The Supreme Court Is Not Done Remaking America
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июл 2024
- When the Supreme Court wrapped up its term last week, much of the focus was one the ruling that gave former President Donald J. Trump sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution. But another set of rulings that generated less attention could have just as big an impact on American government and society.
Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The Times, looks back at the Supreme Court term.
Guest: Adam Liptak (www.nytimes.com/by/adam-liptak) , , who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments.
Background reading:
• In a volatile term, a fractured Supreme Court remade America (www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/us...) .
• Here’s a guide to the major Supreme Court decisions in 2024 (www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...) .
• In video: How a fractured Supreme Court ruled this term (www.nytimes.com/video/us/poli...) .
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily (nytimes.com/thedaily?smid=pc-t...) . Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.
These talks assume that people accused of domestic violence as already guilty before any due process. That's haw this is always framed.
June 24 marked one year since the Supreme Court, in the landmark Dobbs case, overturned Roe v. Wade, shockingly reversing almost 50 years of precedent to strip away what had been a constitutional right to an abortion.
You see, the conservative justices in the majority of that 5-4 decision argued the Roe decision was “egregiously wrong” because the Constitution never mentioned abortion. That meant, the justices said, abortion couldn’t possibly be a constitutional right and must be left to the states.
It’s one of Republicans' longest-running talking points: “Don’t legislate from the bench.”
Doing anything else would amount to activist judges “making things up,” or as the phrase goes, “legislating from the bench.” To hear Republicans talk, that’s pretty much the worst thing a federal judge could do.
It’s one of Republicans' longest-running talking points: “Don’t legislate from the bench.”
Now that Republican appointees are a supermajority on the Supreme Court, you would think that this majority would steer clear of anything that might look like it was writing laws and thereby undermining the people’s representatives in Congress.
But you’d be wrong.
Today’s conservative justices are happily imposing their reactionary legislative vision on America, not just by interpreting laws, but by effectively rewriting them, in order to implement unpopular policies that could never get passed through Congress. Separation of powers be damned.
Take some of the biggest, most divisive, most consequential issues in American life right now: student loan relief, climate change, voting rights, labor laws and gun control. Now the Supreme Court decides what happens on those issues. Not you. Not me. Not our elected representatives.
Like on Friday when the Supreme Court decided 6-3 that 43 million Americans would not receive student loan relief under President Joe Biden’s plan.
The conservatives ruled the program had not been explicitly approved by Congress in the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act.
But that law allows the Education Department to “waive or modify” financial assistance programs “as the Secretary deems necessary” in a national emergency.
Like the Covid pandemic we were still in when Biden announced his plan last year.
In her dissent, liberal Justice Elena Kagan slammed her conservative colleagues, writing: “The result here is that the Court substitutes itself for Congress and the Executive Branch in making national policy about student-loan forgiveness.”
Got crippling student debt from predatory loans? Tough. The Supreme Court says you can’t get relief.
Got crippling student debt from predatory loans? Tough. The Supreme Court says you can’t get relief.
On climate change, the Supreme Court has undermined Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency twice in the last year alone.
In West Virginia v. EPA, a 6-3 majority ruled the EPA exceeded its authority by regulating carbon emissions from power plants. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority: “It is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme. … A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself.”
Except that Congress did explicitly give the EPA the authority to use the “best system of emission reduction” when it passed the Clean Air Act in the '60s.
As Kagan put it in her dissent, “The Court will not allow the Clean Air Act to work as Congress instructed. The Court, rather than Congress, will decide how much regulation is too much.”
Then in May in Sackett v. EPA, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in a precedent-setting opinion that the Clean Water Act only allows the EPA to regulate wetlands that have “a continuous surface connection” to “waters of the United States.”
Except that’s not what the law says. The law applies to “all waters of the United States” and explicitly wetlands "adjacent” to those waters. But instead of applying the law as written, Alito just changed the meaning of the word “adjacent” to mean “adjoining.”
You want Congress to decide how to protect our air and water? Tough. The Supreme Court decides that now.
Next, look at voting rights, where in the last 10 years, the Supreme Court effectively rewrote the core protections of the historic Voting Rights Act, first passed by Congress in 1965.
In the last 10 years, the Supreme Court effectively rewrote the core protections of the historic Voting Rights Act, first passed by Congress in 1965.
Congress passed the VRA explicitly to force southern states with a history of disenfranchising Black voters through seemingly neutral voting requirements to get approval from the federal government before they could implement any new voting laws.
This “preclearance” was such a crucial part of the VRA that Congress voted overwhelmingly to extend the preclearance provision in 1982 and again in 2006.
But in 2013, a 5-4 majority led by Roberts decided that voter suppression laws were no longer a problem in those states. That ruling in Shelby County v. Holder effectively voided the preclearance provisions that Congress had voted overwhelmingly to extend just seven years earlier.
In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee in 2021, the 6-3 majority upheld an Arizona election law that imposed burdens upon Native Americans living on reservations because the majority felt the burdens alleged were “modest when considering Arizona’s ‘political processes’ as a whole.”
As Kagan noted in her dissent, “The Court has (yet again) rewritten-in order to weaken-a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses.”
Do you want Congress to protect voting rights and stop racist rules from suppressing minority votes? Tough. The Supreme Court is writing the laws now.
Recommended
THE MEHDI HASAN SHOW
Donald Trump is running a 'make America fascist' campaign
Now look at labor rights, where this anti-worker, anti-union court has legislated from the bench to create new rights for corporations, and against their employees, in two major cases.
In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, which enshrined the right of workers to join unions and to organize orderly strikes. To resolve disputes between workers and employers, the law also established the National Labor Relations Board.
This court has hacked away at that system.
You want Congress to protect labor rights? Tough. The Supreme Court has other policy ideas.
This happened most crucially in 2018 with Janus v. AFSCME, when the Roberts court struck down the long-standing practice of mandatory union “agency fees” being deducted from employees’ paychecks.
“There is no sugarcoating today’s opinion,” Kagan wrote in her dissent. “The majority overthrows a decision entrenched in this Nation’s law-and in its economic life-for over 40 years.”
You want Congress to protect labor rights? Tough. The Supreme Court has other policy ideas.
In the absence of much meaningful action by Congress, this Supreme Court has done more than any legislature to radically alter gun policy.
In Washington, Chicago and New York state, over more than a century, lawmakers passed tailored gun regulations, but in recent years, the Supreme Court has gutted them.
In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, five justices struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban, deciding that the Second Amendment wasn’t about colonial militias but about the right of the average Joe to brandish a Glock.
In 2010, that ruling was extended to the rest of the country with McDonald v. Chicago.
Then in 2022, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the court went a step further and decided that the Second Amendment also says Americans are guaranteed a right to carry guns in public, contradicting New York’s century-old law requiring gun owners to show proper cause for doing so and obtain a license.
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it during oral arguments, “You’re asking us to make the choice for the legislature.”
As liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it during oral arguments, describing the implications of a court stepping in on a state’s legal turf, “You’re asking us to make the choice for the legislature.”
The six conservative Supreme Court justices were more than happy to make that choice for the state Legislature. States only get to put limits on really dangerous things, like voting rights and abortion.
You want Congress to stop mass shootings? Tough. This Supreme Court is calling the shots.
Making the choice for the legislature - that’s exactly what this Supreme Court now does, on a regular basis, and on a range of key issues. It takes issues decided by the people’s representatives and then re-decides them in a manner that pleases the conservative supermajority on the bench. So an elected, and Democratic-controlled, Congress can write and pass a progressive law, but an unelected and very conservative Supreme Court can just rewrite it.
Confidently. Brazenly. Shamelessly.
These are not neutral judges. These are politicians in robes.
This op-ed is an adaptation of a segment of "The Mehdi Hasan Show" on Peacock on June 22.
Mehdi Hasan
Mehdi Hasan is host of "The Mehdi Hasan Show" on Peacock and an MSNBC political analyst. He is a former senior columnist for The Intercept, for which he launched the "Deconstructed" podcast. He was also the presenter of "UpFront" and "Head to Head" on Al Jazeera English. He is the author of two books and the winner of the Society of Professional Journalists' 2018 Sigma Delta Chi Award for Online Column Writing.
CONTINUE READING
How about free college for me too. Not just a few.
@@user-ph5el5wc9q
Are you in H.S. ?
GO TO COUNSELOR OFFICE
SEE IF YOU QU A LIFY FOR PELL GRANT
Ya know?
@Chennault, *There is no constitutional right to an abortion.*
This is part of Project 25.
@@user-ph5el5wc9qdid you take responsibility of your self and applied?
...and they started almost 15 years ago with Citizens United.
They started around 1970 with a plan to control the American Judiciary written by the then future SCOTUS Justice Lewis Powell. The famoust "Lewis Powell Memorandum" was written in 1971 and leaked to the public during the next year. Bellow is a link to the memorandum - and bellow that is the famous 1970 NYT article by Milton Friedman that basically made business be only about money and nothing else. That should make any voter in the US wonder about the so called "Deep State". The term was coined by a long time Congress staffer Mike Lofgren when he published the book "Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government" in 2016. Turning such a serious and well defined term as "Deep State" into a cuckoo idea was a stroke of genius (if someone did really plan to do that - most of the time things happen by chance).
Lewis Powell Memorandum 1971 "POWELL MEMORANDUM: ATTACK ON AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM" scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/powellmemo/
NYT 1970 "A Friedman doctrine - The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits": www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html
There are no consp***** the***** (which I call 'cuckoo ideas', btw) - there are only plans. Plans are complex, involve a lot of people and it's impossible to keep them secret - and, therefore, they are always known. Sometimes we have the full plan - like in the case of the Powell Memo - and sometimes (most of the time, actually) even though we know the plan we can't predict what the consequences will be - like in the case of the Miltron Friedman 1970 NYT article.
As a foreigner, I find it puzzling that the American people did not take seriously the plan that had its goals outlined and quite predictable consequences. Cuckoo Ideas are tremendously dangerous and damaging: they are dangerous because they can lead to good and honest people ending up making really evil things; they are damaging because they distract people from the real, public but complex plans around us. It is a lot more work to read the Powell Memo than it is to believe in the Frog/Cat alliance for Universal Domination, after all.
Yes. Congress, do your job. Legislate what it is to be a human.
It simply gave employers the same rights as unionized employees.
@user-hw6dz4nf5l universal healthcare would make it easier to ask for more money or just move on to something else.
@@user-hw6dz4nf5l When I see one summoned to jury duty.
Best judges money can buy.
You're probably on welfare
This is the problem, judges are not about money and who can be bought. These judges are about helping America and the laws protecting all Americans. But now we see that judges are being paid lots of money to forget about the American people.
Best Federal Agencies money can buy
Project 25 and Chevron say it all.
What do you think is going to happen when Supreme Court justices are taking lobbyist money.
They’ll say the constitution supports it.
They'll accept gratuities after the judgment. They've already decided that's not bribery.
Same thing as all congress and senate taking lobbyist money
They functionally already are. Just look at Thomas and Alito
Also www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf
As long as they are conservative views and we have the majority l.
Deer hunters are not gun nuts. Despite this fact, bump stocks are useful for deer hunters who prefer hamburger to steak.
These appointees do not represent the will of the American People.
It is clear that the right wing judges choose an outcome and then use texturalism or originalism to legitimize the choice. They choose to be right wing, but not too right wing so as not to seem right wing. Their actions to decide FOR liberal outcomes with a less than permanent decion, allows them to re-visit the issue later, at which time they may feel more emboldened to decide more to the right.
It was obvious the Fix was in when they started using their own made up Findings of Fact (they are supposed to rely on those of the lower court and only deal with the law itself). Complete lies that they pull out of the air to justify decisions that magically bend toward power grabs leading to the Constitutional Convention (THE END GAME).
This is a very enlightening comment because that is exactly how a conservative would describe the "left wing" judges.
@@MsGardener77 So, from the three types of "tests" (textual, originalist, practical) I will admit that left wing selectively applies the latter two, while the right the former two in order to justify one decision or another.
@@MsGardener77 Even in the absence of any evidence?
Funny how neither of those methods were applied to Indian treaties that have gone before the court
I love how this guy explains the rulings.. he is very well spoken
In an 1850 speech entitled, “The American Idea” and given to the New England Anti-Slavery Convention, Parker defined “the American Idea” as, “a democracy, that is, a government of all the people, by all the people, for all the people; of course, a government after the principles of eternal justice, the unchanging law of God; for shortness’ sake, I will call it the idea of Freedom.”
It is not the Supreme Court, it is the Clarence Thomas court😂🎉
Thomas makes the most money and has the most say on the rulings.
And neither is the New York Times. (Goose, meet Gander.)
The political Left gets to see what it means when most members of a Court were chosen by one party.
So the US supreme court is even better then I thought.
Baby's first trolling attempt? Don't quit your day job.
Well they may make a move for white hooded head coverings as part of their dress code…..just saying
So the power to make regulatory rulings will be taken from unelected bureaucrats and given to other unelected bureaucrats (federal judges) who have little or no technical expertise and are appointed by the president. What could go wrong?
Oh man, now judges are the ones responsible for interpreting the law? Welcome to Trump's America.
Physicist Thomas, Pharmacist Gorsuch, Environmental Scientist Alito, and Physician Kavanaugh will take care of us 🙃🫠
Trump's America is where judges get to determine that the amount of microplastics corporations get to dump into your water and bloodstream is in fact WAY HIGHER than we had always thought, based on what the experts had told us. Thank you judges!!!
@@itsallfunandgames723the executive branch it might surprise you to learn also has to interpret the law, in order to execute the law. Crazy right?
My impression is that Chevron wasn't new, either, it was confirming a societal common practice that emerged with the larger federal government, and was more or less de facto from the time of the New Deal. (I might be wrong about this.) EDIT: Ah, about 21 minutes in, my impression on this is confirmed.
As the alphabet agencies grew more and more corrupt, The Chevron Deference was terribly abused against law abiding citizens. The power to write laws has been returned to Elected officials, most of whom carry law degrees.
Well, we are done with them!! And since they live amongst the rest of us either the government needs to take charge and clean this up.Or you're gonna leave it to the people to do it.And I don't think that's what you want to do!! 😢
Ok, so I dont even own a firearm yet I know that a bump stock does NOT turn a semi auto firearm into an automatic or full auto weapon. They are NOT transformers. There is an argument for gun legislation but it is thru thoughtful, rational understanding of both perspectives.
If a journalist is going to discuss this, it should be from a position of authority and not one of ignorance.
Fun fact, I have seen a 2 by 4 used as a bump stock.
Is there a plan to restrict the use of 2 by 4s?
Look on youtube for a video on how to make a DIY bumpstock, its not nuclear physics.
The law actually specifies that any device added to a weapon to make it function like a machine gun is illegal. And the decision rested on the meaning of the definition of “single function.”
@@BellePal So just because there is a law, doesn't mean it is well written or easily enforceable. Maybe take my suggestion an youtube DIY bumpstock or bumpstock out of a 2 by 4. You might agree how difficult it is to enforce a law or regulation.
There many of common hunting firearms that can be operated very quickly, giving the unfamiliar a sense that an the weapon is automatic.
My point is if we as a nation really want to allow the general public to own and use firearms, there will be very very little that can be done to limit a determined individual from doing harm to the general population.
Those individuals will just find a different strategy or just use a car or a bomb.
Mental health is a subject that rarely discussed in this context and it needs to be paramount.
I think we need common sense gun control, starting with the death penalty implemented immediately upon conviction through due process, for any crime committed with a gun.. but it has to be implemented by Congress and it which takes a 60 percent majority according to the constitution! The ATF, supreme court, and the president through executive decision, does not have the authority or the power to circumvent Congress or our countries constitution no matter how you try and spin it!"
Having a unelected official pass rules and regulations that cost tax payers billions of dollars a year is taxation without representation, wich is unconstitutional...
It seems these decisions collectively emphasise that the presidential election is so very important 😂😊
Vote Blue against republicans fascism !!
*IMO
We are ' We the people, of the people, by the people & we shall never bow down to a false God !
2024 is the Epitome
of what we will never stand for in our government.
What is the point of 1984?
More broadly, the novel examines the role of truth and facts within societies and the ways in which they can be manipulated. The story takes place in an imagined future. The current year is uncertain, but believed to be 1984. Much of the world is in perpetual war.
Thomas never saw a firearm he didn't like or a gun safety statute or regulation that he did like. Thomas is a wholly owned subsidiary of the gun lobby. Adjudicated domesticate abusers owning firearms? Clarence, "I'm cool with that, and I'm sure the Founding Father's would be too. What could go wrong?"
The court does not have the authority or jurisdiction to overturn a legislative order that the members of Congress have implemented into law! This includes any agencies or organizations that are instrumental in implementing this legislation or other new issues that are being discussed for the legitimacy of the law! And the Supreme Court has no power or authority to decide what the legislative branch is seeking to regulate or enforce in any law or procedure that it has passed!!! The Supreme Court does not hold any elected authority over the other two branches of government! If the Supreme Court has an issue that is legally valid and necessary to redress the legislative bills,it is required to have the members of Congress and the agencies that are being directed by Congress to enforce the laws that it passes be brought before them to discuss the law and regulations that they have passed and they have the only authority to remove or alter the law in any form of judicial review!! The Supreme Court stated in its decision that they are the only authority that can interpret the laws and decide if a violation or vagueness of law wasn’t specific enough to regulate a specific aspect! The Supreme Court does not make laws or any other authority to regulate or enforce upon the country or its people!! The Supreme Court is only to hand down decisions that are based solely upon the laws that govern the public and constitution! The Supreme Court has interpreted the executive branch’s power in two different ways in its own favor and protection! It’s invalid interference and interpretation in the current president’s power to enforce the laws that he was granted by congress to use to help the people and the president to make the decisions without the fear of being undermined and hurting his authority and further national decision making authority to use his power to lead the voters who elected him as the president!! And the Supreme Court has given the ex president and convicted felon who attempted a violent coup and incited an insurrection to remain in power after his loss to his opponent immunity from prosecution or interference from any legal action or challenges to lessen his power to act without any fear of being held accountable for any crimes he committed in his official duties!! So they have denied the acting president the right to do his official duties and to remove his executive powers to deliver presidential mandates to support his citizens in a compromised position! But they granted the ex president who has brought the case to court as a criminal defendant who has interfered with a federal presidential election and has been criminally indicted for his leadership of the violent insurrection against the United States Congress to overthrow the presidential election counting in the capitol building! This is the case that is the legitimate question of the president having total immunity from prosecution and investigation for the crimes committed violating the Constitution and laws that he swore to protect and uphold! It is not remotely humorous that the government is breaking every single law and procedure to prevent the people from being able or given the right to witness justice and integrity of a high ranking government official who is charged with crimes against our democracy and people with a criminal prosecution and decision to make the citizens understand who they are voting to be the leader of this nation!!! The court has no problem with pushing through court proceedings that are the directly connected to this matter and placing them in prison for their part in the crime! Even if someone has already been convicted and served their sentences for being the one not elected because of their crimes that influenced the presidential election outcome!
The court said that it doesn't have authority nor do agencies have the role of Congress in making law. You haven't read the decision.
First of all, the Supreme Court justices should not be any political party!! Because Justice is supposed to be blind, which means they can't take sides. They have to just read the Constitution and answer exactly and govern exactly from the Constitution completely illegal what they did, and they should not get by with it!
Some justices think the Constitution is a "living document" and don't actually care what it says. Others do. That explains most of the difference you see.
@ShankarSivarajan Your response makes no sense.
These right wing judgments were the ones entirely detached from the constitution, while paradoxically claiming to read the constitution "in its original context."
Many of their decisions simply make up historical contexts, without any reference AT ALL to the constitution.
For example, they rule against hundreds of years of precedent AND the constitution in making the president above the law and in Chevron.
Shame on them and shame on you for trying to gaslight us into thinking that the minority is the radical wing here!
Go blow your smoke elsewhere. Anyone who grew up in America and isn't in a *cult* knows that we wrote our constitution to REMOVE a monarch, not to enshrine a new one!
The grey lady is not what she once was.This guy doesn't talk about how the suprene court is bonght and paid for.
Chevron case was huge, this Supreme Court is really fighting for the little guy!
Exactly 💯!
True ☝️ 👍
You've all got some serious disillusion ahead if you actually believe the garbage you're writing. @@gooser__43
@@gooser__43Clarence Thomas parks his, er.... "donated" RV in Wal-Mart parking lots. Loves to vacation with "the little guy" 😂😂😂
Horseshit lies! Traitor Trump is not above the law !
It’s curious to me how vague and far ranging the word “conservative” can be. Sometimes it means being against the separation of church and state. Sometimes it means being hyper partisan for the special interests of big corporations. Sometimes it means that the President should be king, but without a professional administration corps. Sometimes it means the state mustn’t interfere in individual liberty, but other times it means that states should have far ranging powers to do just that.
And in all these diverse and sometimes contradictory issues, the Supreme Court is displaying a jihadist fervency. It’s weird.
Do you have any idea how many women use this restraining order on thier boyfriends or husbands because the wife or girlfriend is having an affair, and they can go to a magistrate and lie about them and tske away thier 2nd amendment rights without any evidence whatsoever.
Sure lies happen on both sides.But these people that are in those positions are pretty good about reading through the bullshit.
From the evidence that they collect to know who's lying in.Who's telling the truth.
Cheating doesn't preclude someone from protection from harassment or from being shot (which becomes more likely).
So we know David is a gun nut.
Do you? Have you ever tried to get a restraining order? It’s pretty hard.
8:17 no, I do not agree that this supreme court is open minded, as far as I can tell, they are very inconsistent in their judicial philosophy and seem to rule based on preference which is why their opinions seem to contradict each other because it seems to read like after the fact justifications as opposed to philosophical frameworks that led to the decision… in my opinion
I think this particular case was one in which they thought it would look bad if they went against domestic violence so they found a justification even if a strict application of their previous opinion would have led to opposite decision by the same majority as in the previous case
Anything to remove me from your life and future it ends so well for you
A jobs program for government funded lawyers
Oh God no, not a times podcast. Thanks but no thanks
One of the big things that stuck out to me is what appears to be a lack of familiarity or concern amongst the majority of the Supreme Court about how a trial court works; the immunity decision, I think, demonstrated the most profound disconnect between the Court’s understanding of trial practice and its ultimate goals/holdings. Rahimi suffers from a similar disconnect-
Some of them have been paid off, that is the problem, we never had this issue . But now we have to look at all of them that have taken money over the Constitution. Now we have females rights gone because of money. This is like taking woman rights to vote away, now woman will come out and vote so much. There are more woman votes then men in America, Trump will be defeated again.
The MAGA 6 on the Extreme Court also suffer from a lack of knowledge of the real-world consequences of their actions. Real-world familiarity? How many of them have ever been through a TSA line at an airport or bought their own groceries?
@@jim2376 I don’t agree, I wasn’t trying to incite any argument just giving my two cents on the reasoning offered by the Court
Ya think?
This was very informative thank you very much
Unmaking America is a more apt word
Time for impartial incorruptible AGI judges
Why, because they destroyed the corrupt agencies ability to regulate for whoever pays them bribes? (jobs in industry when they leave their agency)
nothing much would change lol.. Current scotus is literal, one that follows past of usa. AGI would do the same, follow precedents. Unless it started to take over the world.
I'm not a republican, but I do think a more conservative SCOTUS is preferable to a progressive one, since it mainly serves as a bulwark against the excesses of progressive lawmakers around the country.
What excesses are you referring to?
So you are saying SCOTUS should be a blatantly political bulwark then? One that is not elected, not subject to professional ethical standards, and appointed for life? I can't conceive of another set up that would reward abuses and "excesses" as much as that...
True ☝️ 👍
And what about the excesses of the fashy right?
@@Mr._Wizard such as?
@@MonkeyBall2453presidential immunity, project 2025 utilizing schedule f to hire loyalists in federal positions, Dobbs rulings over women's health
6:17
This is some of the worst analysis.
Can the Supreme Court be ignored by other branches of the US if some of their rulings are unconstitutional ?
The supreme court commands no armies, so they can be ignored fairly easily by any politician with a flicker of bravery. The far-right counts on libs being too obsessed with decorum and "decency" to play dirty.
I call Mercy Supreme Court you have eroded so much of my freedoms this year
@LarryPutski *No one in America has lost any freedom whatsoever,*
Failure
It's time for America to change the Supreme Court. Expanding it to 13-15 should provide enough judges so that the law will decide issues instead of bribery.
The two abortion cases in no way expanded abortion access. let’s be clear. They chose to go with the status quo in the short term to avoid being seen as restricting abortion before the election.
Sweeping is egregious. Hardly sweeping 😊
The reason we have an independent supreme is the reason we don’t have a Cuban type dictatorship
Lets pivot PIVOT 😂😂
Thank you NYT
Good 👍
This paper needs to be banned.
What the fuck are you going to do about it?
Trump 2024 🇺🇲
Putin is this you!!
These trumpers and their limited vocabularies 😆😆😆
@@RunOfTheHind They take their cues from trumpy, whose vocabulary is "very, very powerful."
Nah
This is by far the best supreme court in modern times and with the likelihood of a Trump landslide, it’s only going to get better 🇺🇸