The US needs to resume amending the constitution. That's been the historical recourse when the Supreme Court makes shitty decisions.
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2025
613 points (98.0% liked)
politics
26764 readers
2660 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think the absolute failure of the ERA has proven unequivocally that ratifying amendments to the Constitution are no longer possible in an age where mass media has broad and instant reach.
There will always be someone powerful who opposes any amendment to the Constitution. And they will always make themselves heard loudly around the world, thereby making a consensus completely impossible.
I think the absolute failure of the ERA has proven unequivocally that ratifying amendments to the Constitution are no longer possible in an age where mass media has broad and instant reach.
I don't see why not. Older amendments have gone unratified before. The longest spell between ratifications so far has been 61 years, and our last ratification was on 1992, so resuming now wouldn't break any records.
While ERA would have been a good one, we also have an older unratified amendment for regulating child labor. The only reason ERA can't be ratified is that congress started setting ratification deadlines, but that's never been necessary, and older proposals that don't have them can still be ratified.
I think part of the reluctance is that people unaware that constitutional originalism is a fairly new legal theory (first proposed in the 1970s) don't regard the constitution as a living document when it has been for most of history. They've come to see the US constitution as entirely up to the Supreme Court & forgotten that the ultimate control is the people & their power to amend it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The United States needs a completely new constitutional process, to stop idolizing as political gurus people who lived 300 years ago and did a great job for their time, but that's over. In Europe, some countries, during that same period, had dozens of constitutions and nothing bad happened about it.
Oh no, our Conservatives have been prepping for a new Constitutional Convention, and already have a playbook planned to ratfuck that.
The process for that is that 2/3 of states need to call for a constitutional convention to start it. When in session, everything is fair game to be amended. The rules for that are not codified in advance and created by the members themselves. And whatever comes out of that must be approved by 3/4 of the states (currently 38) in order to be binding on everyone.
But , by my calculations, 182 million people live in the 12 most populous states. Since the US population in all states is 339 million, that means that a new constitution can be ratified by states with only 43% of the population, then bind everyone to it.
There is no doubt in my mind that this will result in those states who did not vote for the new constitution seceding.
Either I haven't explained myself well, or you haven't understood me. I'm not talking about following any set path; I'm talking about throwing everything out the window and starting from scratch.
It is clear that establishing rules that apply in California and Texas requires consensus and compromise, but even federalism needs to be rethought, if you start from where you are today, you'll never get very far.
At the first continental congress, or whatever it was called, there were no rules to go on. You'd have to go back there.
Where can I read more on constitutional convention?
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html
But it's so small I can quote it here
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
While this seems to be written as only being for amendments, there is nothing keeping them from saying "we're starting over from scratch" as an amendment. Literally the only thing they put off limits in this process is the composition of the Senate.
Democratic congresspersons confirmed most of the conservative Supreme Court justices. Biden was famously instrumental in getting Clarence Thomas confirmed.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Unfortunately, there's no process for that. Single judges can be removed via impeachment, but being a partisan hack is not a high crime.
Similarly, nothing can happen with Conservatives controlling the House and Senate.
Oh, they know...
https://fedsoc.org/bio/ryan-doerfler
They want to trick people into dissolving the SC before the left gains control and can replace the problematic ones while taking steps to prevent this from happening again.
It's like a kid that walks up and slaps a peer, then immediately says "no tag backs" and says the game is over..
The federalist society got what it wants out of the SC, and now they want people to stop abusing it before we can undo what they just did.
I don't know why googling authors isn't the norm when billionaires own all the media companies. If you don't you'll never notice clear hypocrites like Ryan Doerfler.
Alas, the Constitution does little to protect against incompetent voters who refuse to act to protect their democracy.
It's not incompetence, that would imply people tried to prevent this. It's apathy. If "did not vote" had been a candidate:
A core problem is that impeachment votes have become a team popularity contest, with the details of charges, innocence, guilt, etc. being irrelevant except for theatrics.
It’s time to accept that the US ~~supreme court~~ is illegitimate and must be replaced | Ryan Doerfler and Samuel Moyn
Fixed the title for you.