this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024

702 points (97.6% liked)

News

23275 readers

3429 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

702

Supreme Court approval rating falls to one of lowest yet amid Trump cases (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

91 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The approval rating of the nation’s highest court stands at 40 per cent, according to a new poll

The Supreme Court’s approval rating has plunged to one of its lowest levels yet ahead of a ruling on Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president.

The approval rating of the nation’s highest court stands at 40 per cent, according to the latest poll released by Marquette Law School on Wednesday.

The latest numbers rival only those of July 2022, when only 38 per cent of US adults said they approved of the Supreme Court and 61 per cent disapproved – just after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade.

(page 2) 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 74 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (5 children)

We are rapidly approaching the point where it is an open question as to whether the Supreme Court can make its rulings stick in jurisdictions that don't fall along the current majority's ideological bent, and that's not a place anybody in their right mind wants to go. The question is, are Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett still possessed of enough self-awareness to recognize that and rule accordingly at least some of the time? If not, do Roberts and Gorsuch make a consistent enough voting bloc to swing dicey decisions away from the foaming-at-the-mouth radical right wing of the bench when they might seriously endanger the ongoing credibility of the court as an institution? I'm not super optimistic, but time will tell...

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Hawaii over there with the sunglasses on.

load more comments (2 replies)

[+] [email protected] 27 points 8 months ago (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

He seems a thoughtful right-of-center justice.

Shill for the Vatican and refuses to stop the bribes.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Roberts is about as right-wing as the rest of them, but his philosophy was always to boil the frog, so to speak. If he had his way, abortion would still be unprotected and/or illegal, but it would have taken another 10 or 15 years, and been a death of a thousand cuts, none of which would have been the obvious death knell of Roe v. Wade alone. That way, he could have reached his desired end goal without threatening the legitimacy or respectability of the court.

Gorsuch I do actually have a bit of respect for; he has his principles, even if I don't always agree with him, and I respect that he has a particular righteous fervor for righting some of the wrongs that America has inflicted on Indian tribes. I just wish that, in the absence of being able to go back in time to 2016 and force the Senate to give Obama's nominee for his seat an up-or-down vote, that Gorsuch could at least see his way through to being more of a centrist in other ways more often.

[+] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

[deleted]

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

Maybe I see Roberts as a centrist because he puts the Court’s legitimacy ahead of his personal politics.

Roe v. Wade

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Maybe I see Roberts as a centrist because he puts the Court’s legitimacy ahead of his personal politics.

To dumb it down further It's really the difference between lawful evil and neutral evil or chaotic evil. Or the difference between longtermism and shortermism.

Roberts wants ultimate outcomes that are as radically right wing as those desired by Alito. The difference is that Alito wants those outcome to occur now. Roberts wants those outcomes to happen gradually over decades. This is because Roberts is afraid of blowback; Alito is aware of this argument, but he believes that the power of the Supreme Court and the Republican Party has been consolidated so absolutely that such fears of blowback are unreasonable and illusory.

The metaphor of boiling the frog gradually over a long period Vs dropping the frog into already boiling water is apt. You place a frog into a pot of room temperature water and then gradually turn up the heat until it is boiling. This prevents the frog from jumping out of the pot, something it physically could do at any time, because it doesn't perceive the graduality of the temperature changes. Alito et al understand the wisdom of slowly boiling the frog; they just believe that the cooking pot we are using is miles deep such that it would be impossible for any frog to jump out - and that we have also chained on a heavy lid to the pot that would also prevent frogs from escaping. We are that frog, and Alito believes that the GOP has fully constructed that enormous pot and lid. Under that worldview, there is no meaningful negative consequence for SCOTUS making drastic revisionist decisions whenever they want. The decisions may radically overturn precedent, but they are nonetheless unchallengeable.

It is our job as citizens to prove Alito wrong. If we don't then our standard of living will rapidly deteriorate even more radically than it already has since 1981. SCOTUS will remake the United States completely, and make it an absolute dictatorship of the billionaire. That must be opposed

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (3 children)

The metaphor of boiling the frog gradually over a long period Vs dropping the frog into already boiling water is apt. You place a frog into a pot of room temperature water and then gradually turn up the heat until it is boiling. This prevents the frog from jumping out of the pot, something it physically could do at any time, because it doesn’t perceive the graduality of the temperature changes.

Ima let you finish, but they've done this experiment and the frog jumps out. It also becomes increasingly active as the temperature rises.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

And frogs are cool so I get sick of the "frog boiling" slander, though I understand the metaphor.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago (2 children)

We are rapidly approaching the point where it is an open question as to whether the Supreme Court can make its rulings stick in jurisdictions that don’t fall along the current majority’s ideological bent

Recently the most significant refusals to follow court rulings are in jurisdictions that do agree with the court majority's ideological bent. Alabama's voting maps fight and Texas's current border fight being the two biggest ones. At least for now democrats still generally believe in the American system and respect the rule of law.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Let's see what happens if they outlaw mifepristone.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Probably the same thing that happened with Dobbs - ultimately, not much of anything.

It's sad. But Americans need to stand up for ourselves.

When SCOTUS abolishes Chevron deference later this year and consequently destroys the federal bureaucracy we will be finished. Hopefully the FBI can lean on SCOTUS to prevent that, though it is doubtful they are astute enough to perceive Chevron's destruction for the national security disaster that it is

[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago

The governors of solidly blue states will soon enough have citizens who are going to not put up with it.

They can try and fail to make a nationwide abortion ban stick on the west coast.

West coast had an interstate compact during COVID because they knew they could not count on the Feds.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 176 points 8 months ago (7 children)

Approval ratings mean nothing to lifetime appointments. Nobody should hold a position forever. If they wanna keep them there for life, then at least make them subject to review every X years

[–] [email protected] 26 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I wonder what the plantation owners approval ratings were like. We should conduct a study.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

It surely does mean something. They don't have an army to enforce their rulings. They also can get a whole bunch of new judges in. Finally, if a prosecutor gets their shit together they could end up in prison for bribery. And while they can define bribery however they want, see point one.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

My wife and I love each other endlessly and agreed to the whole "until death" thing, but we both hold a firm belief that marriage contracts should have an expiration date at which point the couple can step back and evaluate if they want to continue this union. If not, marriage dissolved, bye.

I hear people say that X isn't marriage, but I say that nothing should be marriage and EVERYTHING should have a planned expiration date. Except light bulbs, batteries, and puppies.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Kittens, too. Really all baby animals. And most baby humans (also animals, I know. Settle down, Internet).

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 85 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Theres only one way to end a lifetime appointment, so they should worry if it gets too low.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 8 months ago (5 children)

You can impeach them or imprison them too. They only hold their position "in good behavior".

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 40 points 8 months ago

Oui

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Shit, they are so screwed when they have to go up for election again.....

Wait, what?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

“Democracy”!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Their unelected fascist dictatorship, our democratic peoples government

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

But unfortunately, it means nothing to them since they don’t have to be elected

[–] [email protected] 28 points 8 months ago (3 children)

When five out of nine have been appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, that's what you'll get.

Of course, we have no way of removing any of them, so it's not like they have to care.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

There's ways. They're only lifetime appointments, after all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (3 children)

To be fair, Bush had won the popular vote by the time he nominated any justices.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

He won the popular vote by taking the country into an unjustified war because he has daddy issues.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but he wouldn't have even been president in the first place if it wasn't for the Supreme Court, and specifically Clarence Thomas.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

True. And he had an incumbency advantage in 2004. I was just pointing out that Bush's appointments weren't as simple as "he didn't win the popular vote."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Right, but he wouldn't have even been running in 2004 if he hadn't been handed the presidency in 2000.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 23 points 8 months ago (3 children)

There are ways. Impeachment being the constitutionally sanctioned way.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Just appoint 10 additional supreme court judges. Then pass federal law to limit adding more supreme court judges. Pass federal laws to fix all of the shit that has been happening, including voting reform and gerrymandering with a better voting system A second reconstruction era.

It would be easy to fix, all the democrats need is a solid majority which they would get on election reform or abortion alone.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

they should have. They could have. People said this... like when RvW was on the chopping block.

But no. "We can't do that because then they'd do it!"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The problem with federal law is that the next Congress can ignore it. Never forget Congress writes the laws and that means there's functionally no way to bind a future Congress short of the Constitution.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

That's not viable. It requires getting a bunch of Republicans to agree to it, and getting even one Republican to listen to reason is a rare thing.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, they could have a 0% approval rating and we'd still never get the 2/3rds majority in congress to do fuckall about it. This supreme court will continue to pander to corporate and donor interests and act wholly without ethics because our system was built on the concept that people in those roles would act with integrity and utterly falls apart when people on the supreme court flagrantly disregard their responsibility to citizens and act in their own interests.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 8 months ago (6 children)

Biden et al should have packed the court when they had the chance.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Can't say I disagree. When you fight a cheater by playing 100% by the rules in a world where cheating isn't punished, you lose every time. This pretty much sums up the last 40 years of the Democratic party.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Packing the court isn't even against the rules. There's no set cap for justices.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Couldn't have said it better myself 👏

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 34 points 8 months ago

Well, yeah half the court was appointed through nebulous means, and they've been slowly throwing out things considered settled law that's been on the books for literal decades. No shit that people have no faith in the legitimacy of the court anymore.

At this point I think we should ignore any and all rulings they make until we fix the system that brought this bullshit on.

[–] [email protected] 76 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Go figure. Three of them are Trump-appointed shills, two are ~~Cheney's~~ Dubya's and Thomas hanging on from "Vision Thing" Bush times.

[email protected]
[email protected]

load more comments