• chaogomu@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        77
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Lochner Era might have been worse than the pre-civil war era.

        To know that the Lochner Era was like, just imagine this court in 10-years.

        The Supreme Court during the Lochner era has been described as “play[ing] a judicially activist but politically conservative role”.[5] The Court sometimes invalidated state and federal legislation that inhibited business or otherwise limited the free market, including minimum wage laws, federal (but not state) child labor laws, regulations of banking, insurance and transportation industries.[5] The Lochner era ended when the Court’s tendency to invalidate labor and market regulations came into direct conflict with Congress’s regulatory efforts in the New Deal.

        The Lochner court struck down laws that would have lessened the impact of the 1929 stock market crash, and also struck down efforts to shorten the depression.

        FDR flat out said that if they didn’t knock it off, he would appoint as many justices as needed to undo the damage.

        This current bill is maybe not the way to do it. Just add a few more seats (13 Total, to match the number of appeals circuits), and then maybe name the Federalist Society a hate group and ineligible for federal service in any capacity.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          name the Federalist Society a hate group

          to be fair, if we pretend they hate white people it would be signed faster than the ink could dry

          • nilloc
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I know Thomas predates the Federalist Society, but isn’t hating white people his justification for taking all that money and vacations from them?

    • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I dunno. A previous one actually caused the civil war by declaring the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Then there’s separate but equal. Then there’s the fact that the Court decided that the constitution gave it the power to rule in the constitutionality of laws even though it doesn’t say that. Then there’s saying that the second amendment applies to people rather than militias.

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Wouldn’t you know it, the Federalist Society implicitly supports all of those supreme courts. Their president Leonard Leo is behind half of the current supreme court appointments

      • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was with you until the last sentence. Nobody should complain about having rights. Support all rights for all Americans.

        Rights don’t just grow on trees you know, they are hard as fuck to get.

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Then there’s saying that the second amendment applies to people rather than militias.

        In order to protect a Collective Right the 2A had to protect an Individual Right. It literally couldn’t function any other way. In the context of the 1A it would be as if there was a Right To Assembly (Collective Right) but no right to Free Speech (Individual Right). That interpretation isn’t new either, it’s present in nearly every SCOTUS case that involved the 2nd Amendment.

        I agree that SCOTUS has problems but their take on the 2A is well supported by previous decisions and historical documents.

    • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s a pretty tall claim. Maybe the worst SCOTUS in your lifetime, but if you know anything of US history, you’d know that calling it the worst SCOTUS of all time is a pretty tall order.

      • evatronic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hey, let’s give this Court a chance. They could still ignite a civil war if they tried harder!

    • AndyLikesCandy@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      So… You think court opining on Dread-Scott was better?

      People seem to think they’re supposed to somehow compensate for legislators doing exactly what they were elected to accomplish - to say “fuck you” to the other party, as evidenced by people saying they could never vote for anyone from that party no matter how corrupt the politicians from their own party (totally a New York and California thing at least)