively dictate what the law is and isn't, as you understand.

There have to be cases brought to them, there need to be parties to that case, etc. Does this make sense?

With that said, a brief line about why the recent rulings are actually incorrect.

Dobbs v Jackson (Overturning Roe v Wade) - Arguably the most defensible ruling, it still flies in the face on 50 years of legal precedent, the rulings stand in exact opposition to sworn testimony of many of the judges, and it's still wildly ideologically driven. They were put on that bench to overrule Roe and they took the opportunity to do so.

Biden v Nebraska (No student debt relief) - The Heroes act, which was the law at question, gave the secretary of education the ability to modify or waive parts of the law. The majority opinion is very much a "you're right by what the law says, but it looks wrong to us." They rooted a lot of their ruling on "There's no way that Congress wanted this" despite the heroes act explicitly being for the relief of educational debt during times of national crisis.

Stewart (Gay Web Design) - There is no case. On top of the fact that this is explicitly counter to the entirety of existing civil rights law, precedent, and theory, the web designer was never asked to make a gay wedding website. It was a god damn sham from the word go. It was rooted in a theoretical "wouldn't it be fucked up if I had to do a thing?" It also gives the framework and arguments, in the Justices own god-damnable words, to overturn the Civil Rights Act, Gay Marriage laws, and even a whole host of anti-espionage laws. I actually would like some of those to be overturned, but I'm including them here to emphasize how idiotic, short-sighted, and bullshit the ruling was.

SFA vs Harvard (Affirmative Action) - Also flies in the face of decades of precedent and laws, but more importantly it flies in the face of this own court's other rulings. You may have heard about Allen v Milligan, where the Supreme Court threw out an Alabama congressional map for being really, really racist. That's correct: the map was, but the support for throwing it out was the same argument for the dissent in this case. State bodies can use racial makeup and information in efforts to eliminate racist institutions.

You can make judgments based on race if you're getting rid of racism, basically. Which is what Affirmative Action is intended to do. People can argue that it might need to be more fluid, less restrictive, or reconfigured frequently, sure. But that is a legitimate pursuit and application of governmental power.

There are more problems, and more cases, but there's a reason why law schools and firms all over the country are collectively giving side-eye and shit-talk to this Court.

If we don't get rid of the Supreme Court by the next election cycle we might as well just give up the charade that we live in a democracy.

I don’t really want to talk about the Supreme Court in detail. Everything I would say about them can be summed up with “they’re really fucking evil and they want you to die.”

Fuck you. If Democrats don't win, Republicans wins, and that's a negative for everyone. So fuck you, I'm voting Democrat til I can't anymore.

Six years ago, some of y'all f..ked around and didn't vote for Hillary, and Roe v. Wade was overturned, and now affirmative action has ended. So stop f..king around with "Biden is too old," or "I am not going to vote unless..." before this sh.t turns into The Handmaid's Tale.