this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
461 points (99.6% liked)

politics

31093 readers
2560 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In remarks at a judicial conference, Roberts bemoaned what he characterized as the American public’s misconceptions about the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday defended the Supreme Court from what he believes are misconceptions held by the American people that he and his colleagues are “political actors” who are making decisions based on policy, not law.

Roberts is a member of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, which has moved federal law to the right on a number of weighty issues in recent years, such as abortion and gun rights.

The court has also in several cases weakened the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, including in a ruling last week that led to outrage and disappointment on the left.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Janx@piefed.social 43 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Undoing decades of settled law to strip rights from women, minorities, and everyone else. You're damn right we view you as political. You're a disgrace to the law and should be impeached yesterday.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"Settled law" is such a cop out. If there is any ambiguity, any question, the law should be rewritten. Anything "decided" can be "undecided", why take the chance?

Of course they're political, but the legislative should be drafting legislation at a quality that the SC only CAN touch it very lightly.

The whole process is broken, I guess is my point, and SC latitude is a symptom of shitty and lazy legislators.

[–] halowpeano@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (2 children)

That's bullshit, there's always room for interpretation of any law. Especially when laws start overlapping and someone has to decide which law takes precedence.

The real failure of the US political system is that voters that were stupid enough to believe that uncompromising is the same as strength. Once bipartisanship collapsed, the only way to get anything done was through the courts because as soon as any law passed someone somewhere sued to stop it. The courts became political because all laws passed through them.

This happened because Republicans realized their actual policies are unpopular and don't work, so they have specifically been stacking courts with conservative judges for decades so an unelected cabal of rich assholes get to decide all the laws in the country.

[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Excuse me, Republican policies are very effective… at funneling our wealth to the capitalists on top.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I hear you.

There is always leeway. Any language is imprecise, it's the nature of the human condition. We agree on that.

Where we disagree seems to be what to do about it.

I don't mean to strawman you here, so please correct me... but it seems like you're saying "since legislators certainly will produce inexact wording in thier legislation that is open to interpretation... we just need to live with that and throw ourselves at the mercy of an unelected body with lifetime appointments. The problem is the lifetime appointees aren't benevolent"

I'M saying "since legislators certainly will produce inexact wording in thier legislation that is open to interpretation... it is thier continually duty to explicitly update, amend, and otherwise refine the law so that it most explicitly describes the intention of the elected legislative branch. The problem is they have the power to ammend the legislation, and are the right people to do it because they are accountable to the electorate, but do not execute a core function of thier responsibility"

Like, make those fuckers work. Writing the law is thier job. If people can't agree on what it means, make them re-write it until they do. Your PhD supervisor will send back your paper before publication covered in red ink before it gets submitted to a journal. In what world should a legislator not be held to the same standard?