I never try to be too hopeful with the current Supreme Court, but if they struck down the Private Right of Action, that would mean that if you brought a Private Right of Action case to the Supreme Court, they would refuse to even hear your case, because you don’t have standing to bring the case.
However, the Supreme Court has recently heard cases that were brought as Private Right of Action cases. So, ruling against Private Right of Action would be going against the precedent of this exact Supreme Court with the exact Justices who are currently seated. If they were going to strike down the Private Right of Action in the future, then they should not have heard those recent cases in the past.
So, there might be reason to be hopeful.
However, if I have my numbers right, all of the conservative Justices except one swore, under oath, in their confirmation hearings that they considered Roe v Wade to be precedent. And despite that, all of them struck down Roe v Wade, which means they were lying under oath in their confirmation hearings. So, these conservative Justices are obviously not afraid to be lying hypocrites.
I think ideally that lying in your confirmation hearing should be enough reason to remove you from your position, especially if the position is that of a judge. You were confirmed under false pretenses.
I think ideally that lying in your confirmation hearing should be enough reason to remove you from your position
Man, in a functioning system, there would be no “should,” but “MUST,” and with criminal charges.
You expect Chief Justice Robert’s Supreme Court to follow set rules precedents and ethics? LoL! They’d vote for A on Tuesday and against A on Wednesday if it meant getting a fatter paycheck!
Is that possible tho? Is there a scenario where it would be possible to throw the justices that did in fact lie under oat?
They didn’t actually lie under oath. They say that the ruling is precedent and settled law. They do not say that they would not overturn precedent.
And they will always argue that you do not want a justice that is not willing to overturn pass precedents. If not for overturning past precedents, segregation, etc. would still be legal.
I think its expected for a conservative to make bad-faith arguments. In principle I agree that since justices are not supposed to be partisan politicians should not be asking how the justice would rule on a future case. But it is bullshit that the nominee doesn’t have to give real answers to their thoughts on past cases.
Under oat
Lol
Came here to point all of this out, thank you for saving me the time! Updooted!
It always bothered me when in law class they said court “opinion” matters and can set “precedence”. Then we go over case from 100 years ago saying they are still valid today.
I’m like … is everything just loosely “understood” with final “constitutional” decision being made on the spot every time it’s challenged? That’s just asking for abuse of the system, try until you get what you want… Prof at that time convinced me there’s more to that so don’t worry.
Long behold, look at what extremists are doing at the SC today, and absolutely no rails to guard it.
Lo-and-behold, but otherwise 100% with you
Removed by mod
Amen.
Where is this perfect place you live in?
Also, don’t form an impression of a whole country solely based on what you read online (exceptions apply.)
Where is this perfect place you live in?
A place doesn’t have to be perfect to be a better choice for someone than another place. What an overprotective strawman. Other people are allowed to be happy they live someplace else.
If I could pick up my job and family and do a cut and paste into a country that’s got socialized healthcare, affordable education, and less gun violence, with no fallout from doing so, I’d do it tomorrow.
I concede I was overtly dramatic, and you, of course, have a point.
I did what you described for s bit, and it was amazing. I just think it’s silly when people write stuff like the above without knowing much about the U.S. other than what they read online.
I remember when I visited Germany for the very first time as a very young, very inexperienced individual decades ago. I was very afraid of what I was about to face. I read about neo-nazism, anti-immigration policies, everything being mad expensive, etc, etc. And wbat do you know - Germany turned out to be alright.
I still want to know where OP lives, though.
I concede I was overtly dramatic, and you, of course, have a point.
Fair enough, and I was still within the depths of fresh out of bed grumpiness in my reply. Apologies for that! 🙂
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Fait enough.
But where do you live, though?
Removed by mod
You don’t. Your secrecy and comment history leads me to believe that you come from (or fled) an oppressive regime, though. I get it.
As an American who has lived abroad, I regret coming back to the States. Other nations have their problems, sure, but none are as close to becoming a fascist hellscape as we are.
Italy, Turkey and Hungary beg to differ.
Fair enough. No other first world nation is as close to facism as we are now. And not a lot of third world nations, either.
Yay, American Exceptionalism.
Did you mean fascism? Because racism is alive and well in the U.S.
Yes, thank you. Stupid autocorrect.
That’s a lot of rotten cherries to pick all at once
Removed by mod
We’d love to hear what country you’re from so we can make a reference to whatever social issue happens there. When you get the time. No rush ✌️
Removed by mod
You still haven’t said where you live. At least, give us a continent, dude.
I am indeed a U.S. citizen, born and raised in a 3rd world country and currently living in northen Europe.
Speak for yourself, I want a street address. /s
Just in case anyone thought they still had credibility to lose.
Good thing we have the Second Amendment!
Thousands of dead school children agree!
Thousands? Have there actually been that many from school shootings?
680 fatalities and 1,926 injuries, but the damage from school shootings is much more than physical. Thousands of children and parents have been mentally traumatized and that’s a much bigger issue.
Nope, but it won’t stop anti-gun types from lying…
Don’t worry, we’ll get there soon just for you and your play things.
Number of times it’s been used to oppose tyranny: 0
Supporters of the Confederacy might disagree.
'Course, they’re idiots, and they lost despite the 2nd amendment shocked pikachu
How would people even expect that to work? Do they believe there will be somebody in charge that everyone believes is a tyrant?
Let’s say Trump did not leave office in 2021. Would there be a sufficient mass of people in favour of a violent uprising? First, half the country already supported him. Second, the first time somebody uses violence they will be called terrorists and the vast majority will be in favour of stricter anti-terror measures instead of supporting the rebellion. Examples across the world of democracies that devolved into tyrannies, and never has a violent uprising been successful. Most people will always prefer authoritarian order over violent chaos.
It’s not just for one bad instance, it also forces the government to consider armed resistance to their actions. You also have a private right to defend yourself.
Harumpf
