It doesn't matter. California is over here proving that you can just ignore anything the supreme court says that you don't like. You'll get sued over it, but there's all sorts of shenanigans you can pull to draw the process out for years to avoid coming to the conclusion the supremes say is correct.
this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
118 points (94.0% liked)
politics
23432 readers
2647 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What are you referring to?
Ammunition background checks, magazine capacity limitations, banning of NFA items, 1 in 30 limit, restrictive concealed carry policies, requiring non-existent technology for handguns, permit to possess, annual registration fees, etc
why is a background check for ammunition illegal?
lol, all you care about is your unlimited freedom to boomboom, if you block every attempt at sensible gun control of course they're going to go for your ammo.
Why is it ok for gun nuts to clog the court system with frivolous and specious bullshit, fighting for the right to own machine guns (they have the right just don't want to pay the --NOW MINISCULE-- tax stamp fee) and other such nonsense, but when gun control activists want to do the same it's ignoring the law?
Sucks when other people abuse the system instead of you I guess.
why is a background check for ammunition illegal?
I can't explain it as well as a district court judge, so here you go: https://casetext.com/case/rhode-v-bonta
Why don't you check your outrage a bit and try to address the actual point I was trying to make?
I'm sick of literalist 2a interpretations that ignore half the words in the amendment. Check your own bullshit, k thx.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Stop acting like it's only the last few words of the sentence. Stop acting like it matters what the musket toting founding fathers knew about bump stocks and armor piercing rounds. It's absurd and stupid.
If you won't concede to common sense regulation of firearms then the regulators are going to keep coming. I'm a firearm owner and prior service army officer, you fucking casuals, you mealteam six types who think you're entitled to 20th century weapons of war and then keep murdering civilians again and again are the real problem. Be realistic, how many mass shootings should we tolerate before trying SOMETHING?
How many more dead children will it take chickpea?
Thanks for proving my point. You don't give a shit what the supreme court has to say about it.
You don't give a shit about uvalde, the las vegas massacre, or any other innocents blasted, why should I give two flying fucks about the supreme court's bullshit?
Come on chickpea make it make sense.
I think that our society is going to drive certain people to do horrific things regardless of any regulations we could ever come up with, so imposing limitations on people's ability to defend themselves and their communities will only ever increase the body count. We need to fix the way we treat each other. We don't need to be worrying about what kind of handle is on a weapon.
so you think people are inherently untrustworthy yet you want more armed people.
Look bright lights, the fucking country already has more guns than people. YOUR AMAZING PLAN IS NOT WORKING.
I know what it is - you don't give a fuck because it hasn't impacted your life.
YET.
It will, eventually, then you'll grow a soul.
I just wanted to point out that the supreme court can effectively be ignored and provided an example. You're jumping to insane conclusions and getting really worked up about it. Chill the fuck out and go get yourself some counseling.
It upsets you that you can't come up with a sensible argument, I get it. Being on the wrong side of history is a shit place. You can project your frustrations on me, call me angry, suggest I get counseling but none of it is gonna bring back the dead innocents from your stupid hobby.
Gonna block you now so I never have to read another stupid comment, enjoy the remainder of your apparently wretched existence.
Keep fighting those strawmen, moron
Irrelevant. Someone apparently forgot how to math.
If she retired, right fucking now, the GOP would block a new SCotUS pick until they were in power again & the democrats would allow that to happen.
Let's have this conversation again when it's a guarantee she can be replaced by a qualified jurist, and not Judge Beer 2.0
The Republicans already removed the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments during Trump's term. Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed with a vote of 53 to 47 and the Democratic majority in the Senate is bigger now than it was then.
What does removing the filibuster mean? I thought you could filibuster anything you want? Just get up there and make a speech for days and days.
What you’re describing is a “talking filibuster” where members monopolize the floor so debate can’t continue until they stop. That’s part of it, but that doesn’t happen much anymore in reality. Removing the filibuster for judicial nominees basically just means the threshold for a vote is a simple majority, not a 60 member minimum.
It’s annoyingly complicated and the term “filibuster” has taken on a cultural meaning that is simpler than what it is in reality. These folks explain it pretty well.
Oh hell, I forgot about that, thank you.
She should fucking retire then. Let's put a brilliant, healthy 30something in there as her replacement.
For fuck’s sake, don’t risk it. Why risk it? Retire with dignity and humility, and allow someone who’s not batshit crazy to be your replacement. Anything less is selfish.
Lifetime appointments have got to go.
She's only 69 though. Four justices are younger than her, three are older. She's closer in age to Kamala Harris than she is to Joe Biden.
I get the concern, but at some point it gets silly.
................. Think about your first sentence for a second.
I understand the point of it is to demonstrate how likely it is for her to continue living another 5-10 years, but stop for a second and consider....
She's ONLY 69 years old.
Nearly 7 decades.
And the median American is currently just under 39 years old according to my 20 second googling.
Thats fucking insane to me.
And she's not even the oldest, nowhere near the oldest in government. The median age of senators is apparently around 65.
I already don't understand kids these days half the time, there's exactly 0 chance of these people understanding me...
I think this is a huge problem in American politics, and Americans really need to get around to elect younger officials asap. Obviously it's not that easy, and the problems run deep.
The supreme court, however, it's the one institution that's kind of intentionally old. They are supposed to be experienced ageing justices at the end of their career.
The problem is not that the supreme court is old as much as that politicians are even older.
Retirement age should be mandated. 65 spend time on whatever, not work.
She's also diabetic, a former chain-smoker, and has to travel with a medic.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But for the first time, they’re publicly expressing an unease that history could repeat itself after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s refusal to step down in 2014 ended in the Supreme Court lurching sharply to the right.
Ginsburg, then 81 and a cancer survivor, could have retired and been replaced by a Democratic appointee when President Barack Obama was in office and his party controlled 55 Senate seats.
It was a history-making moment: Ginsburg’s successor, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, gave rise to a 6-3 conservative majority.
The calls involving Sotomayor come at a perilous moment for Democrats, as polls show Biden is far from certain to beat Trump in their rematch.
Even if she leaves this year and is replaced by a Democratic nominee, it would merely shore up a liberal minority that lacks the votes to move the court to the left without the buy-in of at least two conservative colleagues.
On the other side of the aisle, 90-year-old Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he wouldn’t call on a justice to retire.
The original article contains 1,258 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 86%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!