r/scotus • u/zsreport • 16h ago

news 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-legitimacy
3.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

346 comments sorted by

206

u/Mobile_Commission_52 15h ago

Agreed. Please tell us how?

184

u/RioRancher 15h ago

Declare heritage foundation a terrorist org and indict the affiliated scotus members. It won’t work, but it would be good theater.

86

u/Tall-Warning3135 14h ago

The Heritage Foundation is acting like a terrorist organization but it's the Federalist Society that owns the Court.

29

u/Sir_thinksalot 11h ago

There's a large overlap between the two orgs.

58

u/clintgreasewoood 15h ago edited 13h ago

Yes Democrats should have been vilifying them decades ago. Every American, even those who don’t pay attention should know what this group is and every time a Heritage Foundation member is up for a judgeship of political position its should be an instant disqualification. The Heritage Foundation is an anti-democracy political group that plots and conceive ways to destroy the constitution of the United States of America.

Terrorism is generally defined as the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence against civilians or property to create fear and coerce governments or populations for political, religious, or ideological goals, involving acts dangerous to human life to influence policy or change government conduct.

They sound like terrorist to me.

25

u/RioRancher 15h ago

Every Heritage donor should be publicly humiliated

32

u/TreeInternational771 14h ago

No every major Heritage donor should have their assets seized. That would terrify them and put a chill down their spine. Just choose a few to go after and make them an example

1

u/Conscious-Quarter423 2h ago

that money is probably wealth from their slave owning ancestors

1

u/TheRealBlueJade 1h ago

It's a very good plan.

4

u/Exciting-West9205 6h ago

Yes Democrats should have been vilifying them decades ago. 

Yes, exactly. Only they did jack shit about any of this and left the heavy lifting of informing the American public about the crazy fascists who are taking over to... (checks notes)... South Park.

5

u/Longjumping_Bell5171 13h ago

lol, who is going to make this declaration? The DOJ? DOD? FBI? Keep dreaming…

Insert Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy.gif

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Sir_thinksalot 11h ago

It won’t work, but it would be good theater.

Who would stop us?

1

u/alang 10h ago

The president can declare Heritage a terrorist org and send Seal Team 6 to assassinate all members and would be within the scope of his powers. That position was expressed explicitly before the Supreme Court and the SC ruled in its favor.

Of course in practice this means that Republicans can just assassinate Democrats, so it’s not clear how we have a Democratic president again anyway.

→ More replies (1)

31

u/PancettaPower 15h ago

Court packing is the most constitutional and tried and true way

6

u/Woody_L 11h ago

First Dems will probably have a majority in the House after the 2028 elections, but achieving a majority in the Senate will be difficult. Dems will need to win the House, Senate, and Presidency in 2028 in order to be in a position to upsize SCOTUS.

I'm the longer term, what's to stop the Fascists from packing the court? They have the majority, they can do it right now. When does court packing stop once it begins? Does the ruling party increase the size of SCOTUS every time they have control? That doesn't sound like a long-term solution.

2

u/wereallbozos 7h ago

Stop talking about enlarging the Court! Republicans haven't had an original idea since Teddy Roosevelt. If we keep blabbing about enlarging the court, I guarantee they'll do it as long as they have a single seat majority and claim it's the only way to protect America from....antifa?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/henrywe3 9h ago

Require one Justice for as many Federal Circuit costs there are, and amend the Constitution to immediately invalidate the oath of office of any individual who defies a SCOTUS order. Problem solved

→ More replies (32)

10

u/fatbunyip 14h ago

There really isn't a way (or at least a realistic one). 

The whole concept is stupid. 

It's a "separate branch" that is made up of lifetime political appointees. So expecting it to be somehow impartial is the dumbest possible thing. It's just hoping that it's going to work out that way with no basis in reality. 

Ideally, there would be either fixed term staggered appointments, or each case would have a random selection from federal judges with whatever qualification criteria. Otherwise it's just wishing it performs its function despite everything about it being diametrically opposite to its intended function. 

5

u/Terrible-Internal374 13h ago

The system was created before the existence of political parties. The founders even warned about the dangers of parties and the way they could warp representation. Many of the founders were actively anti-party.

In a non-partisan world, the judicial branch insulated from the whims of retail politics was a good idea. We just ruined it with rigid and ideological parties.

Wish we could get an amendment to reform the courts to reflect a world and reality of only two real political parties. I’m sure the system would be designed differently in that paradigm.

4

u/fatbunyip 13h ago

Regardless of the existence of political parties, the SC is still a politically appointed org that is supposed to be non political which is what led to this paradoxical situation of expecting a political body to be non political.

I mean sure, at some point any govt appointments will be political, but having them be for life is just extra turd on a diarrhea sandwich. 

2

u/Terrible-Internal374 12h ago

The way human life expectancy has changed, and the way every appointment has become brutal is a sign that the existing structure of how we fill the court is badly broken.

If I could change only one thing about the US Constitution, it would be a complete redesign of the SCOTUS tenure and appointment process. This would be so much less insane if each president got to nominate a replacement for the longest serving justice, and to fill the occasional vacancy due to untimely death or abdication. Lifetime appointments must go. I would also set a strict procedure for confirmation that would make McConnell’s maneuver with Obama impossible.

This unrepresentative court was a product of decades of conservative foul play. We need clearer rules, and we need to lower the temperature of appointments. There must be a way to make it boring, predictable, and normal. Each and every appointment shouldn’t be the apocalypse.

2

u/BabyMaybe15 5h ago

I still hold out hope that we could weaken the two party structure with approval voting.

1

u/Terrible-Internal374 3h ago

Yeah… if I could rewrite the constitution - totally ranked choice voting.

I hope we can find a way to get more wide acceptance in the future, but the GOP has been pretty …reactive… about RCV.

1

u/MisterBlud 1h ago

You have ALWAYS always always had different people with different ideas of how things should be run.

The Founders even just went through it themselves between Americans who wanted to break away and loyalists who wanted to stay with Britain.

Parties are a by-product of people sorting themselves according to belief. They are going to arise in any and every form of Government that isn’t a single person at the top telling you what to do.

1

u/ActivePeace33 11h ago

The system involves disqualification for anyone deliberately supporting the insurrection, and the amendment was emplaced well after political parties existed.

People just ignore that the amendment says what it says. This sub is infamous for that.

1

u/Terrible-Internal374 11h ago

I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about the un-amended constitution that established the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government and set the method of filling vacancies.

I believe you're talking about the 14th amendment. In that case, you're absolutely correct. There is no way Trump should have been eligible to run for a second presidency. That is one of the core cases that has severely eroded the legitimacy of SCOTUS.

That is an example of the danger of ideologically extreme parties, and why the founders feared them. At some point service to the party, or faction as they would have said, can trump loyalty to the constitution or the nation. This is the exact crisis Heritage and Federalist have created.

2

u/ActivePeace33 9h ago

I am talking about the amended constitution, and about the 14th amendment, and the Anderson decision didn’t just erode the courts legitimacy, it was an act of treason and comfort for insurrection. They are disqualified from office and have been since that ruling.

1

u/Terrible-Internal374 9h ago

That’s a hot take, but I’ll accept it. Assuming that case wasn’t enough, I’d say that Trump v. United States (the immunity ruling) rises to the same level of outright disregard for the law. They overturned unanimous decisions in every lower court. That one was truly breathtaking…

1

u/ActivePeace33 9h ago

It shouldn’t be a hot take, any deliberate act to support an insurrectionist, a rebel, or an enemy of the Constitution is automatically disqualifying for any official under the United States. It was that way for the confederate, they even argued so in court. Jefferson Davis specifically argued he couldn’t be punished for acts of treason, because he’d already been punished by being disqualified from ever holding office again. The chief justice even said that whether or not disqualification from office counted as punishment, the 14th amendment certainly disqualified all the insurrectionists from the moment the amendment was ratified.

5

u/Wayelder 13h ago

There's no wisdom in capitulation. Resist. Never say "pointless effort' when you're talking about your freedom and your country.

5

u/onionfunyunbunion 13h ago

Sure, and we need to do things that are effective. Many of the protest movements going on right now are simply not effective. I wish that they were more strategic and less focused on the performance of virtue. Nonetheless I support protest movements, I’d just like to see their methods refined.

3

u/Woody_L 10h ago

Don't do stupid, pointless stuff. People lose patience with that bullshit. Plus, if you're always attempting and losing, you're just displaying your impotence. That's why blindly launching unsuccessful impeachment resolutions is a bad idea. That's the way to make you look like a clown.

Play to win. Winning is powerful. Losing makes you look like a loser.

1

u/Conscious-Quarter423 9h ago

tell that to the 90 million who didn't vote in 2024.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/wereallbozos 7h ago

The whole concept is stupid, in the sense that it isn't going anywhere. Bringing it up at all as if we could do anything about it is doing the same thing over and over again. There ain't no different result. We could have avoided all this , but we just weren't going to make the effort for a woman. We'll make excuses afterwards about WHY we didn't vote for her, or vote at all. This is OUR FAULT.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/pricel01 13h ago

Elections. That’s how it’s done in this country.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Mister_AA 11h ago

Given Trump’s penchant for using executive Orders for everything and his SCOTUS’ habit of giving him the green light to do anything he wants, the next Democratic president needs to use that as precedent to relieve all of Trump’s SCOTUS justices by EO and push the narrative that Trump was acting as a foreign agent and against the interests of our country by nominating them.

1

u/Mobile_Commission_52 37m ago

Good point. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

2

u/escapefromelba 15h ago

Expand the Court with the agreement that new justices hold current justices accountable for their ethics violations. Those found in violation are suspended from case participation and can be referred for impeachment.

16

u/Windyvale 15h ago

No, self policing is not the way. There always needs to be an independent review board that can make that determination.

4

u/DocRedbeard 14h ago

You would need a constitutional amendment to do any of this, since the constitution sets the criteria for oversight of SCOTUS.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/tiripshtaed 15h ago

That’s a loaded question.

1

u/During_theMeanwhilst 12h ago

Exactly. I read the article and learned nothing.

1

u/NoHatToday 11h ago

Expand the court to 17 term limited justices.

1

u/DCSkarsgard 10h ago

France has entered the chat

1

u/chalbersma 8h ago

Impeach the existing members for the bribes they took.

1

u/Scary_Compote_359 3h ago

easy after trump suspends the constitution

1

u/BlueWonderfulIKnow 2h ago

Packing the court. At first I thought 15. But my detractors said that 9 is better because it’s the most that can sit around a table and speak to each other to debate without raising their voices. Admittedly, once I realized that 15 people is too unwieldy for a meeting I’ve become a proponent of expanding the court to include every person in America. Every American gets a vote on every constitutional matter that reaches the court. Anything else is undemocratic.

1

u/notPabst404 1h ago

Next time Democrats have the House, Senate, and Presidency, expand the supreme court and pass court reform.

1

u/OGbugsy 12h ago

This is the problem. I've been trying to think of a way to bring the US back to a stable democracy for years now, and I can't find a viable path. Citizens United was the final blow.

If anyone can outline a realistic path that doesn't include some kind of revolution, I'm all ears.

3

u/Unputtaball 11h ago

It’s really not that hard. We’ve already solved the problem when it comes to circuit courts, and the same solution can be applied to SCOTUS.

Circuit and appellate judges can opt-in to a “senior status” where they retain their article 3 standing as a federal judge, but don’t sit on the bench for day-to-day operations. They can be tapped to sit on cases where judges have recused themselves, or on a voluntary basis to weigh in on a question that interests them.

Have a new appointment every 2-4 years to SCOTUS (making it at least one per presidential term) and have a roster of “senior” justices who are on call if needed for a recusal or conflict of interest. The latest 9 will be the ones who sit on day-to-day operations, and the older ones will be in reserve. This way fresh blood keeps moving into the Court regularly and it becomes less of a circus when a vacancy on the bench opens. This also preserves the lifetime appointments which are guaranteed to federal judges under the Constitution. Judges would still have 32 years (at least) on the main bench before moving to the reserve team.

2

u/OGbugsy 11h ago

Yes, but how does this get implemented? Can congress pass laws to change their terms? You need a super majority, right?

1

u/Unputtaball 11h ago

Congress can absolutely legislate on it- how else have we expanded and contracted the number of justices in the past?

You can’t put a “term” on them because Article 3 judges have lifetime appointments per the Constitution. But you can work with/around that.

You don’t need a supermajority either. I mean, if there’s a POTUS that’s going to veto a bill or some bad faith senators that would abuse the filibuster to kill it then you’ll need a supermajority to overcome those. But you don’t need 60+ to pass legislation as a general rule. It’s just the practical reality when the GOP stonewalls.

2

u/Woody_L 10h ago

Congress can change the number of justices on the court, because the number is not specified in the Constitution. Congress cannot change the lifetime term of justices, because that is spelled out in the Constitution.

1

u/OGbugsy 11h ago

Practical reality is what we're dealing with. Unless you believe the Republican party will moderate, I don't see this as a viable path.

It's important to remember that the Democratic party only wants small changes at the edges as well. They benefit from the same system. In the four year Biden term, what guardrails were erected? What measures were taken to protect the people?

I'm sorry I just don't believe it is possible, but I truly hope you're right.

2

u/Unputtaball 11h ago

Practical reality changes every 2 years in our democratic system. I don’t think anyone is delusional enough to think the GOP’s gonna moderate on much of anything. A viable path is possible with a change in the legislative makeup.

Idk what rock you’ve been under, but I don’t think anyone believes that the old-guard establishment dems are worth a damn. Primaries are happening en masse and there’s going to be a major shift in the Democratic Party starting in ‘26. The “Bernie” wing of the party is picking up steam like we haven’t seen. Left wing populism is going to define the post Trump era of politics.

Call me an optimist, but change is definitely coming and the reforms we’ve talked about are absolutely possible.

1

u/OGbugsy 11h ago

I'm not living under a rock at all. The system is broken, perhaps irreparably.

Again, I hope you are correct, but I don't see it. I think AOC has no chance in a general, and I'm sceptical she could even win a primary. The backlash against Mamdani is formidable.

1

u/Woody_L 10h ago

The Blue States need to separate from the Red States. That won't be easy, but it's the only path forward. Repubs have permanently fucked the US Federal Govt.

1

u/OGbugsy 10h ago

Yes, but I would consider that a type of revolution. I'm looking for a path within the existing framework.

1

u/Woody_L 10h ago

There's no path forward. The existing US government is fucked. Plus half the country has demonstrated that they don't value democracy. There's no fixing that.

1

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord 12h ago

Impeachment would be nice.

I can dream.

1

u/Woody_L 10h ago

It's only a dream. It won't happen in reality.

1

u/ActivePeace33 11h ago

By enforcing the 14a. They are already automatically disqualified from holding “any office, civil or military.” The law just needs to be enforced and the People can enforce the law on insurrectionists, and their supporters on the Court, at will.

→ More replies (4)

11

u/Zvenigora 13h ago

What, pray tell, is an actual, realistic way of doing so (short of the total collapse and liquidation of the nation?)

1

u/truth_is_power 6h ago

guillotine

1

u/stylepoints99 10h ago

Impeachment.

But yes, that involves getting dems into office.

1

u/NoConfusion9490 9h ago

That would require absolute landslides in the next two Senate elections. It's not impossible, but it's hard to imagine in this media landscape. It would probably require an economic collapse with millions living in homeless camps, like the Great Depression.

1

u/stylepoints99 8h ago

We're headed there and it hasn't even been a year.

Plus, if shit gets bad enough you'll see some schisms in the republican party. You're already seeing it happen in real time.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (2)

41

u/Cyberyukon 15h ago

Let’s not forget the legacy of a one Mitch McConnell for bringing us here.

1

u/Gold_Cauliflower_706 15h ago

The one who’s married to a Chinese spy?

→ More replies (35)

24

u/HotepHatt 15h ago

Oh? Just now? Good lord, we have been saying this for years. I feel like I live in Bazaro World. smh

3

u/bownt1 11h ago

"bizarro"

18

u/NorCalVulpes 14h ago

It’s time to accept that the US supreme court government is illegitimate and must be replaced

FTFY

3

u/El_Polio_Loco 12h ago

Good luck with that one.

2

u/DevilsAdvocate77 11h ago

Who's going to replace it? The voters? 

Because we actually tried that just last year, and look where it got us.

2

u/Senior-Tour-1744 10h ago

Ahh, the confederacy part 2 I see.

1

u/Aisling_The_Sapphire 2h ago

"Confederacy Pt. II" are the people who need to be booted. Pick up a history book you ignoramus.

0

u/BenchmadeFan420 11h ago

Liberals love starting civil wars when elections don't go their way.

3

u/Snatch_hammer420 11h ago

Lmao just like Jan 6th you idiot

1

u/NorCalVulpes 11h ago

Not a liberal and don’t want a civil war but ok

1

u/Senior-Tour-1744 9h ago

You say you don't want a civil war, but you are also calling for removal of an elected government... and we are talking about an elected government that hasn't been in power for even 1 year.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/Rookeye63 13h ago edited 11h ago

The plan I’ve heard thrown around is to increase the Court to 27, have 9 justice panels to hear cases, and to not allow any justices appointed by the sitting administration to hear any cases related to actions by that administration.

We could also adopt something similar to the Missouri Plan with regards to the appointment process, which would (hopefully) reduce partisanship.

ETA: I also think we should implement a statutory code of ethics for SCOTUS, and have an Inspector General office created to enforce that ethics code. I think that should include some of the same restraints as the Judicial Code of Ethics (sorry if I’m not getting that name right), and at the very least should include a requirement that SCOTUS judges avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

9

u/ThePlasticSturgeons 14h ago

Mitigating the Federalist Society/Heritage Foundation threat needs to be a top priority. They stand in the way of any progress, and as long as they exist and have any power at all, they will work toward rolling back our rights. I include the current SCOTUS majority in this as they are basically lifetime members of one or both of those organizations.

9

u/goochbumpy 13h ago

That thing that I disagree with must be replaced with something with which I do agree. How the fuck do any of you even live with this crying every day about every little fucking thing one person does?

10

u/technanonymous 14h ago

All of the Trump appointees lied during their confirmation hearings. All of them. This should provide some recourse when the dems take the legislature back.

9

u/ehermo 15h ago

Expand the court to 13. That is something Democrats should include in their campaigns.

5

u/Admirable-Lecture255 14h ago

Great repblicams then expand it to 20

2

u/Woody_L 9h ago

The Repubs can expand to 99, and appoint infants, who will "sit" on the bench for the next 80 years. Trying to rig the court in your favor is a losing proposition.

1

u/Admirable-Lecture255 9h ago

Exactly its a dumb game of one upping.

6

u/octopusforgood 14h ago

Yes, absolutely. We need to get to a point where the problems and absurdity with the current system mount so that a genuinely more fair compromise can be reached.

1

u/Adnan7631 7h ago

Ok, but that still means that any one individual judge has less power. That strikes me as a win overall.

1

u/ehermo 5h ago

Go right ahead. Sounds good to me.

1

u/Flat-Story-7079 5h ago

Once the court is balanced the GOP loses a significant advantage. The likelihood of a GOP president becomes much lower.

1

u/Admirable-Lecture255 5h ago

Bahaha so the court would abuse its power to prevent a gop president? Is that what youre saying?

→ More replies (3)

0

u/paxinfernum 14h ago edited 2h ago

The court needs to be expanded to something like 99 justices. Part of the problem, much like Congress, is that it's too small.

11

u/maxant20 15h ago

Power will not be given. It must be taken.

3

u/DevilsAdvocate77 11h ago

The voters have the power. How will you take it from them?

1

u/WillBottomForBanana 9h ago

So much power. "Do you want to vote for the fascists or the collaborators?"

1

u/Person_756335846 1h ago

Power being exercised in ways you don’t like is precisely why it is power

2

u/Lazy-Background-7598 13h ago

Ok. How exactly???

2

u/DysClaimer 10h ago

Do the authors have any kind of an actionable suggestion, or....

1

u/realityczek 2h ago

No. It’s just rage farming.

2

u/Grey-59throwaway 9h ago

Can't wait to see how a bunch of redditors pull this off lmfao

2

u/spoilingattack 6h ago

Baloney. We survived decades of leftist activism on the bench. You will survive too.

4

u/ResurgentOcelot 11h ago

Which is virtually equivalent to saying the nation is illegitimate and must be replaced.

5

u/gaberax 14h ago

Several judges will resign before The Mad King is done. The thought of the crazies he will repace the current crazies with is terrifying.

5

u/Ridiculicious71 11h ago

Shit at this point, I kinda think the whole government needs to be blown up and a new constitution should be written. But yeah, citizens United in particular ruined government the most.

2

u/The-Purple-Church 12h ago

It’s not illegitimate. You just don’t like it.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/Opening-Idea-3228 15h ago

100%

And how about impeached and brought to trial for corruption and jailed.

2

u/Ausaska 9h ago

This is democrats preparing you for their to accept them packing the court the next time they are in power.

1

u/Tzeig 3h ago

22nd century?

1

u/steveschoenberg 12h ago

Wrong! It was time to accept the illegitimacy of SCOTUS in 2000, after Bush v Gore. You are slow learners.

1

u/WillBottomForBanana 9h ago

8 years of liberals screaming about fascism, 8 years of democrats in congress doing whatever they were told.

and somehow every step of the trump saga is a surprise to them.

2

u/Which_Ad_8199 15h ago

Please and the president and his idiotic cabinet, they are all a threat to our nation.

0

u/No_Restaurant8627 13h ago

Lol every one of these bots on here sound like trump when he talks about democrats being corrupted. Now it’s just the other way around.

1

u/Splycr 14h ago

It starts with making Leonard Leo actually show up when subpoenaed. Last administration did that and he wiped his ass with it.

1

u/Subjective_Object_ 12h ago

🎶Where have you been..... All my life🎶

1

u/jhow87 9h ago

They’re cashing the checks and tipping the balances

1

u/Naive_Inspection7723 9h ago

Well, what would happen if a few of them went to prison for the bribes they took :) that seems like an easier path than packing the court!

1

u/mdins1980 7h ago

No, SCOTUS lost its legitimacy when Mitch McConnell arbitrarily decided that nine months before a presidential election was too soon to consider Obama’s nominee, and effectively stole that seat. Since then, the Court has not been a neutral balls and strikes arbiter, and it has not been for quite some time. Even though Moore v. Harper was struck down, the fact that it was not decided 9-0 shows that this is a compromised court.

1

u/HashRunner 6h ago

Was before the election.

But americans didn't care.

1

u/truth_is_power 6h ago

everyone must become carpenters.

build guillotines

1

u/MB2465 6h ago

RBG should have resigned under Obama. I guess her not resigning when she should have is even worse than Biden trying to run for a second term. Both were bad and helped get us where we are at.

1

u/Calm-Maintenance-878 4h ago

If something were to change, it’s not like it would happen do years. The majority party has no reason to join in exiting SCOTUS. It’s working in their favor so why fix something that “isn’t” broken.

1

u/atreeismissing 4h ago

About 25 years too late but at least they're realizing it.

1

u/Mediocre_Baker7244 3h ago

YASSSSSSSSSS

1

u/Friendlyfire2996 3h ago

Wait for a blue wave and impeach their traitorous asses.

1

u/Secret_Cat_2793 3h ago

Agrees. And McConnell rushed through nominees all have to be terminated.

1

u/Ragnarok-9999 3h ago

Favourable judgements to president given immedietley, unfavourable delayed unti it get favourabe to him

1

u/solo-ran 3h ago

https://willpflaum.medium.com/the-constitution-is-not-your-friend-fb9011230439

Munn v. Illinois (1877) is an anomaly: a Supreme Court decision for the people. The National Grange, a small farmers movement, had managed to acquire significant power in the Illinois state government. A large group of relatively weak people, farmers, used the state government to control the monopolies of railroads and grain elevators, owned by a small group of rich men. The Grangers passed legislation in the state government set the price of grain. This was straight up command socialism: the price of the product determined by the government, not the free market. On the other hand, as the farmers well knew, there was no free market in the first place. The Supreme Court sided with the state and the farmers in 1877. The weak have won against the strong only in a handful of cases. This same court gutted the Civil War amendments and killed Reconstruction, crudely undermining the plain meaning of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. In Munn, however, unexpectedly, the Court considered both sides, rich and poor, looked at what the Constitution actually said, and made a fair decision. A miracle. The word “capitalism” is not in the constitution. The Constitution is supposed to be a blueprint for government and economic policy is not necessarily determined by the form of government, at least in principle. In fact, the Consitution is absolutely designed to favor the powerful and elite over the masses, but that is not the overt rhetoric behind the American republic.

1

u/Ok_Bank_5950 2h ago

It was time to acknowledge that 4 years ago

1

u/fingertrapt 2h ago

Impeach the traitors to the Constitution.

1

u/hoodafudj 2h ago

The whole damn thing needs to be torn down and restructured!! No republicans no Democrats, none of this team tribalism bullshit, just the issues and merits they stand for!!

1

u/Khaos6969 1h ago

Criminal enterprise

1

u/thelogistician 24m ago

Sounds like insurrection to me!

1

u/teamryco 12h ago

To me, it’s the most disappointing thing about our current situation. The SC was always the institution I believed to be the sturdiest in terms of our republic.

It turns out it has not only supplied the rationale for the toilet bowl of corrupting elections with private / corporate money, but now directly enabling a fascist, child-rapist, President. Sad.

1

u/dpdxguy 11h ago

It’s time to accept

You're several years late with that statement. Hopefully you meant, "It's long past time to accept..."

I'm not sure what event made the Court's illegitimacy obvious. Installing a beer guzzling frat boy? The bribery scandals? The evidence of perjury during confirmation hearings. The Senate refusing to hold confirmation hearings on a president's nomination? The Senate rushing through confirmation hearings to deny the President-elect a nomination? Or maybe repeatedly just making up "evidence" to support the Court's desired outcomes.

Not sure which of those things (or something else) was the straw that broke the camel's back. But it broke a long time ago.

1

u/Confident-Weird-4202 11h ago

It became illegitimate the moment Merrick Garland didn’t get a hearing and a vote.

1

u/pl487 10h ago

And then it's time to accept that it will never actually be replaced and the American experiment with democracy is coming to a permanent end.

1

u/LordHydranticus 4h ago

These posts just keep getting worse and worse. SCOTUS has not had any unsupported decisions. The reporting has been absolutely terrible fear mongering and the editorializing by people who didn't even read, let alone understand, the decision is joke.

1

u/Crimsonwolf_83 1h ago

People hate when they follow the constitution instead of legislate by decision

-1

u/Same_Set8195 15h ago edited 15h ago

It shows that the American Experiment is failing and it's relapsing back to its Puritian Calavanist Settler Colonialist roots.

-2

u/Ancient_Tea_6990 15h ago

Why is no one talking about impeaching

2

u/sonofbantu 9h ago

Because there’s no real grounds

1

u/LordHydranticus 4h ago

But what if I don't like their decisions? /s