this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2025
632 points (99.4% liked)
United States | News & Politics
3385 readers
1138 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
No memes.
Post news related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's time to purge the Supreme Court. It's clear that they don't give a shIt about the law or the constitution. They are the activist judges the Republicans always whined about.
People put out these ideas, but I rarely see who or how they’d like them to be implemented. Who would you want to initiate the purge? Any democrat president fine?
Expanding the court is the generally anticipated way to do that
There are several examples from antiquity that show that the people will solve the problem of the government doesn't.
The vast majority of the time, the replacement ends up being worse. It's tricky business overthrowing a government, and the ones that end up on top are usually the most bloodthirsty and least ethical.
Yes. Revolutions are almost always bloody and the result is almost always worse. The people, though, will have a taste for revolution and the second comes easier.
Found george orwell's alt account!
Joking, but with organization we could wrest control from these clowns if we got real strong leadership.
If we could organize, we wouldn't need a violent revolution.
Have no fear, organizing to oppose the establishment is quite violent. The labor movement had a lot of fights. From beating the shit out of the police in Minneapolis in the 1920s to the coal miners of Appalachia to the UAW.
That is why I think Sean Fain would be a good presidential candidate. He is willing to fight and honestly.
I thought we were talking about violently overthrowing a government, not violent protest.
Also, violence in protests is only helpful when the common perception is that the violence was instigated by the state. That's why states use agent provocateurs to incite violence. They know it works to their advantage.
Call it what you want, the only way to improve our lot is to organize and work cooperatively on what we agree on, and that would be opposed by the state, and the oligarchs that control the state, and we would have to defend ourselves in our rights to exercise our constitutionally protected freedoms as we are allowed to by law. As the unions did when the corrupt power of the state at the behest of the bosses tried to crush their organization.
A revolution without any organization would just be an animal farm situation where the new boss would be like the old boss. And we should not want a revolution but rather a restoration. The system is generally good, the system is Dishonored and ignored.
Oh, I'm completely on board with organizing and being prepared to defend ourselves. It's the only way forward. All it would take is a short general strike, but we need to take into account that a whole lot of American workers like what's going on, and even more just want to return to the same neoliberal consensus that got us here. Those fractures are the biggest problem to solve.
Americans only like what is going on because they have been misled to blame the wrong people for our decline. They trust the wrong people, we all do to different degrees, the sheep of the dem party especially.
If a strong reformer faction ran a true populist campaign, channeling anger towards it's actual source, half of those people would join us. They want to attack the people screwing us. Without strong populist opposition to this plutocracy they will continue to be misguided.
That does not hold for evangelicals and some of the religious right perhaps they are fucked in the head and want to see the earth drown in lakes of blood and fire for the rapture.
I'm entirely in agreement there. I'm not optimistic enough to say "half" but I think it would be enough. The suburban NIMBY types are the most difficult to reach. Those are the ones who just want to return to the neo-liberal consensus. They are just as hateful and deluded as the white supremacists, and even more bigoted in their own way.
Half may be too high. At least in those that would be pulled over right away with a populist alternative Reform Party. A lot of these True Believers, which I do believe are about half of the Republican electorate, that believe more than not of the bullshit, can be pulled, look at Marjorie Taylor green and her base. She opposed the war with iran, she called out and opposes the genocide in palestine, she is opposed to go engineering such as spring sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere to block the Sun, and she is for releasing all of the Epstein documents. As delusional as they are, with a better alternative they would support something other than what they do now.
But the cynical ones, which includes a lot of the business oriented republicans, comfortable people making good money that want to fuck the poor just out of General principle and continue to increase their lot would not support that reform alternative unless it was clear they were going to win which would not be when it would be most needed, the first time around.
A lot of religious people would support a popular reform but so many are so misguided by their religious leaders they will not. I would not Hazard a percentage guess. Negligible amounts of evangelicals and Calvinists, a significant number of Catholics would support it but the Nationwide Catholic leadership is pretty hard right the pope notwithstanding.
The methodists and others may even support it in the majority.
But with current leadership and strategies we will never find out. It was hard enough to win a more honest election, now we need a more commanding majority to overcome all of the election rigging they will be doing on every level, as well as controlling at least one house of Congress so they cannot vote their guy in any way even if they cannot rig enough states to take it outright.
Also we need a very muscular approach to fighting election rigging and answering it. Meekly asking the courts is not enough. Voters decide elections, not courts. Should be the rallying cry on that.
I think we're largely in agreement. As for a reform party, I think building on the DSA is the way to go. The DSA just needs to start organizing more on a national level instead of operating in geographic silos.
I'm seeing a lot of Democratic boomer types finally start waking up to how weak and ineffective Democratic leadership is. I think they are vulnerable to takeover, but doing it fast enough doesn't seem likely. We really need a Mamdani blowout.
What we need is a sort of Federated true populism. While my beliefs line up more with the progressive DSA type populists, they are not right for every District especially given how they are LED to oppose them. We need populism across the country tailored to District cooperating together on what they agree on to reach a critical mass to just take the Democratic Party and force the rest into going with the program. Once they see which way the political winds are blowing they will fall in line as well.
Populists opposing allowing the rich to ass fuck working people without their consent. And dishonoring the bill of rights, etc. With a big emphasis on those financial interests screwing us being brought to heal one way or the other. If they can legally charge us more than everybody else for drugs, we will hit them for other crimes that they commit type of thing. Call them out by name.
We need candidates tailored to their districts in other words in general agreement on the need for reform. With decent candidates and even a modest number of people in that District organized for them along with a national Federated Forum where we could cooperate on what we agree on, we could unseat perhaps the majority of these establishment Democrats and the Republicans in the general election.
What you are suggesting here is not all that dissimilar to what the Democratic establishment has been trying to do all along. I recognize the populist messaging could make a significant difference, but I don't think that is enough to overcome the fundamental flaw in the strategy. I think that any capitulation to Republican framing just sets up a situation where Republicans look like "Coke Classic" and Democrats are the cheap imitation. Republicans will always be willing to go harder on the populist rhetoric than Democrats, and will therefore always appear more willing to overturn the existing power structures, even resorting to violence when necessisary. (The inaccuracy of this perception is another matter.)
Contrast that with Bernie's approach. He never compromises an inch on his messaging. That's why he is viewed across the political spectrum as the most genuine person in politics. There is no hidden agenda, and that does get recognized. All the socialist edges you might shave off to gain appeal in red districts will backfire, because voters will believe (arguably correctly) that the real agenda is being hidden from them. Their distrust of the establishment will translate into distrust of the revolution.
Take immigration for instance. Democrats dropped all messaging around the value of immigration and the character of immigrants in order to appeal to Republican voters. That solidified Republican framing of the issue, and made Democrats look like they were simply offering half-measures compared to the Republican solution. The did the same thing with Trans rights. They threw trans people under the bus for political expediency, and it just solidified prejudices which led to more support for Republicans. Years ago, they did the same for gay rights.
The thing is that right wing framing is utter and complete bullshit and, at some level, I think right wing voters know it. But, when life seems hopeless, people aren't going to let go of a vision of a better world without something else to grab onto. These people are scared out of their wits, and Democrats are trying to tell them to let go of the life preserver, while offering nothing at all to replace it. I don't think they are unreachable at all (not all of them at least) but I do think they are unreachable through pandering.
There’s a mechanism for impeaching Supreme Court justices, which would apply to the six criminals.
Or, just ignore them and start a parallel court. If they won’t do their job, why keep listening to them?
I'd be fine with that. After all, as per SCOTUS it's currently legal for presidents to do just about anything they want and be legally immune from prosecution. I assume this includes dropping traitor judges into black sites. Maybe the new SCOTUS won't make stupid rulings like giving presidents the power of monarchs, and some reasonable laws can be (re-)enacted.
I mean I think it's time to purge the whole govt and try again. The system is clearly broken beyond repair
Yes. When the wealthy and powerful have everything and the rest have nothing the rest burn the system down and start again.
Every accusation is a confession
Establishment dems are not up to it even if they could win now and they cannot. We need muscular populists that can build and run a political machine, new leadership across the board.
The problem is, I believe, that a large portion of the US population likes the current cruelty and revenge based regime. They are seething with resentment at being made to feel stupid by the "intellectual elites", backwards by the "progressives", ignorant by the "woke", etc and eat up the "you are right to hate those people who make you feel bad" message the christofascists are feeding them.
People are mad and know they are being screwed if not by whom. The right is misdirecting their anger, while the Democrats do not even try to direct it playing the currents the right set.
With real leadership, it would make public opinion. It would Channel the anger towards its actual sources.
By allowing these Democrats to be the opposition we have surrendered the field and waste our efforts on doomed strategies.
People want reform, if we do not give it to them, the right will.
They give them the illusion of change. They tell them that they are changing things but they're actually taking things to their absurd extreme. We're going to publish the democrats by selecting a theocratic autocrat is the same mistake that Turkey, Iran, and Afghanistan made. How did that turn out for them? That's the future of the US.
We already knew continually selling the party as we are better than the other guys while constantly ratcheting to the right was not enough to win elections.
The right is offering Solutions and we know the voters do not know any better. We are not, that we is everybody not supporting the right wing.
It is not a new phenomena that voters have been seduced to the dark side and led into alternate realities. Not just the right wing either. The Democratic sheep are just as responsible for what is happening due to my effort mentioned arguments.
They knew what we were facing and they refused to change. Now the political monster they declined to stop will destroy them, if Democrats were stealing elections for decades systematically, they would have to be punished.
Any assurances they have gotten from Republican power Brokers that that is just performative mean nothing.
I predict indictments will come down this time of the year in 2027 on the Democrats for bogus election rigging charges.
It isn't the people who refuse to change. Given understanding and choice most people would choose socialism (not the bullshit socialist boogieman sold by the rich and powerful but actual socialism) over 0.1% of people owning everything and everyone else barely surviving. The people need to tear down the system, to take back all the money that has been stolen by the 0.1% and to rebuild the society to benefit the workers, not the wealthy. I read that if wealth were distributed evenly in the US that every person would have half a million dollars of personal wealth.
People do still trust the doomed to fail establishment dems though. No pushback on annointing kamala on bad faith arguments that 4 months was not enough time. Not a single challenger.
No challenge for senate leadership, none for house as new leader was handpicked by old.
The party is broken. On the prez no one would cross the establishment, afraid of bad faith bigotry allegations of stepping over the first minority woman, nevermind she was unpopular across the board, never breaching 30 pc approval, offered no real reform, attacked no one s rewing us.
I am done trying to help these people. I want to help real leaders that can win.
So you're supporting Trump and the fascists? They can clearly win.
Those supporting the Democratic establishment unwilling and unable to do what is necessary to take the country back from the fascists let alone fix anything are the ones supporting the fascists.
Ignorance is no excuse for betraying America either, I'm very disappointed in you.
"No you are."
Good one.
No one actually feels this way naturally, this is all propaganda made up by the conservatives. False grievances combined with forty years of hate radio has taught a large part of the population to hate everyone but their supposed "in" group.
You don't think that the red hats are seeting with resentment at being made to feel stupid by the "intellectual elites"? Why do they complain about the "intellectual elites" then? Why do they complain about the "woke" or the "progressive"? They are seething with resentment about being told that their intolerant, backwards, racist beliefs are bad. That's why they love the cruelty. They love Trump because he's spiteful and cruel. I watched a video where Jennie Gage, a former Mormon, white supremacist, Trumper said, "I loved Trump because he was mean."
Let's be clear, I am not going to blame a large portion of the population for being lied to. I listened to years of Rush Limbaugh (not willingly) so I know where their made-up grievances come from. I have watched countless hours of Fox News, I see how they spin information.
Simply put, propaganda works. They are using the best of psychological to manipulate people. Do I hate it? Yes I do.
They have indoctrinated so many people I know and loved and turned them into haters who parrot their garbage without any critical thought.
I'm not blaming them for being lied to. I'm blaming them for not doing the absolute minimum critical thinking to realize that they are being lied to. We've all heard the lies. Tens of millions of people listened to those lies, thought about them critically, and came to the conculsion that they were weapons grade bullshit.
Completely agree. There was a reason conservatives threw a shit fit two decades ago when high schoolers were going to be taught critical thinking skills. They fought tooth and nail to prevent it from happening.
Critical thinking skills and the skills of forming your own opinion and defending it with facts and logic should be taught in grade school. Instead most students are not introduced this until college.
Now you know why the right hates colleges so much and are so desperate to have their ideology taught as factual. They can't have anyone using critical thinking skills otherwise their house of cards will fall down.
Completely agree.
Anyway to do this legally?
Being legal doesn't make something right. The fascists have so stacked the system with Supreme Court and Circuit Court justices who don't have a damn about the constitution that it would take a generation of concerted effort to correct IF they weren't fighting tooth and nail to protect the advantage and obstruct change. The only way to really solve this problem is to burn the system down and rebuild it as what it was intended to be. Unrestricted capitalism has failed the people. It's time for the people to tear it down and rebuildd to their advantage.
Sounds like you're on board for the revolution right away, but it is legitimate to ask if we can fix the problems of this Supreme Court within the system we currently exist in.
I'm not sure whether some of these powers are executive or congressional, but past presidents have talked about adding more justices to the court, and I've also heard mention of removing lifetime appointments. I think the first is an executive power and the second is congressional? I'm also not sure how this specific situation can be dealt with now that the ruling has been made, but it sure seems like this court is disregarding precedence left and right... Sorry, I'm not a legal scholar, but I'm also interested in the answer to this question.
It will be VERY difficult to fix the Supreme Court without burning it to the ground. Trump appointed young, right wing extremists who will likely serve for 40 or 50 years. If one or more of the old conservatives retired over the next few months he will do the same thing again, likely someone who is even worse. Impeaching a Supreme Court Justice requires a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate which is stacked to favour the Republicans by the ridiculous electoral college. The chances of reforming the Supreme Court in the next lifetime are approaching zero.
Reform, true reform, will involve fixing the Supreme Court, elections, and education but also regulation, banking, and wealth inequality. The Republicans have for years obstructed when the Democrats were in power and lied and cheated and stretched the law while they were in power. It's a one way valve. The democrats can't do anything because of Republican obstructionism and they don't seem to be able to stop the back sliding when they are in opposition.
I would love to see a government made up of AOCs, and Kat Abughazalehs, Zohran Mamdanis, and Jasmine Crocketts but even if you end up with a government of those people the Republicans who are left and the Republican governors will obstruct change for a generation at least.
In order to effect real change you would need at least 3/4 of the states to be solidly in Democratic hands with 2/3 of Congress in Democratic hands.
Biden could have but didn't. Most of us here knew this was coming.
Biden could have expanded the Supreme Court but he couldn't have purged it. It takes a 3/4 vote in the Senate to impeach a Supreme Court Justice.
Right, that was one option. Clarence Thomas has clear cases of corruption as well that could be pursued outside of the impeachment process, right?
I don't think so. They don't have a binding code of conduct so they can't be prosecuted for corruption.