this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
113 points (97.5% liked)

politics

18894 readers
3001 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

SCOTUS disagrees with you. And their opinion of Constitutional legality is ultimately the only one that has any relevance

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They haven't actually issued a ruling at this point. And I don't have to agree even if they do

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Obviously they haven't issued an opinion, but their comments today make it clear what they're going to do

My point is that you can't put forth any authoritative argument on this matter when SCOTUS is just going to rule for Trump. And they ultimately decide what the Constitution means and does not mean.

Legally, they are sovereign over the interpretation of all aspects of the constitution. So saying that they're being hypocritical or are ignoring precedent isn't really relevant. They're allowed to do that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Legally even that is pretty dubious. Didn't they just randomly give themselves that power once and we all agreed to let them have it?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

It is true that the Constitution does not explicitly grant SCOTUS the power of judicial review. SCOTUS granted itself that power in Marbury v Madison, which was 225+ years ago

Libs should bring that up more often tbh. As should textualists, tbh

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

And if they do, it becomes one more reason to alter the court to fix their corrupt behavior