He’s an asshole, but he’s right. SCOTUS is supposed to be the last stop for constitutional rights. They can even block presidential directives if they are what they (Scotus) perceive as unconstitutional. However we’ve recently learned that there’s a couple of members with sugar daddies and saying something like this isn’t only piss poor timing, it’s basically saying that Alito believes himself to be untouchable and infallible with authority over congress. Now keep in mind that we as American citizens make the ultimate vote (by the majority) to fill congressional seats to cater to the majority’s needs, Alito is saying that SCOTUS is untouchable and infallible to the people
Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices. It also established the lower federal court system.
No, he’s not right. The supreme court is big above all reproach. Multiple other people have proved that Congress has the power to make laws on how other parts of government function. On top of that, we are supposed to be a country of checks and balances. Why would we have a court that’s all powerful, its members are appointed, and its members have lifelong appointments? That’s basically zero oversight whatsoever. Congress can absolutely tell the supreme court how to function. Alito is just hoping that no one calls him on his bullshit.
Indeed. Justices are expected to serve “in good behavior” indicating they can be impeached which is a power granted to congress. Size of the court isn’t spelled out in the constitution and the court has been different sizes as well. Maybe Alito would like to be part of a 51 person court. The power of the purse lies with congress. Alito might enjoy hearing cases inside of the local Denny’s if they can beat the brunch crowd.
And then there is the whole judicial review thing - this is the vast majority of the court’s power these days, and it has no constitutional basis. It’s allowed only because everyone went along with it. What if the court declared something unconstitutional and everyone just went “ok boomer” and didn’t give a shit?
In other words, everyone, including your favorite bands, likes things the way they are. Things will not change unless the fans take a stand, which means things will never change.
Many bands have been very vocal about how much they dislike ticketmaster. Some have gone to great lengths to avoid ticketmaster or attempt to circumvent many of ticketmaster’s practices.
Ticketmaster isn’t about keeping you from hating your band, ticketmaster charges fees to be an extra parasite in the industry and encourage scalping on their websites to charge fees multiple times for the same ticket.
I should have been more clear. I was referring to the service that TM provides to said venues and artists. Obviously they don't really provide a real service for consumers
If you have a band,
and someone says “I’ll be the bad guy for your band”
… they’re just gonna be the bad guy.
Your band isn’t actually gonna win anything.
You’re just gonna have a bad guy in charge.
Sometimes, when it looks like that guy is just a ripoff, it’s really because that guy is just a ripoff. There’s no upside. Really, that guy is just ripping you off. No secret, no bargain, no fooling. It’s really just money going into that guy’s pocket.
We’re not as rowdy as we need to be, but you’re not going to get the full picture from corporate media. They have a vested interest in downplaying or vilifying everything rad we do.
I live near Alito. There was certainly concern that Americans aren’t as pacified as you think–if the riot police and swat that staged near his house, after the Roe decision, was anything to go by.
I mean term limits aren't going to fix the problem. They arguably may make them far worse. It then just becomes a job of tactically making sure you secure the election of the executive branch and senate. With senate being the most important since if senate sits on their hands you sort of get a "Scalia situation". Where there will just be an empty seat until you get executive and senate to agree on a candidate.
Yes but no. I'll elaborate, there is a concept called a recess appointment where if senate is on recess (which they do twice a year) where the president can fill in a temp until the end of their next session however National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning (2014) basically has allowed the concept of pro forma session as a valid way to disrupt a recess. So what is a pro forma session it is basically a session of senate where the President Pro Tempore (Longest running senator who handles procedure) delegates their job to a singular senator who then calls the session to an end and repeat this every 3 days and bing bang boom. You have a senate who is not on recess but is taking a break
So in a 5-4 vote, they dictated
“for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.”
So while there is technically a system to fill vacant government positions, it has been basically loopholed out of the equation since 2014.
Instead of term limits, the rule should be to replace the longest serving justice every 4 years. On average, every president will therefore replace one justice each term barring any accidents.
No. While that may seem like the effect, he’s been very keen to position himself as actually trying to keep runaway inflation from punishing the lower class. It devalues capital, but do you think the wealthy are affected by the cost of groceries?
The point of tempering wage growth is to temper costs of important consumables and purchases: food, housing, and transportation.
The prices of goods rises with the available cash of people that actually spend their paychecks. Investment is not how most people use their money–they buy food, pay rent, purchase gas, etc. If there is more money available from wage workers that spend most of their money on consumables and basic living expenses, the prices all of those things go up.
Grocery stores, gas stations, and most large corporations (which includes farms) are staged and staffed by people that “spend” the majority of their money. Which means when the cost of stuff goes up, you have to pay them more so they can continue to be able to get these basic consumables. And that means paying them more, so the cost of bringing food to your grocery store and fuel to your gas station goes up. So you need more money from your job to shoulder that burden… but, then, so do they. So you’re paid more, and they’re paid more, which costs more, and it doesn’t end without economic intervention. And that’s what inflation is. There are reasonable arguments for keeping wages AND COSTS LOW, but they involve wage workers voting at a rate higher that 25%, because they involve adjudication of our tax targets that aren’t completely in favor of the very wealthy.
They never apply it consistently either. Ever read the bible, beyond the few verses constantly repeated in church? That thing is NSFW as all hell, and should never be shown to kids.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.