https://twitter.com/comradekimdawn/status/1537417108421758976
We have a majority on the court that seems to believe anything not explicitly stated in the dogshit US constitution should be reversed. At this point I wouldn't be shocked if they said the EPA and National Parks are unconstitutional and must be handled exclusively by the states.
That assumes that the originalists are consistent or genuinely believe in originalism, but they unfortunately do not
What you really need is an executive branch that tells the courts to take a walk. If they can't enforce their decisions, it doesn't matter how bad they are.
Not saying that wouldn't rock, but the executive ignoring the courts explicitly would lead to the collapse of the government and probably some kind of coup.
They’ve already done that in the past and the country is still here. :shrug-outta-hecks:
Andrew Jackson was way more intimidating and uncivil than basically any modern American politician tho, especially :biden-troll: .
The Origins of judicial review is a case about the legitimacy of judicial review brought before the Supreme Court. Which is so funny.
The court has investigated allegations of wrongdoing and found itself innocent.
Only good thing Andrew Jackson ever said as far as I can tell is "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."
I also uphold Jackson caning and shooting fellow politicians over minor disagreements.
We really need to bring back that good old American spirit of beating the shit out of each other back to capital hill.
wasn’t that in response to the courts telling him the trail of tears was illegal and he had to stop commiting genocide
They have a 6-3 majority on SCOTUS and probably Republicans will win in 2022 and 2024. The GOP was slow and methodical before, now they are just going for it.
what's the point in debating about accelerationism in the abstract when they're shooting missiles at the goddamn pedal. :this-is-fine:
EPA and National Parks are unconstitutional and must be handled exclusively by the states.
Those dirty commies Nixon and Wilson
At this point I wouldn’t be shocked if they said the EPA
They've de facto said this about the EPA already. I believe the EPA is no longer allowed to use their own expertise and can only control substances in the water and air explicitly listed by congress and levels explicitly listed by congress. Or something along those lines.
I guess its expected soon: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00618-1
I believe the case is about carbon, but I imagine the ruling will give legal justification that on a long enough time scale the conservative Supreme court can slowly chip away at the EPA. I mean that's not exactly crazy, it's what they did with abortion rights.
A federal court ruled like a month ago that Congress didn't have the power to delegate regulatory authority to agencies like the SEC. So we're already most of the way there, just need to let that case filter up to SCOTUS
can SOTUS precedence that things are unconstitutional be used to prove that the SOTUS is unconstitutional?
Miranda is part of our culture! Do they not realize the decades of entertainment that this move will render irrelevant?
Sadly, this might be the one thing that saves it honestly. The public at large actually is familiar with the concept of Miranda rights through media and might kinda fully understand what it's removal would mean for them.
"What's the matter? Everyone already knows the Mirinda rights stuff, have you never watched TV? This actually saves time for the cops so they can go arrest someone else faster" :so-true:
How will I know my arrest status if "am I being detained?" doesn't get my ass mirandized?
Sadly, this might be the one thing that saves it honestly.
I really don't think so. A post-ruling cop show episode sets the tone...
Perp: "Aren't you gonna read me my rights?"
Cop: "Exemption."
Perp: "Exemption? What the fuck is that? I don't got rights?"
Cop: "We found evidence at the scene. Did you kill her?"
During the trial part of the episode the long-haired ACLU lawyer argues his client's rights were trampled upon. The prosecutor makes fun of the legal understanding of the long-haired ACLU lawyer. The judge chastises the prosecution for the comment but sides with the prosecutor that the defendant's rights were untrampled upon.
The lawyer protests in vain. The tone of the courtroom drama changes in a way the defendant is in actuality a perp again. The cop gets a nickname during this very important trial and a surprisingly prominent arc in the episode. He's the "exemption cop". Both his parents were lawyers and it was expected he'd become a lawyer too but that line of work wasn't for him. Unlike his parents he wanted to be actively involved in the community to make it a better place.
Eventually the perp gets sentenced to 50 years for his crime. After the episode is broadcast - the showrunner's minions check social media for chatter about the cop. The provisional plan is that next season the exemption cop will get a big promotion and become a reoccurring character. He will illustrate how being a beat cop is "hard but important job and a lot tougher than some people make it."
A couple cops chat in the following episode...
"I got a joke for you. 'Mirandize? What's that? A minority's name?'"
Smiling: "I'm really lovin' this supreme court."
"I know - right? Hahaha."
"Hahaha."
haha cool
police state death gangs hunting down people for black market abortions and sodomy in 115 degree weather knocking on the wrong door and shooting some random in their house as they watch tv
im excited for the future of our country
this reminds me of police intentionally cuffing people and laying them face down on scalding concrete for funsies
:acab-3:
They're doing a speed run of stripping civil rights that hinge on SC rulings, buckle up folks it's gonna get worse as we get closer to the cool zone.
Summer 2020 scared the absolute shit out of the bourgeoisie. I think this is the exact reason why Biden has been pumping money into pig budgets. They know how unprepared they were in 2020, and theyre doing everything they can to crack down on it harder when it pops off soon
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/07/politics/dhs-bulletin-threats-election-misinformation-supreme-court-abortion/index.html
I wouldn't say underprepared. Why do you think George Floyd murder became "donate to BLM orgs" and "vote Biden", and then vanished when Chauvin was convicted and Biden was elected?
A bunch of shit got burned down, sure, but all that energy was funneled directly into the Democratic party.
cracking down harder is the exact opposite of successful counter-insurgency, but the US has a proven track record of completely ignoring that notion abroad, getting its shit kicked in and having learned absolutely nothing the next time it happens. doesn't surprise me they also repeat that at home.
Haven't listened to the podcast in years, and haven't much thought about it, but Matt's heartfelt rants were up there.
Sorry to burden you with something like this so early in the day but I felt it was important.
No, I'm glad you posted it. It is important. If I didn't want to ruin my psyche with horrible news I wouldn't be online
So are they just trying to court opinion their way into a new Confederacy or something? Like the overriding theme of every ruling they've made in the past year is that they want to kill the federal government. To what end? Is SCOTUS secretly radical anti-imperilaists trying to destroy the US' social and legal cohesion from the inside out?
secretly radical anti-imperilaists trying to destroy the US’ social and legal cohesion from the inside out?
More like accidentally anti-imperialist. At this rate they are heading toward kicking off a new civil war. Libs suck but this is becoming too obvious to ignore.
I'm skeptical we'll ever get another civil war with organized or coherent sides. I think balkanization along state lines is already happening, though.
Yeah Civil War 2: Cool Zone is going to be all militia and death squads. The standing military, assuming it doesn't dissolve entirely after nobody can afford to pay the rent to Lockheed and Raytheon, will exclusively be used to crush uppity urban centers.
idk there are a lot of people disillusioned in the military, as much as they dip into liberalism I think What A Hell Of A Way To Die and Lions Led By Donkeys are good examples of how many potential comrades we have there.
given the size and budgets of the American repression aparatus, balkanizatation along three letter agency lines may also be possible.
i have unending faith in the liberals ability to ignore worsening material conditions past the moment they are lined up against the wall in minecraft
So are they just trying to court opinion their way into a new Confederacy or something?
You might want to look at SCOTUS before the civil war. SCOTUS has always been a reactionary bulwark against good and popular legislation, the Warren Court that gave SCOTUS its good rep was an aberration that should have been completely nullified with Florida v. Gore in 2000.
True, but I more meant that it seems like they're trying to undo federal supremacy and revert the US back to an 18th, early 19th century version of itself where all the states bordered on being independent countries.
I think that's the goal, but the difference between now and then is that corporations are much more able to fill the power vacuum that that leaves. Expect to have planned economies run by Wal Mart and Google for the benefit of the billionaires while everything the government currently does except furnish a police and military fades away.
I need y’all to understand the increasing restraint required to keep me from getting banned for fedposting at this point :amerikkka:
do we ban people for fedposting, i assumed all my fellow :LIB:s here were all coworkers at :cia: and :fedposting:
Waiting on some hog to say that it’s good actually because Miranda rights is wokeness
Also when this happens cop shows will edit out all scenes where someone is being read their rights during an arrest to make more time for ads
Free lawyers is a plot by marxists to drain tax dollars. Want representation? Get a job!
Saw this extremely naive lib take:
Whether one agrees with the overturning of Miranda’s constitutional protections, the ruling shines a light on the power of each state to reimagine and redefine policing. Yet too many states and towns are ill prepared to take on the responsibility of regulating policing, having long preferred to defer the task to the Supreme Court. Local and state policymaking needs to adapt quickly to this new reality by enacting three critical policies.
First, states should reassert and protect local authority over local police. They can do this by enacting new laws and state constitutional amendments that guarantee local freedom from state preemption on matters of policing and public safety, reserving the state’s role primarily to one that considers and establishes statewide standards for policing. Such protections will help inoculate local governments from the kinds of politicized preemptive actions taken by states like Texas and Georgia, who recently moved to deprive local governments from independently administering the finances of their own police departments.
Second, states should tear down the barriers around policing data. The rapid digitization of policing data in recent years permits police departments to economically track and store substantial repositories of information. However, these data remain largely out of public reach despite their significant potential for improving how law enforcement agencies function at both the departmental and officer levels. For example, a national team of researchers recently identified significant differences in use of force rates among police officers of different races in Chicago, having painstakingly compiled a massive dataset from records that were provided only after the researchers submitted multiple freedom of information requests to the city. Collecting, compiling, and publicly disclosing these data directly at the source could permit researchers to both identify new trends and track and revisit old ones to ensure their continued validity, providing policymakers with crucial information on how to shape policing policy.
Finally, states must take seriously their responsibility to establish statewide minimum standards for policing. This is crucial for improving policing across a state rather than leaving the adoption of best practices to the discretion of individual local departments. To do this, states could use an existing regulatory apparatus: Police Officer Standards and Training councils, or POSTs.
6 impossible things before breakfast, followed by brunch at The Resturaunt at the End of the Universe!
ahahahahahaha defend the local jurisdictions from state meddling but also instituting state enforced standards :data-laughing:
Fascism intensifying, not sure how to prepare for what comes next
Surely this isn't accurate, right? Like, I can't find anything other than this Hill op-ed that says Miranda rights are under threat, and it seems like a really bizarre thing to go after.
i mean it's not that weird. the courts are of course pro-cop and having to rule that a defendant's rights were violated because of Miranda is a thorn in their side.
