This affirms state courts can rule when districts or election laws violate state constitutions. Interesting, and very important. Guardrails still standing.
Supreme Court rules state courts can play role in policing federal elections | AP News
4 Likes
Big win for all Americans. I mean except the bad guys who brought it and supported it.
4 Likes
I thought the court was hopelessly Maga infested and we were never going to get another fair decision.
So are we good now?
I think what was said is the court was loaded with anti-abortion justices, which has proven true. And that they would side with businesses in almost every circumstance, which has proven almost true. They are not friendly toward LGBTQ+ issues.
This case actually challenged the power of courts to rule on legislation as to its constitutionality. SCOTUS protected its own power and those of the lower courts. Not a big surprise they’d cross the divide to preserve court prerogatives.
2 Likes
Now we need a case that can end the ridiculous “Constitutional Sheriff” theory.
1 Like
So do we need judicial term limits?
Because I saw Nancy Pelosi on CNN pitching the idea of Judicial term limits and that there should be ethics laws put into place for Supreme Court justices. I couldn’t help but applaud CNN for absolutely nailing the definition of irony.
The idea of judicial term limits and ethics laws is to introduce some feasible accountability to an institution where there largely is none. There’s more accountability that a Member of Congress can face currently than a sitting SCOTUS Justice. Not much irony there.
1 Like
It is very ironic when it is Nancy Pelosi pitching term limits and ethics laws. If she insists on reviewing the Judges’ investments it will be down right hilarious.
1 Like
As I said, it wasn’t too long ago that most of the Lefties here were saying that the USSC were like “gods” in a derisive way.
Again I ask, are the USSC justices now “benevolent” dieties?
3 Likes
I think the SC reads the front page too
1 Like
Even if it is ironic, I would say she’s not wrong about the ethics rules needed. I’m still not for term limits for the Supreme Court though. I am for Congress.
1 Like
I don’t think she is wrong either. But it sure as hell is ironic.
It’s not ironic at all. She’s faced more regular accountability electorally and ethically than any justice has.
1 Like
Of course not. A few are partisan hacks. No surprise those are the same justices with major ethics problems right now.
I think the term limits part is ironic.
Term limits for a legislator is called an election. If a district is unhappy with their legislator then they can elect to replace them for the next Congress.
1 Like
Voters claim to like term limits, but regular voters understand that congressional committees and chairmanships give your district a better shot at good treatment in legislation if your member has some seniority. It isn’t entirely about voters being exploited by incumbents. There is some logic to it.
I’m good with discussing congressional term limits.
1 Like
I wonder if Nancy supports banning the Justices from trading stocks?
I’m all for banning everyone in Congress and the federal courts from trading individual stocks to include POTUS and all cabinet members. If you don’t wanna give that up, don’t serve.
I can’t be baited on this issue, as I’m not a Democrat, just on temporary loan (in most contests) until the whole Christian Nationalism/MAGA/Populism faction is run off or at least marginalized by the GOP. I suspect it’s too late.
2 Likes