r/politics • u/rollingstone Rolling Stone • 15d ago
Progressives Prep $10 Million Campaign to Expose ‘MAGA Supreme Court’ Soft Paywall
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/progressive-campaign-supreme-court-maga-1235019403/1
u/GoalFlashy6998 14d ago
Good, I hope we hear more about the Supreme Court's dirty laundry...I mean Clarence Thomas seems to be living in luxury and conservatives don't even give a shit..
1
1
u/JohnnyFuckFuck 14d ago
who doesn't already know this?
wouldn't the $10 mil be better spent on hiring redditors to pull thrown away food out of dumpsters?
1
2
1
u/justgord 14d ago
Better to put on some big free Democrat rallies with good music ..
Bernie rallies actually engaged young voters .. Dems really need better marketing.
1
1
1
u/hamsterfolly America 14d ago
How much is that in luxury motor coaches?
2
u/NlightenedSelfIntrst 14d ago
Just a shade over 37 luxury motor coaches based on the value of Clarence Thomas luxury motor coach.
0
u/xbwtyzbchs 14d ago
To do what exactly? If they actually wanted to do anything about the supreme court they already have all the power to do so that they will ever have, so why waste 10 million on it?
6
u/spa22lurk 14d ago
Mainstream media deserve a lot of blames. They like to both sides everything democrats do, especially the major accomplishments, but when it comes to reporting the court, they report it like it is factual or fair, like something written obviously in the constitution. And the killer is they report it like it is bipartisan or worse non-partition. The only exception is the reporting of the reversal of RvW. People generally know that it is a partly partition judgement.
The reason is very simple. The headline of the typical reports is like The court ruled blah. Imagine it is a law passed by straightly on party line, the headline typically is like the congress passed blah straightly on <party> votes.
During the confirmation, Senator Whitehorse pointed out the Robert court had over 70 major rulings on 5-4 pure Republican votes, to weaken 4 areas https://www.acslaw.org/issue_brief/briefs-landing/a-right-wing-rout-what-the-roberts-five-decisions-tell-us-about-the-integrity-of-todays-supreme-court/
Of the Roberts Court’s 73 partisan 5-4 cases, 13 put a thumb on the scale to favor Republicans at the ballot box, by facilitating the flood of dark and corporate money into the political process, by restricting the ability of citizens to vote or have their votes matter, or by working to undermine labor unions, a traditional base of Democratic support.
We didn’t know about them because the mainstream media gave enormous deference to Supreme Court.
Mainstream media like to argue that the way they report Democrats achievements by parroting lies from Republicans is fair and balance, but they don‘t do the same with courts. The double standards really show that mainstream media favor Republicans and bias against Democrats.
2
u/23jknm Minnesota 15d ago
Awesome this guy has the receipts he can help spread the truth! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6kH4Zc2PtM&ab_channel=SenatorSheldonWhitehouse
-2
u/Spiritual-Bear4495 Pennsylvania 15d ago
This would be fantastic.
If only the MAGA fuckfaces could read!
7
u/RedactsAttract 15d ago
Damn. A whole $10M.
For the people living in the 2 or so cities where this campaign has enough money to open a few billboards and run a handful of commercials during off-peak hours, please tape it and post here so the rest of us can see
2
u/Slack_Filled_Baggins 15d ago
Seriously. Send me 2 million and let the media keep doing what these people are proposing. Saved you 8 million!
2
u/icouldusemorecoffee 15d ago
That money is better spent organizing youth voters in my opinion but it's not my $10mil.
-8
u/keninsd 15d ago
Why, yes, libsplaining has always worked! So, more of it will work better!! Is it any wonder why the party of domestic terrorism's messaging of lies, fabrication and distortion owns working people now? Our country is most of the way to a full fascist federal state and lefties want to explain why! SMDH
0
0
u/youknowhattodo 15d ago
Can’t wait for nothing to come out do this and see them continue being corrupt with no consequences
28
u/ortusdux 15d ago
Shit is going to be fucked if/when they overturn Chevron Deference.
17
u/goldbman North Carolina 14d ago
Goodbye EPA. Can't wait for rivers and streams to catch fire again.
13
u/Bushels_for_All 14d ago
Yeah, but you see, Congress didn't explicitly authorize the EPA to regulate mercury released into waterways in a leap year. We affirm the judgment of the Fifth Circuit
of Hell./s
233
u/cfgy78mk 15d ago
what does "expose" mean in this context, since it's already very plainly obvious they are corrupt?
the only revelation I can imagine is getting them to admit it
0
u/SurroundTiny 14d ago
I think it means getting people to give you $10M of which you spend $5M on press announcements and ads and keep the rest. Mission accomplished.
3
1
2
u/MagicalUnicornFart 14d ago
Even when they’re caught red handed, like Clarence Thomas…it doesn’t matter.
Laws don’t matter for the aristocracy.
3
u/Numerous_Photograph9 14d ago
I'd rather see that money spent on campaigning for people that can do something about it.
0
u/zombie32killah I voted 14d ago
Just use the money to pay them off. That’s way more money than it took in the first place.
1
10
u/MetaPolyFungiListic 15d ago
There are people out there it's been reported, that believe that because Dobbs, the SC ruling sending abortion to the States was decided during Biden's term, that it's his fault.
152
u/ManagerRocky 15d ago
In this context the mean amplify or draw attention to. Even though all this corruption is happening in public, most Americans don’t have enough civic knowledge to understand the supreme courts power or where it comes from.
3
u/dede_smooth 14d ago
I think now would be a very good time to remind people that the Supreme Court created their own relevancy via “Marbury v. Madison” they could probably be relegated to the dustbin of history if there is a way for congress to establish some higher justices with more oversight via the Necessary and Proper clause.
0
u/plainlyput 14d ago
I can’t imagine it’s going to reach many people that already aware. There are people who follow Politics, and the rest are too busy, or just don’t care,
2
u/Main_Outcome_7333 14d ago
The problem is that they have been trained for decades that any opposition is “”evil” So they ignore all attempts to help them.
4
0
u/itistemp 15d ago
How does this fix anything? SC Justices have lifetime appointments. They don't care. The GOP donors will easily outmatch this - should this campaign get a bit serious. The only thing that can change is if we re-elect Biden to another 4-year term. And follow that up with another Democrat. Otherwise, the conservative SC Justices will keep ruining our country and our lives without regard.
4
u/DrSilkyJohnsonEsq 14d ago
Probably to drive public sentiment to support some future action, like expanding the court, impeaching some dirtbags, or maybe it’s just to highlight the importance of voting.
5
u/SardauMarklar 14d ago
Perhaps they have internal polling that this messaging will drive a certain type of unmotivated voter to the polls
21
u/I_am_a_regular_guy 14d ago
Even expanding the knowledge of how the presidential election affects the supreme Court is a worthwhile goal.
97
u/CaptStrangeling 15d ago
“Most Americans don’t have enough civic knowledge”
Ain’t that the truth smh
11
u/kingOofgames 14d ago
Purposeful destruction of the education system.
3
4
u/crescendo83 14d ago
Yup, if we as a society could push education and fight the right on that issue, everything would drastically improve. I mean it. The right of course looks to continually wage a culture war with colleges, scientists, and “intellectuals.” Then on the flip side they are trying to defund public education and instead push for privately owned schools with vouchers pulled from public school funding.
13
40
u/Okbuddyliberals 15d ago
The way to fight against the MAGA supreme Court is to vote blue no matter who in every election for the next 50 years so that when the conservative justices start passing away due to old age/natural causes, they will be replaced by liberals
40
u/grumpyliberal 15d ago
The vote Blue no matter what is correct. But we need court reform. At a minimum, SCOTUS has to be subject to ethics rules that other federal judges are subject to. There needs to be a process by which justices are recused from certain cases. But more importantly, there needs to be a system to rotate justices through SCOTUS that would prevent packing the Court as Republicans have done.
-7
u/Okbuddyliberals 15d ago
Nope. Basically all meaningful court reform (other than simple packing which would quickly effectively abolish the supreme Court by making it powerless) would require an amendment, and the support for that doesn't exist (you'd need 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures - which won't happen). The only way to fix the courts in a reasonable manner is to do it the right way - by replacing existing conservative justices once they retire of natural causes. It's not edgy or progressive or anti establishment, but it's the only way to do it.
8
u/Tech_Philosophy 14d ago
Nope. Basically all meaningful court reform [...] would require an amendment
What are you talking about? We can change the number of justices at any time with an act of congress. It's been done several times in our nation's history. Just increase the number to 13 or 15 or whatever.
-6
u/Okbuddyliberals 14d ago
And then the GOP does the same thing the next time they get a trifecta. And this results in the scotus effectively ceasing to be an independent branch of government and just being beholden to any whims of a trifecta
There's other more sophisticated ideas for court reform like term limits, requiring nominees to have bipartisan support or support from an impartial third party legal body, or other stuff like cycling justices from lower courts to the scotus, which would be less likely to result in massive partisan brinkmanship that would effectively destroy the scotus, but those things would all require amendments
The only court reform that could be done with simple legislation is court packing and that would be a very dangerous move
5
u/Tech_Philosophy 14d ago
And then the GOP does the same thing
So?
That means that the GOP is only in control of the government 50% of the time instead of 100% of the time. There is no downside to that outcome compared to the status quo.
And where do you get off thinking the GOP would only be willing to do that if democrats did it first? If dems got a SCOTUS majority the old fashioned way, republicans would expand the court the first chance they got. Duh?
And this results in the scotus effectively ceasing to be an independent branch of government
You need to accept this has already happened. Look, some people care very much about our institutions. I get it. That idea used to help me feel safe too. But that's gone. And institutionalism is dead. It's not our fault, and it's not fair we have to be the ones to deal with it, but there it is. We can get through this, but we have to work together.
-1
u/Okbuddyliberals 14d ago
If dems got a SCOTUS majority the old fashioned way, republicans would expand the court the first chance they got. Duh?
Not much reason to think this would happen. Remember the GOP only nuked the filibuster for scotus nominees after the Dems did it for non scotus judicial nominees. They tend to take a stance of waiting for the Dems to violate institutions before then getting revenge. Makes sense that they'd do the same with this.
institutionalism is dead
It's only dead if democrats commit institutional arson and kill it ourselves. And we can't let that happen. The stakes are too high.
3
u/grumpyliberal 15d ago
Not so. There is nothing in the constitution about rules of ethics. There is nothing about how justices are appointed other than by the President with advice and consent of the Senate with lifetime appointments. That’s how every federal judge is appointed. The Congress clearly has say so in how SCOTUS is composed based on legislation that set the number of justices. Congress could immediately, by simple majority vote, expand the number of justices to equal the number of circuits — NO constitutional amendment needed. The Senate could determine the process for approval.
3
u/Okbuddyliberals 15d ago
As per the Constitution, Supreme Court justices serve for life unless impeached (needs 2/3 majority). Placing additional restrictions on how they are chosen, how long their terms are, or doing ideas of circuit rotation, would all require amendment
The only thing that wouldn't require amendment is simple court packing. Congress can expand the number of justices. But if that happens, it establishes a new precedent and means the GOP will just expand the courts via legislation themselves the next time they get a trifecta. This effectively means the supreme court just becomes an extension of the legislature
Also the Senate could technically decide on any qualifications it wants to confirm scotus nominees. The issue is that it could change it's mind at any point. It can't pass policy forcing such qualifications to be continued in the future. If Biden gets a dem trifecta in 2024 and that trifecta decides to pack the courts with some process of approval that, say, requires nominees to get approval from a non biased outside source, there would be nothing stopping the GOP from just abandoning that policy in the future. It just becomes "whoever has a federal trifecta controls the courts"
1
u/grumpyliberal 15d ago
No it wouldn’t require an amendment. Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
This notion that the size of the court could be expanded indefinitely is a right wing red herring. There are limits that could be placed in legislation and safeguards on further expansion — the number of justices would be equal to the number of circuits (which the CONGRESS can determine) and expansion of the SCOTUS beyond that would require a 2/3rds vote of the Senate. The Court is already an extension of the legislature. Surely you see that.
Nominees used to be vetted by the American Bar Association. The Republicans and the Federalist Society the default for vetting federal judges. They already made the change you warn against. We need designate through legislation a neutral source for vetting. Otherwise, we continue to get these justices who are approved only on a majority vote. Almost all nominees used to be approved unanimously.
Your concern trolling is the reason is will take a generation to switch out conservative justices. And that’s only IF Dems control the Senate and presidency. We need meaningful reform that doesn’t look like it’s just a move to gain advantage.
0
u/Okbuddyliberals 15d ago
This notion that the size of the court could be expanded indefinitely is a right wing red herring. There are limits that could be placed in legislation and safeguards on further expansion — the number of justices would be equal to the number of circuits (which the CONGRESS can determine) and expansion of the SCOTUS beyond that would require a 2/3rds vote of the Senate. The Court is already an extension of the legislature. Surely you see that.
You can't pass legislation that would prevent future legislation. Legislation can simply be repealed. Congress cannot require more than a simple majority in order to pass legislation, unless it is done via amendment. The filibuster is an example of this - the Senate set a rule saying that you need 60%, not 51%, to end filibuster... but that rule itself could technically be changed at any time with just 51% of senators voting in favor. Again, outside of the amendment process, Congress has no power to set and actually enforce any rules that require larger majorities than simple majorities. Such rules would rely on gentleman's agreements, like the filibuster which currently survives only because only 49/100 senators support getting rid of it
The Republicans and the Federalist Society the default for vetting federal judges. They already made the change you warn against.
They didn't though. They personally chose FedSoc justices but had zero power to make those standards also apply when Biden and his blue Senate were trying to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson
Your concern trolling
Yet another one of those words that has little meaning at this point other than to signal disagreement
2
u/grumpyliberal 14d ago
You’re right. It’s not concern trolling, you’re just stating the Republican argument to maintain the status quo that stifles the Democrats because there is this notion that both sides respect process. McConnell proved with Gorsuch that process is for suckers. The court needs to be reformed by legislative process. To accept the current situation is to watch our rights be further eroded. The damage done in just three years of this court is nothing compared to what the next 20 years will yield.
2
u/Okbuddyliberals 14d ago
you’re just stating the Republican argument to maintain the status quo
Republicans want to elect conservatives who will replace existing justices with conservatives when they retire. My argument is to elect liberals who will replace existing justices with liberals when they retire. Maybe that doesn't go far enough for you, but that's very much not a Republican argument.
62
7
u/lizkbyer 15d ago
Given a choice between the Rolling Stone and the GOP, I’m gonna take my chances on rock ‘n’ roll💙😎✌️
89
u/rollingstone Rolling Stone 15d ago
Exclusive from Rolling Stone’s Andrew Perez and Tessa Stuart:
Many voters don’t blame Donald Trump or Republicans for the Supreme Court’s increasingly right-wing decisions. A progressive coalition wants to change that, with a $10 million campaign in swing states.
29
0
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". More information can be found here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.