America is not just a country. It’s an idea. But who’s thinking it anyway?
Looking into the fog of time, most of the current right wing U.S. Supreme Court They believe that the original ideas of some very dead white men can be sacred.
With their flimsy base, they are dominated by Fiat.
Even if you call this Supreme Court’s current Crusaders, their approach is not conservative.
There is nothing stable and traditional about abandoning half-century civil rights and perhaps first-century democratic practices.
This is a collection of radical ideologies that have spent years projecting themselves to critics. For decades, Republicans have chosen activist judges, pretending to correct the notion of activist judges on the other side of the division.
This is the same excuse Fox News used for decades when cosplaying a real news show. It only corrected the prejudice on the other side.
Almost anything can be justified if the sucker can be convinced that the other side is cheating.
That little trick is the last haven for villains, dictators, and bankrupt real estate developers. It’s nice to see the Supreme Court following their logic.
This brings us to one of the last decisions in a very long list of reactionary and oppressive opinions last month: about the fringe concept that the Legislature can set its own rules for federal elections. Willingness to listen to the discussion. That includes choosing who you want to be president.
This was Donald Trump’s big dream a few weeks after his decisive defeat in the 2020 presidential election.
A surprising coincidence that this prominent group of legal scholars should stick to the election priorities of comically incompetent members of society who happened to appoint three people for a lifetime of unchecked power.
Who needs a nasty democracy when you can just have Republican rule?
This wonderfully undemocratic and non-American idea is now the founder, as most of the legislatures are gerrymandered by the huge Republican majority and the electoral colleges are biasing power to smaller states. Is in perfect agreement with the critics’ original intentions.
The Constitution may say that states can choose their own presidential voters as they wish.However, the electoral college was decided by a popularity vote since 19th A century when the state realized that all other ways of choosing voters early in the country’s life led to widespread corruption.
Therefore, returning to the original intentions of the founder is simply ignoring democracy for more than a century, and the very idea that the United States is somehow leading the free world.
Frankly, the threat to democracy posed by this Supreme Court is obvious and exists.
But it didn’t start with Donald Trump. And it doesn’t end with his off-stage handcuffs or shame-if either is possible with this madness multifaceted.
Twenty years ago, another Supreme Court undertook it to steal a Republican candidate’s election. The court decided to ignore all of its own noble principles of state rights. shut down Recount of votes by state order in Florida in 2000.
The reasoning is very blatantly corrupt, and the majority of the right wing is determined by itself. precedent..
The “winners” of the stolen election were George W. Bush, who appointed two judges, Samuel Alito and John Roberts, who had just voted to end the right to abortion we know. ..according to study If commissioned by a major press, a full state-wide recount would have passed the votes and presidency of the Florida Electoral College to Al Gore.
It was, as they say, a turning point that led to our current greatest turbulence. When the court became just another political tool, it began its death spiral.
A novel legal fantasy about the founder’s idea cannot overturn the right-wing Pucci.
For all things that aren’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, such as abortion, marriage, the internet, and democratically elected presidents, our right-wing Supreme Court likes what the founders think. I decided to imagine.
From July 4thOn holidays, it may seem ridiculous to observe that much of what is currently seen as an American idea wasn’t really a favorite idea of the founding father.
Their notion of a democratic republic was promising for men’s clubs, where land and human property allowed them to define their own freedoms.
They preferred that the president be elected to an electoral college made up of men like them. People could choose a home, but true democracy would be easily criticized by someone like Donald Trump.
If you want to go back to your original intentions, try to be a little more consistent.
The founders did not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power that this particular right-wing extremist had assumed. They did not say that they should be only nine or that they should serve until they die.
So Democrats, and a handful RepublicanI’m really interested in defending democracy, when it’s time to ignore the precedents and culture of their own courts and suppress the right-wing al-Ala who used the courts to seize power for themselves.
At the very least, a term limit can be introduced to allow each president to appoint two judges for each term.
The preamble to the Constitution speaks of a “more complete coalition,” as if American thinking was an ongoing task rather than a setback.
It was time for a radical reform of American democracy, including the Supreme Court, before the far right robbed it forever.
US Supreme Court poses a real threat to American democracy | Richard Wolff
Source link US Supreme Court poses a real threat to American democracy | Richard Wolff