If the next Democrat doesn’t make retribution a major part of their campaign, I’ll have to do that thing where you vote for them anyway but really hate it.
wumbopolis_ on
> Let’s assume, for the moment, that the Supreme Court acts in good faith—that its views on presidential power are without partisan favor, and that it doesn’t arbitrarily invent carve-outs to rein in a Democratic president. What then?
Republicans, Conservatives, and “moderate” hyper online pearl clutchers will shriek and holler. But the Democratic base would be ecstatic, and actual median voters, who get their news from ChatGPT and TikTok and podcasters, won’t give a shit. They won’t even register that a Democratic president is ignoring SCOTUS orders.
I know some SCOTUS apologists still post in this sub. But ever since last summer’s Presidential immunity ruling, I sincerely believe that SCOTUS is fundamentally immoral, and not even attempting to interpret the Constitution in good faith. There’s a clear partisan bias, and when they can’t even torture an interpretation for their ideology out of the Constitution, they’ll simply kick the case back to the lower courts and demand the lower court redefine their arguments, without giving a single guideline that the lower court could follow that would meet SCOTUS’s definition of “unconstitutional”.
All that’s to say, the institution has lost _all_ credibility to me, and they’ve lost credibility with plenty of other voters who aren’t fasc-adjacent.
So if they’ve lost credibility, why would we give them any deference?
8 Comments
SCOTUS: No
https://preview.redd.it/u4fceg5gkpef1.jpeg?width=195&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f3a23e69332152bd5937778cd7ffd9e6fbd99846
John Roberts: It does not work like that.
>America is entering an era of retributive governing cycles
https://preview.redd.it/5ccwbkjpkpef1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=65b2c3308780630c84bba9f3b436e664215cec1b
separation of powers for thee but not for me
If the next Democrat doesn’t make retribution a major part of their campaign, I’ll have to do that thing where you vote for them anyway but really hate it.
> Let’s assume, for the moment, that the Supreme Court acts in good faith—that its views on presidential power are without partisan favor, and that it doesn’t arbitrarily invent carve-outs to rein in a Democratic president. What then?
Honest question – why can’t a hypothetical future Democrat just… ignore SCOTUS completely?
Republicans, Conservatives, and “moderate” hyper online pearl clutchers will shriek and holler. But the Democratic base would be ecstatic, and actual median voters, who get their news from ChatGPT and TikTok and podcasters, won’t give a shit. They won’t even register that a Democratic president is ignoring SCOTUS orders.
I know some SCOTUS apologists still post in this sub. But ever since last summer’s Presidential immunity ruling, I sincerely believe that SCOTUS is fundamentally immoral, and not even attempting to interpret the Constitution in good faith. There’s a clear partisan bias, and when they can’t even torture an interpretation for their ideology out of the Constitution, they’ll simply kick the case back to the lower courts and demand the lower court redefine their arguments, without giving a single guideline that the lower court could follow that would meet SCOTUS’s definition of “unconstitutional”.
All that’s to say, the institution has lost _all_ credibility to me, and they’ve lost credibility with plenty of other voters who aren’t fasc-adjacent.
So if they’ve lost credibility, why would we give them any deference?
https://preview.redd.it/pjb0bp4jlpef1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ca8213239ad9be9d0ced70b3fc0b09dafc1e2505