• Estiar@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    I think one should criticize the influence of the courts rather than simply blaming ‘the conservatives’. The court system has become quite the monster over the past 100 years. They can have free reign over policy decisions that ought to be handled by the legislature. Because of judicial review, the Judicial branch of the federal government can effectively make law where there was none before which used to be the domain of the Legislatures and the populace.

    Did you know that around a hundred years ago, the Legislative branch controlled the docket for the Supreme Court?

    I know that’s not the point that you’re trying to make, as blaming your woes on the conservatives is much easier for the brain. I’m sure that if the average .world user had dictatorial power for a day, one of the first acts would be to disenfranchise the Christians because they are problem voters, and shortly after repealing the second amendment in its entirety.

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I like guns and free exercise of religion thank you. I do agree that the judicial branch has expanded its own power too far. I think that is an inevitable result of the intractability of the legislative branch. When it comes to judges make no decisions that should have been laws, that have been coming from conservative justices most frequently in recent years (Dobbs, Bruen, and Citizens United to name a few).

      • Estiar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        I mostly agree, though I’d like to point out that the Dobbs decision was overturning this trend. Roe v. Wade was a case very much creating legislation where there was none. It didn’t have very good justification, but now with Dobbs, we have the opportunity to codify what we actually want in our law today. That was written in the Dobbs opinion IIRC. Nevada seems safe for those wishing to preserve abortion at the moment, but the Judge here is making things much more complicated than they ought to be.

        (I really hate the citizens united case. The conservatives may have passed it, but the only thing it conserves are the elites)

        • BottomTierJannie@sh.itjust.worksM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          but the Judge here is making things much more complicated than they ought to be.

          How so? Is it not reasonable to enforce that ballot measures must be specific and not just a ton of stuff all bundled into a big all-or-nothing vote?

          • Estiar@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            What’s illegal is different from what’s reasonable. I’m going to have to find the judge’s opinion, but the article doesn’t really give any reasons why it’s illegal.

            Congress passes all sorts of these big bundles of law all the time

            • BottomTierJannie@sh.itjust.worksM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              You seriously see no problem with just putting massive bundles of issues on a purely binary yes/no vote with no room for anything to be changed or removed?

              • Estiar@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Then vote it down

                Actually, now that I read the damn article again, it seems like there’s a single subject rule in Nevada. That’s the crux of the issue.

        • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          At the same time it could be said that Roe was preventing the creation of legislation where there should be none. While rights like privacy and bodily autonomy are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, they are woven throughout the Constitution and firmly established in the Federalist papers and other foundational documents.