politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Ahem, Bush v Gore... bit longer than a decade. They're certainly more shameless now that they have a larger margin, but republican justices have been pushing an agenda for awhile.
At the time, it wasn't this widely regarded as a power grab by conservative politicians in the Supreme Court. Not saying it wasn't, but it was not seen as such. It was nowhere near as brazen as what we're seeing today. Confidence was still quite high at the time or at least it returned quickly.
A bad decision like Bush v Gore or Citizens United was seen as an anomoly. While there were people who saw these as the political flexing they were, the general sentiment of the public was, "well, it must have been a difficult and complex decision. I'm sure they understand the legal impact and made the best decision that they could for the future of the country."
LOL no. Those decisions were utter bullshit.
Of course they were, in retrospect. But at the time, they were considered flukes.
No they weren't... They were derided as conservative power grabs then as now. Even then they talked about Roberts as an activist conservative, as the "decider" vote in a 5v4 court, who played politics to maintain the appearance of neutrality on unimportant, to them, decisions so they could strike when it mattered.
Hell, even then mass media referred to "conservative" and "liberal" justices, which clearly shows judges were not neutral.