• xenomor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    220
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    As an organization, they are actively and intentionally interfering with electoral politics. Their lifetime appointments were designed to remove them from that dynamic, but they have decided to bypass that principle. The structure of our federal government is designed to deal with problems like this by having the other branches check them when they step out of line like this. Unfortunately, neither of the other branches have shown any desire to take action. As a result we are currently caught in a self-reinforcing death spiral of anti-democratic corruption that will eventually undo the union unless something changes. What a time to be alive.

          • MagicShel@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            28
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            If you don’t have enough people to win the war by picking up pens and voting, you definitely don’t have enough to win by picking up guns and shooting.

            • PunnyName@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Depends. You might not even need to shoot. Those anti mask fuckers got what they wanted by protesting while armed to the teeth.

              • MagicShel@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                5 months ago

                If they lose by less than the margin of Covid deaths that’s going to be hilarious. Until they realize that it was a conspiracy all along and they were tricked into not masking.

              • MagicShel@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                15
                ·
                5 months ago

                No. You’re going to have to walk me through the thought process that led you to ask that. My whole point is if you can’t win through voting, don’t try to start a war because you aren’t going to win that either.

                • Steve@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Sorry that was half a thought. The country is divided 50/50, both sides see themselves as good and the other evil. Anyone starts shooting and you got a civil war.

                  • Crikeste@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Republicans have already started shooting. Just look at the rise in hate crimes over the last 8 years.

                  • rayyy@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    The country is divided 50/50, both sides see themselves as good and the other evil

                    Well one side views it that way. The other side sees themselves as intelligent, compassionate and informed while they see the other side as confused, angry, misinformed and violent.

          • Crikeste@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s the literal reason for the 2nd amendment, there is no arguing that fact.

            • havocpants@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I just finished Lost Judgment, he’s probably out prosecuting his own client for a different crime at his own defence appeal as we speak. Oh, I thought you said Takuya Yagami.

        • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          Have you tried voting for the party that wants to remove corruption and expand the packed court?

          • PunnyName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Not with First Past The Post voting still a huge factor in how things play out. I do vote local, however.

            But violence solves lots of problems.

            • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              ???

              FPTP reduces your options to 2 (sometimes 3) and one of the options literally holds the stances you express worry about.

              • PunnyName@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                FPTP prevents 3rd party candidates from being viable. Until we get an Alternative Vote, there’s little that can be done to get third parties successfully winning elections.

                • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  and? Just vote for the candidate who best represents you. Bonus points if they want election reform.

                  • barsquid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Why bother limiting it to candidates? I could just write down the person who best represents me.

                  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    Throughout all of human history, the only treatment for a plague of conservatism has been direct violence. Pacifism has never cured conservatism.

                    It’s unfortunate that the normal people must walk on egg-shells when discussing the cure for a disease while the diseaae itself publicly calls for extermination of the normal people. If the normal people are to survive this, we must prepare and train together. That means discussing this issue and how to solve it. Unfortunately, there has never been a peaceful solution to this problem. Violence has always been required.

                    If you have an alternative treatment for this disease, please feel free to share it. Otherwise, why insult those of us who are willing and able to address this problem?

    • Snowclone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      All Biden has to do is appoint 300 more judges. Maybe 1,000. Let’s see the GOP stuff that court.

    • tacosplease@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      The executive branch (Biden) would have expanded the courts. Manchin and Simena refused to cast the needed votes to make it work. It’s up to us to elect more Democrats so we don’t have to rely on our worst ones to do the right thing.

      Look at what a mess the House has been when the Republicans have had a handful of votes to spare. Dems have no spare votes, and they’ve still managed to get a lot done. Put a few more Democrats in the Senate, and then we don’t have to cater to the quasi-conservative senators in the party.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      While I agree with the sentiment, this isn’t correct. They aren’t actively interfering. They are refusing to interfer when it’s thier job. And the structure was designed to remove them from undue influence of the other branches… not from politics in general, or from outside influence. Fact is, noone is truely impartial, and outside influences are pretty much impossible to remove. So the whole idea of a court that is above that is just ludicrous.