4 ms·

Freedoms should not be granted by courts. Nor should we rely on executive orders to do that - they can be overturned on a whim. We have legislatures to make f

Freedoms should not be granted by courts. Nor should we rely on executive orders to do that - they can be overturned on a whim. We have legislatures to make freedoms the law, if they'd do their jobs for us. They can only seem to agree enough to give payouts to their donors, though. When they're not busy fighting vapid culture war issues.

hedora 5y ago
A large majority of the US voted against the presidents that appointed the conservatives on this court, and this court has been systematically stripping citizens of the right to vote and have their votes counted. Your argument is akin to a bully yelling “stop hurting yourself!” while they bang a kid’s head against the wall. The draft opinion uses similar logic when it argues the decision doesn’t subjugate women. They are “not without representation”, after all. Well great, by that logic, I guess the court is planning to go back to giving blacks 1/10th of a vote. “Not without representation”, after all.
- kcplate 5y ago
  > A large majority of the US voted against the presidents that appointed the conservatives on this court. No offense, but why do people still think this matters? The US is not a democracy, it’s a republic of democratic states and this is by design. If you want the country to be a democracy, destroy or amend the constitution and remake the country.
  - dap 5y ago
    I don't understand your confusion. As you said, if people don't like something about the system, they can push for change. A first step in pushing for change is pointing out what sucks about the status quo, right? (If you're confused about why people might think the fact you quoted sucks, for one, it's easy to see it as an example of a tyranny by a minority that the constitution is intended to protect against.)
    - kcplate 5y ago
      There is no confusion here. I just have a problem with the blanket assumption that the majority is always right and therefore the majority should impose its will. The majority might be right in some cases, and sometimes not in others. Frankly when the majority is not right…its generally VERY very wrong.
  - fredophile 5y ago
    The system isn't static. There have been changes before so there is no reason it can't be changed again. The House of Representatives has 435 people. The size used to change after each census but they stopped increasing it early in the 20th century. This makes the system less democratic than it originally was and favours less populated states. The electoral college is based on the number of representatives each state has do it is also less democratic than it used to be.
  - markoman 5y ago
    The problem is that laws are being forced on people against their wishes, and that the electoral college which made this possible is a rarity among large developed countries. There just isn't a need or excuse for it in a mature country. The fact that we're a representative democracy doesn't justify the existence of the electoral college. The U.S. is indeed a democracy, but it is not a direct democracy. It shouldn't be used as an excuse to wheel in a bunch of tyranny.
bern4444 5y ago
Freedoms are ours only to be taken away by courts and government. However you feel about this decision, it is undoubtedly reducing individual freedoms.
- TrispusAttucks 5y ago
  > However you feel about this decision, it is undoubtedly reducing individual freedoms. Not from the perspective of the baby.
- verdverm 5y ago
  If we didn't have courts and governments, your freedoms would be taken by others. Just look back 1000+ years
dap 5y ago
Is it not more accurate to say that the court interpreted the Constitution as _already granting_ that freedom? Unrelated to that: > We have legislatures to make freedoms the law, if they'd do their jobs for us. Yes, but it's important to recognize that this position presumes the status quo is basically okay (maybe not great, but okay). If the status quo is oppressive to you for whatever reason, you might not be so jazzed about a system with so many checks and balances that require overwhelming majorities to pass even popular changes. (I'm not saying it's a bad system. But I wish we were more candid about this really significant tradeoff.)
titzer 5y ago
> We have legislatures to make freedoms the law, Amendment IX was specifically written so that legislatures would not have to enumerate all rights.

hedora 5y ago

A large majority of the US voted against the presidents that appointed the conservatives on this court, and this court has been systematically stripping citizens of the right to vote and have their votes counted. Your argument is akin to a bully yelling “stop hurting yourself!” while they bang a kid’s head against the wall. The draft opinion uses similar logic when it argues the decision doesn’t subjugate women. They are “not without representation”, after all. Well great, by that logic, I guess the court is planning to go back to giving blacks 1/10th of a vote. “Not without representation”, after all.

kcplate 5y ago
> A large majority of the US voted against the presidents that appointed the conservatives on this court. No offense, but why do people still think this matters? The US is not a democracy, it’s a republic of democratic states and this is by design. If you want the country to be a democracy, destroy or amend the constitution and remake the country.
- dap 5y ago
  I don't understand your confusion. As you said, if people don't like something about the system, they can push for change. A first step in pushing for change is pointing out what sucks about the status quo, right? (If you're confused about why people might think the fact you quoted sucks, for one, it's easy to see it as an example of a tyranny by a minority that the constitution is intended to protect against.)
  - kcplate 5y ago
    There is no confusion here. I just have a problem with the blanket assumption that the majority is always right and therefore the majority should impose its will. The majority might be right in some cases, and sometimes not in others. Frankly when the majority is not right…its generally VERY very wrong.
- fredophile 5y ago
  The system isn't static. There have been changes before so there is no reason it can't be changed again. The House of Representatives has 435 people. The size used to change after each census but they stopped increasing it early in the 20th century. This makes the system less democratic than it originally was and favours less populated states. The electoral college is based on the number of representatives each state has do it is also less democratic than it used to be.
- markoman 5y ago
  The problem is that laws are being forced on people against their wishes, and that the electoral college which made this possible is a rarity among large developed countries. There just isn't a need or excuse for it in a mature country. The fact that we're a representative democracy doesn't justify the existence of the electoral college. The U.S. is indeed a democracy, but it is not a direct democracy. It shouldn't be used as an excuse to wheel in a bunch of tyranny.

bern4444 5y ago

Freedoms are ours only to be taken away by courts and government. However you feel about this decision, it is undoubtedly reducing individual freedoms.

TrispusAttucks 5y ago
> However you feel about this decision, it is undoubtedly reducing individual freedoms. Not from the perspective of the baby.
verdverm 5y ago
If we didn't have courts and governments, your freedoms would be taken by others. Just look back 1000+ years

dap 5y ago

Is it not more accurate to say that the court interpreted the Constitution as _already granting_ that freedom? Unrelated to that: > We have legislatures to make freedoms the law, if they'd do their jobs for us. Yes, but it's important to recognize that this position presumes the status quo is basically okay (maybe not great, but okay). If the status quo is oppressive to you for whatever reason, you might not be so jazzed about a system with so many checks and balances that require overwhelming majorities to pass even popular changes. (I'm not saying it's a bad system. But I wish we were more candid about this really significant tradeoff.)

titzer 5y ago

> We have legislatures to make freedoms the law, Amendment IX was specifically written so that legislatures would not have to enumerate all rights.