this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2026
403 points (96.1% liked)

Political Memes

11745 readers
1956 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The legislative branch are just cowards, period. Don't like the way the SC has interpreted a law? No fucking problem: re-write the law. It's LITERALLY thier fucking job.

[–] pfried@reddthat.com 2 points 2 days ago

The legislative branch will write the laws that their voters want. The voters that won the elections voted for Republicans, so that's what we get.

[–] NannerBanner@literature.cafe 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I've really stopped paying close attention because it's all bullshit, but how many supreme court decisions are based on 'simply' an interpretation of the law, versus using some super stretched out version of the constitution to distort the law?

[–] mattyroses@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

there's no difference. It's like asking when an AI produces a hallucination - they're all that, even the ones that are "correct".

Law is a social creation, not some science.

[–] NannerBanner@literature.cafe 1 points 7 hours ago

Trust me, I've argued about whether stare decisis even has meaning in the place it's supposed to have in law, but I think there is a difference in the course of an argument from the point of view of 'interpreting' a law compared to saying some other law contradicts it or does not allow it. Thus my curiosity about which tack this court of hacks is using more often.