5 ms·
> (including the supreme court) This seems like paranoid thinking. The Supreme Court has shifted ideologically to the right, but I haven’t seen any evidence t
by such12 4y ago
> (including the supreme court)
This seems like paranoid thinking. The Supreme Court has shifted ideologically to the right, but I haven’t seen any evidence they are part of a conspiracy to end democracy.
- hedora 4y agoHere's some evidence. They ruled to allow state legislatures to override voters by changing state law to allow that: https://news.yahoo.com/analysis-supreme-court-tilted-election-090010857.html https://news.yahoo.com/analysis-supreme-court-tilted-electio... and an upcoming case to watch, where they're expected to further undermine laws: https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1106866830/supreme-court-to-take-on-controversial-election-law-case https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1106866830/supreme-court-to-t...
- such12 4y ago> Here's some evidence. These are opinion pieces. > They ruled to allow state legislatures to override voters by changing state law to allow that No they didn’t. Nothing in the pieces linked states this. > and an upcoming case to watch, where they're expected to further undermine laws: This isn’t a meaningful sentence.
- freejazz 4y ago"These are opinion pieces." That refer to facts such as throwing out the voting rights act, and the decision on gerrymandering? Maybe try reading the opinion pieces??
- such12 4y agoNobody has ‘thrown out’ the voting rights act. That’s an opinion. Part of it has not been upheld as constitutional. The decision on gerrymandering is real. But you seem to be thinking this is evidence of a conspiracy to end democracy rather than just normal bias. Even that piece admits that gerrymandering was invented by the democrats. This is just normal US politics at work.
- freejazz 4y ago"Nobody has ‘thrown out’ the voting rights act. That’s an opinion. Part of it has not been upheld as constitutional." Semantics. "The decision on gerrymandering is real." Yes. It is. "But you seem to be thinking this is evidence of a conspiracy to end democracy rather than just normal bias. Even that piece admits that gerrymandering was invented by the democrats. This is just normal US politics at work." Do you not understand the difference between democratic and Democratic? Otherwise, what's the relevance of gerrymandering having been invented by Democrats. The court upholding it is anti democratic
- such12 4y ago> Do you not understand the difference between democratic and Democratic? Otherwise, what's the relevance of gerrymandering having been invented by Democrats. That it's a normal part of US politics engaged in by all political parties. > The court upholding it is anti democratic. Is it? If it's a normal part of US politics, that is far from clear. The point is that it's not evidence of a conspiracy to end democracy.
- freejazz 4y ago>That it's a normal part of US politics engaged in by all political parties. Debatable. It's facially anti-democratic. That it's something that can be engaged in a partisan matter doesn't support your argument.
- hedora 4y agoOK, if you don't believe commentators or legal analysts, then read the actual supreme court rulings and the case matter for the upcoming case. They are public record.
- freejazz 4y agoHmm, why don't you wait until they let state legislatures throw out elections to be so sure?
- such12 4y agoYou mean they haven’t actually done anything to undermine election results?
- freejazz 4y agoI meant exactly what I wrote. Feel free to let me know if there is something about it you don't understand.
- hedora 4y agoThey did already? There was a court case when the legislatures gave themselves the power to throw out elections. It went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruling lets them throw out elections. Prior attempts by states to do this in 2020 and 2000 failed in court, or led to the winning candidate (Gore) conceding, respectively. The 2020 standards that caused the election results to be upheld no longer apply in the states that changed their laws to take advantage of the new supreme court ruling. What am I missing?