Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
And as I understand it, they SCOTUS get to decide what counts as official. So theoretically, they could decide, for example, that killing a political opponent is official. After all someone who disagrees might effect the smooth running of the government. And so on.
Technically its the lower court but you know they will all be appealed and ultimately the supreme court will decide.
i know this is a dumb question, but why isn't there some kind of law mandating equal amounts of SC Justices from each party? that way, they would HAVE to work together and one side can't take control. i thought this country was sooo proud of our checks and balances, but it seems to me that they aren't working.
The SC judges are supposed to be non-partisan. The idea was that life terms would insulate them from partisan pressures. This has never really been the case. As far back as 1857, the Dred Scott decision was largely viewed as influenced by partisan politics. You can look to the tensions between Roosevelt and the court for more stark evidence of the political nature of the Supreme Court.
Changing this would require a constitutional amendment, which seems unlikely in the near future given the present state of affairs.
thank you for the informative reply. i was unfortunately homeschooled with very white washed Southern Baptist curriculum so i am still learning basics about how our government ACTUALLY works. and the more i learn, the more i hate it here.
it seems so obvious to me that life terms themselves are extremely prone to corruption, especially in a capitalist society. isn't this the whole reason Washington refused a third term? it is very interesting, albeit terrifying, to see the same principal held for certain parts of government, but not for others, with no discernable way to fix it at this point.
I'm happy I could help. My sympathies for having to make up later in life an education you were rightly owed. I'm from the south myself and know more than a few people who experienced the same. Fortunately it's never to late to learn and what better time than an election year?
If you're interested Scott Abernathy's "American Government: Stories of a Nation" is a great and comprehensive overview of the structure and function of the US government. It provides a fairly balanced view and a narrative style that is easier to digest than more textbook-like sources.
Our country is indeed in trouble and while I won't say fixing it will be easy, I urge you not to give in to doomerism. Stay informed, be critical, and most of all, find some way to get involved, if you can, at the local level.
i will look for that to listen to at work. it sounds helpful. I'm definitely not giving in, but it is very scary being queer in America right now. I'm hopeful for the best but preparing for the worst.
It's yet another tactic to delay.