494
The Supreme Court Is a Joke. It's Not Funny
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
494 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19104 readers
3088 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The fact that the President, who maybe some time in distant memory, didn’t choose judges based along political lines, chooses the Supreme Court judges seems crazy to me.
Why aren’t the best judges and lawyers getting together and electing them? I’m a scientist by trade, so I’m more use to a peer reviewed system. Nonetheless, I find it maddening that our election cycle realistically choses the highest court in America rather than those most equipped to make that decision. Who gives a fuck what the president thinks should be the next Supreme Court justice? I’d rather hear from the experts of the field choose who it is.
To actually explain why, I think it's because the theory is our president and politicians are supposed to be actually representing the people and have their saftey, best interest, and goals and/or morals in mind first and foremost.
Damn I can see how that sounded perfect forever ago. Wonder which of our proposed solutions to current problems would have similar unexpected consequences, and I wonder what those would look like.
Sorry if none of this made sense or was coherent to anyone. Don't try to reread it I'm just high
Makes sense and sounds so nice
We locally choose our very best to go represent our interests. And it would be in our interest to have an experienced, educated, honest judge. So one would think that our politician is spending time researching, discussing, and vetting along with the other best minds from around the country.
But we never get to choose our best. Or at least our best is outnumbered and voiceless.
Seems reasonable, but Republicans would have spent decades capturing that system and we'd end up in a similarly bad position. The problem is conservatives have shit ideas and want them to be law. Unless we fix that, any system will be corrupted.
Exactly. Either way the Heritage Foundation will pack the courts.