arrow74

I'm not saying to avoid it, fuck em, but it's basically their kink

I don't know choosing to not feed people when there is enough food to feed everyone seems a lot worse than choosing which people to not feed during a time of famine.

Obviously more people die from the famine, but at least that's due to a lack of resources and not a manufactured scarcity

That would just feed their persecution fetish

I wouldn't say optimism. There's historical precedent for this. Whether or not it will happen I have no idea.

As opposed to the current time of surplus and abundance where it is if "you don't work you don't eat". Which is morally a lot worse considering there is more than enough food to feed everyone

Allow me to introduce you to my friend court packing.

But also in terms of things like Roe, all we need to fix that is a law passed through congress. The court would have no constitutional basis challenging it at that point. If they did it loops back around to justifying court packing.

When I hear that Clinton endorsed a canidate my first thought was, who cares. That guy hasn't been in office for over 25 years now. Talk about irrelevant

I'm always very intrigued by those pushing the rhetoric that it's too late to use elections to solve this, and admonish anyone that tries.

But at the same time they themselves refuse to start a revolution they insist is the only way. While simultaneously waiting for someone else to do it for them.

In the end the suggestion seems to be to not do anything and hope someone else does it for you. Be that by democratic means or armed means.

If you're not starting the rebellion you sure as hell need to be engaged with the existing democratic proccess. Otherwise you're just not doing anything at all. Which is the worst option

Unfortunately viewed from the constitutionalist theory which has always existed within the court it does make sense. There is a fair argument, one i personally disagree with, that the result of Roe is not in the constitution and therefore not something the court can legislate from the bench. Likewise with the arguments used against Trans youth.

I don't like these decisions, I don't support these decisions, but they do exist within the traditional frameworks and legal arguments of courts past. We've been rather fortunate for the past 30 or so years to have a more liberal court that prefers to take an interpretive view.

The only decision they've made recently that is outside of that is the idea that the president has total immunity for "official acts" that has no basis in the constitution at all.

If anything the current court make up emphasizes why things like Roe should have been codified years ago.

These are dark times for many of the liberties we all enjoy, but for the most part this courts actions do line up with historical precedent of a conservative court. It is a nightmare, and far too many people are going to suffer. I just hope that we all make it out of this and Institute real reforms across the board.

In our system a large enough majority in congress can overrule a lot of what the courts are doing unless they go absolutely bonkers.

The court can say there's nothing the in the constitution that prevents "X", but congress with a large enough majority can pass a bill without the president's signature to expressly allow "X".

Our courts have not yet shown a willingness to go totally rouge and have voted against Trump several times this administration alone, but they always could go rouge I suppose. And of course they make shitty decisions like these.

You say that, but majorities across the board are razor thin. Assuming there's still midterms a lot of this can be flipped.

The courts of course will be harder to fix

Moving the current democratic party to "socdem" would be a massive material improvement for the working class.

Unless there's an armed rebellion the best we can hope for is to effect incremental change. As Mamdani shows we can get lucky and have some fast changes, but that's also a "blue" bastion. The state of Georgia for example currently has two democrat senators. You might be able to get one of those flipped to a more progressive Bernie or AOC styled Democrat, but I highly doubt you'll be able to flip one to the level of Mamdani. I doubt you'd even be able to get an Atlanta mayor like him.

To be clear I absolutely want to be wrong I'm just skeptical that it could happen.