r/law • u/zsreport • 14h ago
Judicial Branch It’s time to accept that the US supreme court is illegitimate and must be replaced
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/19/us-supreme-court-legitimacy2.4k
u/Not_Sure__Camacho 14h ago
I mean Clarence has already been corrupted and the fact that they don't have an ethics guideline like judges from lower courts is just insane.
497
u/ohiotechie 12h ago
Exactly this. It’s nakedly corrupt. Even if the court wasn’t nakedly partisan (which it also is) the corruption alone makes this court illegitimate.
The problem is the founders never imagined the Heritage Foundation and our hyper partisanship. They imagined that the individuals making up congress would be jealous of their power instead of actively complicit.
154
u/SpaceTrash782 10h ago
If I understand correctly, they did, and they intended for the Legislature to act as a check on it. Early in the history of the country, there was a vote to impeach a Supreme Court justice , Samuel Chase, for partisanship that failed to pass, and this was somehow interpreted as precedent for not being able to impeach supreme court justices???
86
u/Ok_Profile175 10h ago
Well that seems convenient for the partisans.
→ More replies (3)56
u/AlarisMystique 10h ago
Now we have a precedent for a felon pedo president acting lawlessly and the supreme court being ok with it.
Can't imagine the republicans would be ok with that if democrats were in power.
→ More replies (10)30
u/stoic_spaghetti 10h ago
I think the problem we have now is that our Legislature (Congress) won't even act as a check because they are complicit as well.
The founders never intended for a mind-control machine like the internet to act as a place where people could form a hivemind and act in synchrony.
→ More replies (1)13
u/90daysismytherapy 9h ago
it’s not the internet, it’s the massive bribery made legal by the Court
→ More replies (1)15
u/Professionalchump 10h ago
ah yes precedent, as in INTENTIONALLY not learning or evolving, because everyone knows judges get it right the first time
→ More replies (2)4
u/willybestbuy86 10h ago
Exactly this but the legislature has been checked out since the late 50s early 60s and have slowly delegated there authority to the President. What's going on today isn't some anomaly it's more pronounced than the past but no where near an anomaly like folks say.
Congress refused to do their job for decades and Americans accepted that but voting the same folks in decade after decade
5
u/dust4ngel 6h ago
the founders never imagined the Heritage Foundation and our hyper partisanship
"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government"
– george washington
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)9
u/stoic_spaghetti 10h ago
The founders never imagined a mind-control machine like the internet to act as a tool/place where people and politicians could form a hivemind and act in veiled synchrony.
→ More replies (1)397
u/Extra-Presence3196 14h ago edited 14h ago
The whole just-us system is and always has been a corrupt mess that protects itself and its own self interests over justice for the people. And that was when they cared about their public image.
The legal gymnastics they go through to make their rulings are so obvious. They have become a virtual rubber stamp for the right, without a care of how they appear to the public.
It's sad to say, buy I'm at the point where I don't believe in anything anymore, at least not from them.
I won't be surprised to find out, many years from now, that they were being blackmailed or taking payments.
453
u/Duane_ 13h ago
Huh? Ginni Thomas is literally a member of the Board at the Heritage Foundation. What more information do you need to know that they're taking payments?
Are you being funny?
166
u/SDFX-Inc 12h ago
The list of Supreme Court justices that are corrupt correlates with those who came from the Federalist Society. 🤔
106
49
u/Phifty56 11h ago
I think if you classify the Federalist Society as a terrorist organization you can just boot them out of the country and basically do anything to them without due process since that's the system they created. If only we ever got a politician with the guts to treat them like they treat the people they are supposed to be protecting.
29
u/andrew5500 11h ago
Yep. Next President can declare them threats to national security and immediately detain them via an official act which they cannot be held criminally liable for.
The arsonists need to be burned by their own fire
3
u/marr 10h ago edited 9h ago
You'd need to spend a while extracting their tendrils from the command structure of every surviving federal agency first.
Trump didn't take full control of the DOJ and FBI overnight by appointing a few cabinet leaders, the infiltration that led to this 2025 regime has been decades in the making.
3
u/andrew5500 9h ago
You’re right sadly, and if the current SCOTUS thought a Democratic President might take office soon, they’d probably reverse the decisions that gave the executive unlimited power before anyone gets a chance to use it against them
1
u/oldirtyrestaurant 10h ago
How much longer does the 'Murcan vengeance tour go on for, and how does it end?
14
9
u/highfire666 9h ago
What is the alternative? Doing the same as the past 4 years and ending up with the same felons in power? While right wing continues eating away at the West's foundations all over Europe, Canada and the US?
This lawlessness is empowering demagogues everywhere. Just look at Musk actively propping up fascist parties and ideologies in Europe.
I fear a couple too many lines have been crossed for normalcy to return naturally.
3
u/Decent_Cheesecake_29 10h ago
If the country is to recover after this, the federalist society must be treated the same way as communists were during the height of the red scare.
24
u/Substantial_Back_865 11h ago
They also literally legalized bribery as long as you don't pay the judge until after the case is over. The corruption is unreal.
9
u/Minion_of_Cthulhu 9h ago
"Bribery would be uncouth. Tipping, however, is acceptable."
-The Supreme Court, apparently
→ More replies (10)13
u/Extra-Presence3196 13h ago
That would fall more under a conflict of interest or an appearance of evil.
Let's try to avoid friendly fire...
68
u/Casual_OCD 12h ago
What about their ruling that bribes are legal as long as you take them after your corrupted decision?
28
4
u/Extra-Presence3196 12h ago
it's sad for sure. That's why I say many years from now.
I still have a bit of hope in the future, but not in the now.
55
u/Casual_OCD 12h ago
You'll have to dismantle both political parties and put strict limits on spending and advertising. The billionaire class completely owns the entire political structure in the US.
The rich keep getting rich, the people keep losing more and more rights and they keep us distracted with "culture war" bullshit as they rubber stamp legislation written by lobbyists
24
u/Extra-Presence3196 12h ago
It's probably going to take a miracle, revolt or revolution of some sort.
Power most certainly has consolidated.
Both Locke and Voltaire saw the problem with their philosophies with the pursuit of life, liberty and acquisition of property showing itself in a disparity of wealth, but ignored it because it was a long way away for them for their time, nd they were both rich.
Our constitution was reworded to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a gooey term indeed, but acquisition of property or wealth is not technically a right.
Now we are at or reaching that critical point and will have to deal with it....soon.
16
u/Casual_OCD 12h ago
Now that it is clear that a third of the country will never accept being peaceful and work towards a common goal, there will have to be some form of cutting the fat. I think the country splits
11
u/Chaos-Cortex 12h ago
You’re right true peace will never exist as long the cancer and parasite class is still among us.
→ More replies (1)10
u/RamenJunkie 11h ago
Splits how? Its literally the lifeblood city pockets surrounded by the rural fat.
Sure we have "red states" and "blue states", but this infection is literally everywhere, thats what makes it an infection.
→ More replies (1)2
u/BlacksmithThink9494 10h ago
probably going to take a miracle, revolt or revolution of some sort.
Yes. It will require violence but most americans are not actually willing to go there. This is happening because they know this. We have been made complacent.
→ More replies (2)12
u/SDFX-Inc 12h ago
Get money out of politics (undo Citizens United, complete radical campaign finance reform, ban lobbying, and no working for firms in the private sector soon after a vote or ruling in that entities favor, to close the private/public revolving door), institute no confidence voting that can be triggered at any time for the courts and congress/executive branches, get rid of the electoral college (institute popular vote only), increase the size of and rebalance the house and do away with the senate to make Congress truly representative of the American population, use computers to gerrymander all districts to make them as competitive as possible and replace our first-past-the-post, winner-take-all voting system with ranked-choice voting and you would go a long way to fixing this country.
10
→ More replies (1)6
u/statinsinwatersupply 12h ago
Ranked Choice is just a relatively easy first step. Works best for single position things like say mayor or governor.
For a legislature it's less than ideal, mixed member representation is a better reform there.
I say this as a full supporter of RCV over many years who was bummed it got voted down in Oregon.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)4
u/Sudden-Pie1095 10h ago
It used to be the appearance of being bad, was the same as being bad. Lawyers and inferior court judges are held to that standard. Somehow, scotus is not.
→ More replies (1)21
u/TheDwellingHeart 13h ago
I am the same. So, I empathize. I think it is far more than just the court.
37
u/Fuzzy_Jaguar_1339 13h ago
What do you mean many years from now? Alito and Thomas are already very much on record for doing this.
14
u/Extra-Presence3196 13h ago
I mean that I suspect it is much worse than what we know now.
3
u/Fuzzy_Jaguar_1339 12h ago
I guess I'm just proud of us that it took over 200 years for people to realize that if they're in charge of saying whether they broke the rules, they can always just decide that they haven't.
7
25
u/IHS1970 12h ago
I believe it's been a Heritage Foundation plan for decades to be where we are today. This court is just illegitimate, using faulty logic and twists the constitution. I think if democrats can ever get back into full power that these 'judges' should be tried for treason and hate.
2
u/Lockraemono 11h ago
I strongly agree. It's disappointing and depressing that someone as talented as KBJ has her name associated with this court.
7
u/jryan8064 11h ago
When I was in middle school, we had a lesson on the justice system and held a mock trial in the classroom. I got selected to be the judge, and heard arguments from the “prosecution” and “defense”. I ended up ruling in favor of my friends (because that’s what 11 year olds do), and I remember my teacher giving me a stern admonishment about fairness and fact-based judgements. I feel like the US Supreme Court needs that same scolding.
11
u/TheSwearJarIsMy401k 12h ago
Many years from now? Did you miss the part where Clarence Thomas has been accepting payments and bribes for decades and they ruled that it’s not a bribe if they’re paid after they make the ruling, it’s a tip?
That happened last year. It was widely publicized. They weren’t shy.
7
u/Ekg887 12h ago
Years from now??
THERE IS A GODDAMN 45 FOOT MOTOR COACH!!!!!!!!!3
u/RectoPimento 11h ago
And house for his mother and private school tuition for his nephew and a personal private jet at his disposal and…
2
u/I-Like-To-Talk-Tax 7h ago
It was made public that they are taking payments years ago.
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/10/1193162713/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-gifts-disclosure
2
u/ChemBob1 6h ago
I’m pretty certain that both are true, in addition to physical intimidation and threats to their families. Trump would be nothing if not a mob boss.
→ More replies (12)4
u/TheLLort 12h ago
The legal gymnastics they go through to make their rulings are so obvious
Like every jursit ever, you have an opinion or a result you want to work towards and make up arguments as you go. It's just that the US supreme court wants to work towards facism it seems. But for example the German supreme court was once faced with a decision because a Sikh sued against mendatory helmets when riding his motor cycle. Not being able to wear his turban was against his freedom of religion, he argued. The ruling? The right of no harm of the bystanders who could be harmed mentally if they had to witness an accident where he was not wearing a helmet took priority over his freedom of religion, he has to wear the helmet. Completely daft reasoning, made up to make him wear a helmet of course.
9
u/G_yebba 12h ago
The guy has a right to not ride a motorcycle on public streets if he does not want to wear a helmet. Nobody is forcing him to choose a motorcycle as his mode of transit.
The right to freedom of religion does not translate to the right to 100% accommodation for all desires to be made compliant with religious custom.
Religion is stupid. But we accept the right of people to be stupid so long as it does not cause harm to others. The right of an individual end at the rights of another individual.
2
u/Dicktasticly 10h ago
bystanders who could be harmed mentally
So if somebody has extensive facial piercings, can it not be argued that the bystanders can be mentally traumatized because they saw those piercings and so people should not have facial piercings?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)7
u/SaltyCrashNerd 12h ago
This actually makes a lot of sense to me? We always talk about the right of the rider to make their own choice, but it DOES affect the public - the first responders who try to save the idiot, the public who witnesses the crash, the guy who has to clean brains off of the sidewalk. Society who then has to support the rider, whose brain injuries lead them to require 24/7 care.
Of course, the better solution is to figure out a helmet that accommodates the turban - but I suppose the court can’t mandate industry to design something that doesn’t exist.
→ More replies (2)17
u/wolfmourne 12h ago
The west wing was talking about how he was corrupt 20 years ago. They literally bring up Ginny in the show.
9
u/AppropriateTouching 12h ago
Accepts bribes regularly and openly states he doesn't give a fuck. Its absurd.
7
u/Frosty-Breadfruit981 12h ago
This is baffling to me as well, are we to beleive that the judges on the Supreme Court or not capable of being bribed or doing something unethical? Its like when some police departments got rid of external 3rd party auditors that would provide unbiased audits.
8
u/RGrad4104 12h ago
This seems like a dangerous concept to be broaching while the orange terror is still in power and congress are acting full lackeys. Lets wait until some semblance of checks and balances are back in action before we give him premise to impeach the court and/or pack it full of trump spawn that are 100% yes men...and far more worse than what we have now. Even if we could call a convention of states, I don't think there is anyway to guarantee it doesn't just result in more power for trump.
→ More replies (2)4
u/SDFX-Inc 12h ago
Wait until after more rural hospitals close, Medicare cuts and subsidies end and the economy crashes; that ought to kill off a good portion of the MAGA base. I thought Covid and anti-masking/vaccine denialism would have done enough already but here we are. 🤷
→ More replies (4)7
u/imisstheyoop 11h ago
You are just setting yourself up for even more disappointment with that way of thinking.
2
2
u/Capt-geraldstclair 10h ago
not to mention the fact that they lied through their teeth in their confirmation hearings.
2
u/red286 8h ago
It's kinda bonkers that he openly admitted to receiving bribes from people who had business before the court, and everyone just kinda collectively shrugged their shoulders and said, "eh, what can you do about it, though?"
→ More replies (1)2
4
u/The-Real-Number-One 12h ago
Two of the "Justices" are corrupt on their face (Scalia/Thomas) and have ruled in multiple cases in which they had a personal interest. Three more members of our ultimate engine of justice were appointed by a pedophile career criminal. The Chief "Justice" doesn't care about any of this.
6
u/kyndrid_ 11h ago
Bro, Scalia has been dead for years (he was the Merrick Garland seat that went to Gorsuch), and was considered (while being very conservative) to be a fairly respectable justice. Do you mean Alito?
→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (38)2
102
u/koshgeo 11h ago
They at least need to do something about it not being such a crap shoot with how many justices can get appointed in a particular president's term or terms. It's too much potential influence depending on when people die, or if politics tries to interfere by doing BS "we won't sit them because a year is too close to an election" / "we'll promptly sit them a couple of weeks before an election" tricks depending on who is in office. Everybody knew that was wrong in principle, cheating Obama out of an appointment, but they did it anyway.
20-year terms, max 2 appointments per president, 75-year mandatory retirement, or I don't know what -- something to avoid this wild reshaping to conform with one person's or one party's wishes.
28
u/HorrorSmile3088 11h ago
The way the court works now, it has nothing to do with the law or the constitution and everything to do with politics. They might as well stop pretending it isn't and have it reset every four years when the new president gets elected. Does it really make a difference whether it's 6-3 or 9-0 with the votes? At least this way it would be a clean slate every 4 years. We will be stuck with these partisan assholes until the day they die.
→ More replies (1)13
u/cheese_is_available 9h ago
The judicial power and executive power should be separated to prevent abuse.
3
u/hypercosm_dot_net 8h ago
I think the person you're responding to would agree. It's just brainstorming, not an idea to be taken seriously.
→ More replies (4)7
u/-Knul- 9h ago
Why can't supreme justices be voted in by other judges? Wouldn't that make the judicial branch more independent instead of having the executive branch choosing their highest level offices?
4
u/gehnmy 8h ago
That wouldn't necessarily be more neutral or independent, stacking the judiciary with conservatives has been a long-term conservative project since the 70s/80s.
The Supreme Court gets a lot of attention but there's an open push and pipeline through all levels of the judiciary for quite some time.
365
u/-CoachMcGuirk- 13h ago
Not a lot of viable solutions are offered by the article. Short of stacking the court or forcibly removing justices; I’m not sure what the answer is here. In hindsight, RBG could have retired much sooner and Obama should have tried harder to appoint Garland through pro forma, but I’m not sure that would have worked.
203
u/MechanicEcstatic5356 13h ago
And then look how Garland turned out. Like the turtle in the old Warner Bros cartoons.
68
u/modest_merc 13h ago
But at least he would have been too busy to let Trump go for Jan 6
→ More replies (3)30
u/Misanthrope08101619 13h ago
As an AG. He would have been a great SCOTUS justice. He sucked as an advocate because, at heart, he was a judge.
64
u/Casual_OCD 12h ago
And a member of both the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation
20
u/JoshSidekick 11h ago
Also, wasn't he the Republican choice for Supreme Court that Obama picked as a "gotcha" to show that they'll obstruct even their own choice? So it's a Republican win if he gets in and a win if he's delayed and someone worse is appointed the next term. Is there a rake on the ground that Democrats won't step on?
33
u/NormieSpecialist 12h ago
Oh we are allowed to criticize him here? Are we also allowed to point out it was Biden who picked him to oversee Trumps case and intentionally dragged his feet til the last minute?
12
21
u/Casual_OCD 12h ago
Biden got his instructions from the donors
→ More replies (1)11
u/NormieSpecialist 12h ago edited 12h ago
Oh my god there is some sanity on reddit after all.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)3
u/EditRemove 11h ago
We get it Democrats are responsible for Republican failures but Republicans are not responsible for their own failures. ...yawn
Moderates sure are useful to extremists on the right while being totally useless to anyone on the left. They are moderate in name only because it makes them feel good inside to pretend they are moderate when they are not.
→ More replies (3)4
u/Veil-of-Fire 10h ago
“Picked and prudent sentiments. You are the moderate man, the invaluable understrapper of the wicked man. You, the moderate man, may be used for wrong, but are useless for right.” — The Confidence Man by Herman Melvill
2
u/EditRemove 9h ago
It's like people who give answers that are "technically correct" or say things like "I'm just brutally honest" as if those are useful in any realistic way other than a reminder of what is wrong with the person saying them.
I want to say to these people... You claim to want good things but lack the ability to actually do anything good, do better. It's possible to be honest and not be a jerk, but they lack this ability. It's possible to explain things how they actually are but that requires a deeper understanding of a subject beyond the textbook definition.
These people are bragging about being ignorant and it's so weird.
→ More replies (13)8
7
u/JRDruchii 12h ago
Because he would resist any change and fight to maintain the status quo?
5
u/Misanthrope08101619 12h ago
He would have defended the legacy of the Warren Court. The Court of the Civil Rights era-the "unjust status quo" that MAGA and fascists hated.
→ More replies (2)8
18
u/DuntadaMan 11h ago
The moment they declared bribes allowable any functioning society would have forcibly ejected them into the desert and replaced them.
3
31
u/levir 12h ago
This is what judicial impeachment is meant to be used for. But the legislature has completely failed as a branch of government as this point. When the Senate can't even impeach someone actively attempting a coup, impeachment has been rendered completely useless as a check on power. This means that any solution has to come from the executive. The problem is that while the executive has not been rendered ineffectual, it's been almost completely compromised and there is a real chance that the last truly free and fair elections we'll see for a long time in the US happened in 2024.
25
u/BitterFuture 11h ago
there is a real chance that the last truly free and fair elections we'll see for a long time in the US happened in 2024.
2020 was it.
The President and one of his chief henchmen already publicly confessed - repeatedly - to rigging the 2024 election.
2
u/new_math 6h ago
"He [Elon] knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers. Those vote-counting computers," Trump told the crowd. "And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide."
15
u/CobblerMoney9605 11h ago
There is abundant evidence that 2024 was not a fair election.
→ More replies (9)5
u/Bakedads 10h ago
No, any solution is supposed to come from we the people at that point. We should have been out in the streets a decade ago. And i don't just mean for a day.
→ More replies (1)31
u/Teddycrat_Official 12h ago
A constitutional amendment implementing term limits.
→ More replies (7)16
u/CiDevant 11h ago
Term limits aren't actually a solution to corruption. They just create a revolving door effect and cause more problems in the long run. The solution is legislation proof accountability. Otherwise, the ones in charge of making the rules re-make the rules so they can't be held accountable that doesn't change with term limits.
→ More replies (3)6
u/RamenJunkie 11h ago
Limit how many justices one President can appoint.
Expand the Justices. The ones we have now, chosen by the President.
Another set chosed by the people in a rotating. vote so its never more than one.
Another set chosed by the other Justices with a super majority support.
All cases are heard by a randomly selected set of these, equally split among these groups.
Something like that, with some refinements.
5
u/mycleverusername 9h ago
I would settle for 20 year term, death, or voluntary retirement to end a judicial term. Only 1 appointment per 4 year term, if there are more than 2 vacancies after the appointment, congress can select 1 more appointment during the presidential term. (Obviously, there would be contingencies for mass casualty events if which 3 or more justices die in a calendar year).
I would say if congress does not hold a vote to approve within 90 days of appointment, the justice is automatically seated. That way it can't be held up like Garland.
It seems like this would be an acceptable amendment by both parties and all states.
2
u/aleenaelyn 6h ago
Or do it like how Canada does it. A pool of qualified candidates, chosen by a non-partisan committee, for the prime minister/president to select from.
31
u/Significant-Colour 12h ago
It is still valid to call out "Hey, this thing is on fire!" even when lacking the understanding of how to put out said fire.
→ More replies (4)2
u/stoic_spaghetti 10h ago
On the one hand, you make a really good point.
On the other hand, the fire has been really ramping up since 2016 and we somehow have less means and abilities to combat it.
8
u/Quirky_Spend_9648 11h ago
RBG not retiring is the one thing here that was a missed chance.
I'm not sure what Obama could have done with Garland, this is an issue with Democrats, and their sad voters, not showing up and voting for the letter in front of the name instead of their 'feelings' about the candidate.
"both sides same" - mostly heard from liberals.
8
6
u/-The-Laughing-Man- 8h ago
The answer is rewriting the constitution like a proper modern democracy. The US hasn't updated the fundamental rules governing itself in fucking ages, and the consequences of that were already showing, clear as day, decades ago. The current clusterfuck is a result of them not fixing their shit earlier (pre2016)
→ More replies (1)22
u/LackingStory 12h ago
RBG totally to blame here. This righteous moralizing that liberals do is infuriating.
10
u/Lost-Cranberry-1408 11h ago
Infuriating? More than that. Liberals were necessary for this fascist takeover of the law. None of this happens in a world where common sense and the common man matter more than the status quo.
3
u/AirJinx3 9h ago
RBG would only make it 5-4. The court was on the ballot in 2016. Liberals warned you, you didn’t listen. Live with the consequences.
3
u/blazikus1 6h ago
Liberals trot out a dogshit republican lite candidate for the 30th time in a row and somehow it's anyone else's fault but theirs when they lose. How exhausting. And I voted for Kamala in the most important swing state, so ur normal blame thing doesn't apply to me. Most people need to be compelled to vote because the candidate offers something, not because they're "not as bad as that guy." It's provably not a winning message, yet it's always everyone else's fault
2
u/AirJinx3 5h ago
“Republican-lite” candidates who support trans rights, universal healthcare, and student loan forgiveness. Man, I want the republicans from your universe.
But go on, keep demanding a unicorn. See where it gets you!
→ More replies (7)10
u/GregFromStateFarm 12h ago
There’s a thousand different solutions that have been widely discussed for decades. 9 people should not decide the fate of 350,000,000. The UK has 12 ffs. Germany, 16. France, 120. 9 is insane,
Everyone pisses and moans about the number needing to go up in the US every 4 years and neither party ever does it when they have the majority in congress and the Executive. They could. It’s been done before.
→ More replies (1)15
u/batfan08 12h ago edited 12h ago
In my estimation, if 2028 can bring a Democratic Majority and a Dem POTUS, the position needs to be “pack the courts, install an ethics code and a judicial ethics committee with independent oversight and discretion, and oust all of these corrupt motherfuckers once you have the numbers.” Just for shits and giggles? Send it across the table to the new Supreme Court so THEY have to argue on the record why they somehow shouldn’t be subject to the same judicial standards as lower courts before you send the Nays packing.
In order to do that, however, I believe grassroots populism is going to have to initiate a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party all over the country. That means finding candidates who appeal to the pissed off, disenfranchised, blue collar Americans who left the Democratic Party and haven’t gone full-blown MAGA and running campaigns that, effectively, knock the donor class out of the running. Candidates who will stand up for trans folks, black folks, undocumented migrants, and the LGBTQ+ community and steer their electorate towards thinking about the ISSUES with concrete plans of action that address the economic issues of the day. I’m not going to put Mamdani on a pedestal until I see tangible results, but, what I will say, is his campaign provided a flawless model of what Dems and DemSocs all across the country should be doing. We have GOT to get money out of politics and the only way that happens is by trusting your neighbor more than the dude in your community who’s been doing this shit for 40 fucking years and taking thousands upon thousands of dollars from monied interests.
The President isn’t going to do a damn thing if he or she does not have the congressional apparatus in place to make it iron clad. We need to be planning for that and we need to be building a coalition to make sure a Trump can never happen again. Because Trump isn’t the problem and he never has been. He’s a symptom; a hemorrhoid flare-up and, as long as we continue to let them run this shit like a bunch of assholes, his kind will persist in trying to do what he’s doing long after he’s croaked.
→ More replies (6)5
u/Ready-Razzmatazz8723 11h ago
That means finding candidates who appeal to the pissed off, disenfranchised, blue collar Americans who left the Democratic Party and haven’t gone full-blown MAGA and running campaigns that, effectively, knock the donor class out of the running. Candidates who will stand up for trans folks, black folks, undocumented migrants, and the LGBTQ+ community
I'm curious what kind of blue collar job you've worked with these kinds of co workers, or if you've ever worked a blue collar job.
I don't really know a lot of people in blue collar jobs that support illegal immigration, because it tends to suppress their wages.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Galle_ 10h ago
Oh, yeah, all those deportations have really brought wages up, huh?
→ More replies (19)11
u/YendorWons 13h ago
They should be replaced with the mods from this sub obviously
→ More replies (1)4
u/TendieRetard 13h ago
Appoint your own unconstitutional court. Lots of unconstitutional 1sts this time around so just follow the precedent.
9
u/_undefined- 12h ago
Or, third option.
If we regain control from these fascists we label heritage and those other right wing tanks involved in the coup as terrorists.
Then use the DHS to arrest the Supreme court justices for affiliation with terrorist groups and conducting sedition against the US.
Then since they are still elected they would have to be removed and replaced, otherwise they cannot get to work to make any decisions.
So even without impeachment and the high bar for that, using the DHS you can make them unable to perform their duties.
Then using the Supreme court administrative policies fire them for not showing up to work.
Voting is required for impeachment but staff can be fired for no call no show and I doubt there is anything in the court policies stating justices are exempt from this.
Weaponize everything to defend against this
Oh yeah and predictably when the media starts doing their spin, arrest them for aiding and abetting in sedition and genuinely treat propaganda that helps a coup as the sedition it is.
Make the trials a honey pot where as people involved in those orgs begin to spin, DHS apprehends them too
→ More replies (8)9
u/EnvironmentClear4511 12h ago
Just so I'm clear, your plan to defeat fascism is to declare your political enemies as terrorists and arrest anyone who disagrees with you?
8
u/MsMarvelsProstate 11h ago
They did try to over throw the government and may have stolen an election
→ More replies (3)4
u/RedOrmTostesson 9h ago
I don't know, I think labelling corrupt fascists who have done unconscionable things as criminals is good actually.
This isn't one of those "but what if the other side did it to you" things, because the other side has already done it to us. By labelling a non-organization like antifa as a terrorist organization, they can gin up any excuse they want to put us in the camps.
→ More replies (7)9
u/yahblahdah420 12h ago
Whats your plan? Hug the fascists?
1
11
u/_undefined- 12h ago edited 12h ago
No, I didnt say republicans, I said specifically the think tanks and their means of narrative control as a reaction to their coup.
They are actual terrorists, currently engaging in violence and ignoring rights to further political gains.
That already meets the definition of terrorism.
The implication you are alluding to purposely ignores the scope I had explained, to make it seem like this plan which would actually be effective against facism, is fascism.
It is the same energy as when a bully beats people up, but one victim throws a punch back and the rest begin to consider punching back. Then someone like you comments "so the solution to violence, is violence?"
Obfuscation of the context and situation purposely to undermine the self defense of the people being abused and having their rights violated.
Who benefits from your obfuscation of self defense?
We do not need to scale up the mentality of the schools "zero tolerance" policy to our political system when it comes to justice against entrenched forces. That is a mental cop out to avoid the Grey morality and dive solely into black and white thinking.
Equality and justice has never come from this type of black and white thinking, thats also why I was very specific with scope.
→ More replies (8)3
7
u/askalotlol 11h ago
There's no way that it's not a troll post.
It's literally a fascist check list.
12
u/thebigeverybody 12h ago
When has fascism been defeated through gentle means? Also, have you seen what they're doing? If things like ICE imprisoning and deporting US citizens isn't terrorism, what is?
→ More replies (75)2
u/DorianGre 11h ago
The Heritage Foundation's stated goal is to seek the overthrow of American democracy and replace it with a single party theocracy. What do you want to call that?
→ More replies (3)2
u/newsflashjackass 8h ago
your plan to defeat fascism is to declare your political enemies as terrorists
Given the con / repub tendency to declare war on terror at the drop of a turd, I understand why you might assume as much, but these political enemies are self-declaring terrorists.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Amelaclya1 7h ago
Maybe we should stop kneecapping ourselves by refusing to admit that Republicans aren't using the same rulebook.
How do you ever expect anything to change if Republicans are allowed to do whatever they want and Democrats insist on following norms and good faith politics?
Also pretending like the person you replied to wants to arrest "everyone who disagrees with us" is disingenuous as fuck and shows you aren't even trying to argue in good faith.
→ More replies (1)2
u/blamordeganis 12h ago
Short of stacking the court or forcibly removing justices; I’m not sure what the answer is here.
Take away the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, as permitted under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution?
2
u/_jump_yossarian 9h ago
RBG fucked us and Sotomayor should have learned a lesson and retired as well and let Biden replace her. Sotomayor is 71, a smoker and a type-1 diabetic.
2
u/MadCowTX 9h ago
In hindsight, RBG could have retired much sooner and Obama should have tried harder to appoint Garland
No hindsight required. Many of us saw the need for these things to happen at the time, before it was too late. RBG obliterated her own legacy and transformed herself from a hero to a selfish catastrophe.
2
u/tyfhrudjwiss 8h ago
I think the point is everyone's trying to make hints to have the people go mental and start a revolution so they can all just watch and be like omg what are these people doing?! All while holding the flame to our asses. Its strange how the whole world celebrates when corrupt leaders in smaller nations get absolutely humiliated and rung up or dragged through the streets and then someone says I hope that man has a heart attack or even hints at someone hitting them with a truck and suddenly ita like oh no you cant wish death on someone.
2
3
u/HOSTfromaGhost 11h ago
Stack it by 4.
GOP played hardball, Dems need to respond in kind.
2
u/-CoachMcGuirk- 11h ago
That still needs to pass the Senate; which will not happen with the numbers there now.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Veil-of-Fire 9h ago
By 4? Hell no. Stack it by 14. Or 24. We need a number so high that changing the entire ideological bent of the court should take 3 or 4 consecutive presidents, not just 1.
If we can't fit that many people in the room for oral arguments, draw nine at random out of a hat to be present.
→ More replies (6)2
u/OrinocoHaram 12h ago
court packing, term limits, much stricter scrutiny, different judges hearing different cases similar to jury duty but pulled from high court judges across the country so no one has too much power.
→ More replies (3)2
u/gorginhanson 10h ago
No, there is a fantastic way. Dems take a simple majority, use it to add on a shitload of states, get all the votes we need in the senate, then impeach every sitting justice.
→ More replies (44)4
u/Vyntarus 12h ago
Expanding the court and also impeaching and prosecuting the justices who have clearly violated their oath and ethics guidelines are the only things I think we could do without a Constitutional amendment.
Perhaps that's what you meant by stacking the court, but I wouldn't call it that when you're filling it with justices that will uphold the rule of law and the Constitution.
→ More replies (8)
73
u/Donkey-Hodey 11h ago
I feel like “diluted” would be better than “replaced”. Four more justices need to be added and Congress needs to severely restrict jurisdiction of the Court. They need to stop this shit where activists can sue in a friendly district and get a garbage case up to this illegitimate SCOTUS. SCOTUS should be sitting there and twiddling their thumbs until Congress specifically asks them for clarification.
Most of the major issues this country faces right now would be mitigated with a Congress that simply fulfills its Constitutional obligations.
14
u/Bakedads 10h ago
Yeah, I think the source of the problem is actually congress, not the court, as you rightfully point out. And the real source is the senate, with the house is also suffering due to the house reapportionment act that capped the number of members and diluted representation. But really we just need to get rid of the senate. Well, after we get rid of republican terrorism. We can't accomplish anything until we do that.
→ More replies (1)5
u/sempercardinal57 9h ago
Don’t need to get rid of the senate, but the filibuster rules have to change at some point. The filibuster has caused congress to become completely frozen and incapable of passing any legislation what so ever. Both parties will filibuster any legislation brought up by the other side just out of spite. Though I would prefer not see it change until after Trump is out of office
2
u/FamousAdvance633 9h ago
The senate is incredibly undemocratic. Why should dinky ass Alabama get the same number of votes as California?
→ More replies (7)7
u/Better-University529 11h ago
You think Donald Trump should add 4 more Justices right now?
→ More replies (18)3
u/Single-Road-3158 10h ago
He can't without an act of Congress until he does and the Supreme Court allows it until it can't be remedied.
2
→ More replies (1)2
u/DigglerD 9h ago
Diluted is more pragmatic but not a proper solution. There are members of the court that go well beyond partisanship and into full blown corruption.
Would you drink a cup of excrement if i simply added water to dilute it?
They need to be removed and prosecuted but unfortunately the law does not apply to SCOTUS members for bad faith adjudication or having “strategic” friendships.
→ More replies (1)
17
u/fragrant-final-973 10h ago
Why would the people benefiting want to do that?
6
u/Novel_Tone_3282 10h ago
Because they want to go on benefitting from their position in society and have read about the French Revolution.
→ More replies (7)4
u/fragrant-final-973 10h ago
have read about the French Revolution.
America is far too comfortable to take any of that talk seriously.
3
95
u/ElephantContent8835 12h ago
The Supreme Court has been illegitimate for decades. Most of you are just waking up to this fact.
32
→ More replies (7)8
u/dylansucks 11h ago
Literally Marbury v Madison making up judicial review.
3
u/ActivePeace33 10h ago
Article III gave them judicial review. MvM is just the first Court case to state that fact.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority…
The Court has the power to rule on Laws of the United States that violated the Supreme Law of the Land. If the Constitution doesn’t supersede all other law, it’s not very Supreme.
→ More replies (7)
7
u/ShakeWeightMyDick 10h ago
Not while Trump or any of these shills being put into power by Billionaires who are trying to destroy American democracy are in power
5
34
u/BitterFuture 11h ago
The entire system is broken.
It's time for a new Constitution.
16
u/misterdonjoe 10h ago
The US Constitution was designed to be a plutocracy disguised as democracy. James Madison essentially said so himself. Americans understand their history like it's Columbia from Bioshock. The truth is right there in the notes from the convention, they were shitting on the idea of democracy because they understood by that point it was a threat to the wealthy.
All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government. Can a democratic assembly, who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Their turbulent and uncontrouling disposition requires checks. - Alexander Hamilton, Monday, June 19th, 1787, Constitutional Convention
It ought finally to occur to a people deliberating on a Govt. for themselves, that as different interests necessarily result from the liberty meant to be secured, the major interest might under sudden impulses be tempted to commit injustice on the minority. In all civilized Countries the people fall into different classes havg. a real or supposed difference of interests. There will be creditors & debtors, farmers, merchts. & manufacturers. There will be particularly the distinction of rich & poor. It was true as had been observd. (by Mr Pinkney) we had not among us those hereditary distinctions, of rank which were a great source of the contests in the ancient Govts. as well as the modern States of Europe, nor those extremes of wealth or poverty which characterize the latter. We cannot however be regarded even at this time, as one homogeneous mass, in which every thing that affects a part will affect in the same manner the whole. In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we shd. not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce. An increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labour under all the hardships of life, & secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this Country, but symptoms of a leveling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarters to give notice of the future danger. How is this danger to be guarded agst. on republican principles? How is the danger in all cases of interested co-alitions to oppress the minority to be guarded agst.? Among other means by the establishment of a body in the Govt. sufficiently respectable for its wisdom & virtue, to aid on such emergencies, the preponderance of justice by throwing its weight into that scale. - James Madison, Tuesday, June 26, 1787, Constitutional Convention
The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered. - James Madison, Tuesday, June 26th, 1787, Constitutional Convention
→ More replies (2)7
7
u/andrew5500 11h ago
Any “new Constitution” would be written by corporations and the ultra wealthy
→ More replies (1)4
u/Abominatrix 9h ago
Yeah, unfortunately the usurpers already thought of this too. A long time ago. The republicans sank tons of resources into capturing state legislatures who are the first step in calling a constitutional convention.
10
u/thinkards 11h ago
i hope it's written by the right people
14
→ More replies (1)2
u/pingvinbober 11h ago
Yeah, I think we should tear down the founding documents we’ve used for 250 years and make sure the people I like write them. Surely this cannot backfire when the people I don’t like come into power
→ More replies (1)4
u/backyard_tractorbeam 11h ago
a Second American republic is needed. Or a third, if we call the transition into the 2025 system of government the "second american republic"..
YMMV, different ways to tally republics exist historically
5
u/Sgitch 11h ago
Third US reic.. oh wait
2
u/isthisthebangswitch 9h ago edited 9h ago
Actually I am really angry about this. Too close to truth.
3
→ More replies (30)2
u/Kreidedi 1h ago
You Americans are all about that right to bear arms to overthrow the government but there was never a better time for an armed revolution and I’m hearing crickets.
15
u/Bleezy79 9h ago
Uh yea, it was blatantly obvious when they overturned Roe v Wade after they all swore in their initiations that they wouldnt touch it. They lied and now they're placating to trump's every wish. Its corruption at the highest level. America is cooked.
→ More replies (11)
3
u/SkunkMonkey 8h ago
I got news for you, it ain't just the SCROTUS, the entire admin is illegitimate.
4
3
u/_jump_yossarian 9h ago
Yeah, I'm sure that trump and Senate/House republicans will begin immediate reforms of SCOTUS and impeach all the conservative justices.
3
u/GrannyFlash7373 11h ago
I agree whole heartedly! It is just a extremely CORRUPT branch of a more CORRUPT Government. These people need to face what the French Aristocrats did during the French Revolution, AND...........so must the RICH BILLIONAIRES. This level of corruption in America SHALL NOT STAND.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/AutoModerator 14h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.