Judicial Activism on the Rise: High Time for Reform in America's Conservative-dominated Supreme Court?
Judicial Activism on the Rise: High Time for Reform in America's Conservative-dominated Supreme Court?
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent term ended with a flurry of conservative-leaning decisions that have been met with shock and disapproval, particularly from the left. This conservative trend is seen as a reflection of the 6-3 conservative majority established during Trump's presidency. Noteworthy rulings include siding with a web designer who refused services to same-sex couples, ending affirmative action in colleges, and dismissing President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Yup, that’s generally what “in the pocket of the rich” means.
Any conflict of interest? LOL you'd be hard pressed to find any politician that hasn't had some COI transactions.
Just because somebody is in the pocket of the rich doesn’t mean that every single ruling will have something to do with money. You have an unrealistic expectation here as well.
That's why I asked you, tell me what case he's ruled on that he got bought off. I'm encouraging you to show me.
Here is another good place to start: https://time.com/5793956/supreme-court-loves-rich/
-
That's court cases from the 80's. How does that prove your point that our current SC is in the pocket of the rich?
-
You'd have to do more than show that sometimes the cases go against the 'marginalized' - you have to prove it's bad law. The SC is supposed to rule on if the law supports one side or not - it's not their place to empathize with one party over the other. You want the SC to rule more friendly to you? Get 'better' law makers in office.
No I did not. If you’re going to spend the time to debate you should at least understand what people have said.
You: The systems broken, I can't get what I want!
Me: It's up to your representatives, get involved, get better people in office
You: They call me a communist :(
I’m encouraging you to show me.
I think I'm alright. I'm not going to waste my time any further.
You: The systems broken, I can’t get what I want!
Me: It’s up to your representatives, get involved, get better people in office
You: They call me a communist :(
Why say anything if you're just gonna misrepresent what I've said?
I think I’m alright. I’m not going to waste my time on you any further.
I know, hard to make an argument when you just make wild claims.
Why say anything if you’re just gonna misrepresent what I’ve said?
That's what you said, like 2nd comment of our conversation.
I know, hard to make an argument when you just make wild claims.
No, it's just hard to talk with people who do not do so in good faith.
I asked you to support your claim that the reason why supreme court cases are being rule dhow they are is because they are in rich folks pockets.
You really couldn't, so I don't see why there would be a point to continue this convo.
You really couldn’t
You can lead a horse to water...
It takes a lot of logical leaps to go from 'someone paid for his vacation' to say 'they're just ruling with whatever rich person is sending them money! I can't point to any specific people....or cases they ruled on, BUT THEY ARE!!"
I can't explain something to somebody who doesn't want to listen to the explanation.
You can't explain anything because you can't prove what you need to about your statement. You made a statement, but you failed to prove any part of it. I've read every single word you've wrote and gone to each of your sources.
Show me how money has altered any of the sitting current justices opinions.
I’ve read every single word you’ve wrote and gone to each of your sources.
Reading something doesn't mean anything if you don't understand it.
Show me how money has altered any of the sitting current justices opinions.
See above and actually read in good faith.
Reading something doesn’t mean anything if you don’t understand it.
Hahaha, come back with an actual argument, instead of some loose 'see he went on a paid vacation, therefore he just gets paid to rule court cases for rich people.'
You made the claim, I asked which case you thought that they ruled on based on corruption, and what their flawed legal reasoning was.
You can't back anything up that you've said. If you want to be convincing, you gotta back up your claims.
-