|
|
|
|
|
|
by matthewdgreen
678 days ago
|
|
|
We’re already in a place where one side is using the court as a tool to realize political outcomes. Whether you want to see it or not, the Immunity decision was a huge step in a dangerous direction; and there is certainly a bunch of evidence indicating that some justices on this Court are not dispassionate in their political views and will absolutely step into the democratic process to overturn voting results. Nobody is packing the court right now. What’s on the table (and only as a discussion, not even as an actionable legislative proposal) is a reasonable package of term limits and meaningful ethics rules — rules that frankly shouldn’t even be a little bit controversial, or even necessary if the Court was doing an even mediocre job of self-policing. But if things get extreme and the Court does begin to cross political lines and override electoral decisions, then I would much rather see a Constitutional response than political violence. My hope is this possibility causes everyone to be as cautious as possible, rather than starting a political war nobody will win. |
|
|
> But if things get extreme and the Court does begin to cross political lines and override electoral decisions
This is now the information bubble that was also discussed in this thread.
No, "one side" is not using the court to realize political outcomes. Both sides are - and one side had a few decade head start if we really must sling mud. Some people don't like the outcomes recently, so they attack the courts as being stacked/abused/etc. forgetting all about the past few decades where they championed nearly every outcome...
In politics, you don't always get what you want. Some people find that concept inconceivable. When they don't get what they want, it must be because of cheating/abuse/criminality/whatever.