The Supreme Court: What Went Wrong?

Thank you to Scentbird for sponsoring today's video! Use WISECRACK55 to get 55% off your first month at Scentbird sbird.co/3PrZx7E
This month I received...
Eros by Versace sbird.co/3NmycBS
Sage Supreme by Maison 21G sbird.co/3NtvzOM
Book (expressive) by COMMODITY sbird.co/3sKKYTa
What's the deal with the Supreme Court?
If you passed seventh grade social studies in the United States, you probably know that the Supreme Court is one of the most venerated institutions in the country. But actually looking at how its functioned over the years might make you wonder: Why do we give nine people this much power? Let's dive in with this Wisecrack Edition: How the Supreme Court Became So Powerful.
Subscribe to Wisecrack! ► wscrk.com/SbscrbWC
Support us on Patreon! ► wscrk.com/32Q7huu
Check out our Merch Store! ► wisecrack.store/
=== Watch More Episodes! ===
How Presidential Campaigns Change ► wscrk.com/3iZyDEK
Critical Race Theory: Why the Controversy? ► wscrk.com/3mVKczd
Does Cancel Culture Work? ►wscrk.com/3n4DbvT
Written by Corrigan Vaughan
Hosted by Michael Burns
Directed by Michael Luxemburg
Editing and Motion Graphics by Jackson Maher
Produced by Olivia Redden and Griffin Davis
Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound
#SupremeCourt #RoevWade #Wisecrack
© 2022 Wisecrack / Omnia Media, Inc. / Enthusiast Gaming

[@WisecrackEDU]

Use WISECRACK55 to get 55% off your first month at Scentbird sbird.co/3PrZx7E

[@DarkLordJmac]

When your party was in control blinders on. Lose power the system is broken. It was just and fair for you. Not others. It will never be fair for everyone. I'm glad the way it is now.

[@Padtedesco]

XIX century was the aurora of independent Legislative. XX century was the fight over the limits of Executive. XXI century will be about democratization of th Judiciary.

[@8088I]

Our U.S. Courts, regarded as a Platinum Standard for Judicial Systems, has "proven" the Judgement of Judges is much, much 'less Objective' than a diverse Jury of peers - over & over, again & again - in our currently hyper-Partisan Judges selection system, while the public is getting increasingly better educated in our Society.

[@TheRenegadeMonk]

WISECRACK!! You realise that this video highlights the evidence behind at least part of CRITICAL RACE THEORY. Specifically the fact that laws constructed to support the status quo, support white supremacy. You should make a video that highlights this point specifically.

[@dexboat1733]

@@DarkLordJmac You are correct. This is a poorly argued video from Wisecrack.

[@BrianHartman]

The Supreme Court got powerful because politicians decided it was easier to let the Supreme Court solve legislative issues than to actually craft legislation. Why go through all the trouble of protecting abortion in law, with all the compromises that could entail, when you can just say, "Let the Supreme Court figure it out"? It's laziness.

[@WeaponizedGoochsweat]

It's just as powerful as it's always been. It's always been the supreme court's job to determine if a law is constitutional

[@BrianHartman]

@@WeaponizedGoochsweat Well, not quite "always". Since Marbury v. Madison, which was very early on, but not quite "always". But I would argue there's something more going on here. In previous times, a law would be passed, the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional, and the legislature would work on a law that would pass constitutional muster. What seems to happen now is, the Supreme Court decides something is unconstitutional (or constitutional, depending on the issue) and the go-to solution is to try to change the court, rather than changing the law or working to amend the constitution. Roe was decided nearly 50 years ago. You're telling me in all that time, no one was able to get any legislation passed to deal with this? It's not because they couldn't. It's because they didn't want to, because both parties use abortion as an inducement to vote for them.

[@joshuaburnett2634]

@@BrianHartman Roe V Wade is a difficult issue to tackle, mainly because there are so many mal-aligned actors in the space. But I suppose one of the most important things to note is that RvW gave the government the task of funding, or at the very least assisting in the creation and maintenance of abortion clinics. And Whilst there was a change in the laws, specifically in regards to these clinics performing Hysterectomies on their clientele without their consent or knowledge, several such clinics continued the practice because the government couldn't be bothered to actually investigate the vast number of clinics which existed. As such, the overturning of RvW is an attempt to route these faulty spaces, especially since overturning the law does not actually prevent abortions from being performed. Only in the states that do outlaw it, obviously. Additionally, it's important to note, Roe actually lied in order to justify her right to an abortion, stating she had been raped, when she hadn't, and then proceeded to not get the abortion, further clarifying later on in her life that the decision had been a mistake. That she never should have sued for it. At least, this is my current understanding of the issue.

[@Rye_]

"The Supreme Court got powerful because politicians decided it was easier to let the Supreme Court solve legislative issues than to actually craft legislation." AKA "Supreme Court shouldn't craft legislation... unless it's legislation I agree with!"

[@stanhry]

Of the real answer is just following the constitution and do there job. Congress ,Senate , and the president and governors. We should talk about executive branch over reach also . That has been bad lately also.

[@DerAstrophysikerr]

There is never such a thing as an "apolitical court", simply because it is run by people with political convictions.

[@jeffm3283]

Yes thank you, it's ridiculous to pretend judges and courts are not political

[@mauricio4619]

The word "apolitical" feels so oxymoronic in terms of a political context. The ONLY time apolitical would make sense is through objective, empirical, PEER-REVIEWED statements. Not this "oh it's not political because I'm a republican and uncle thomas"

[@PeanutStrawberry]

And that's why we need sentient robots to rule the courts!

[@markhaus]

@@PeanutStrawberry then the programmers become the arbiters. As a programmer I doubt we’d do any better. As is becoming increasingly clear our biases get encoded into the machine learning systems we create. Literally never trust a software engineer that says otherwise in all fields of computing

[@MrAskmannen]

True, but the realm of law generally tries the hardest out of any segment of society to remove that bias.

[@darkhobo]

Chief Justice Earl Warren may be one of the most important and influential men in the history of America. And most Americans have never heard of him, or maybe have only through the Warren Commission.

[@chris0000924]

Founder of judicial activism

[@joshuasweetman4903]

Based Warren

[@darkhobo]

@@chris0000924 you folks love your double think

[@chris0000924]

@@darkhobo Ad hominem

[@chris0000924]

@@JohnSmith-mc2zz Judicial activism is poison. Do you know abortion being illegal is a modern invention and that most countries have it strict or illegal than America? Thanks for revealing your americentric world view bigot

[@NoodIndigo]

editor said "jokes on you thats DEFINITELY going in"

[@hehexd4557]

6-3 and Republicans are sweeping the midterms. COPE

[@truhhhhhhhokIII3]

I mean its true, thank repugs! *puts on bulletproof vest because right wingers are their own class of dangerous and dont like me using my free speech to call them out (talk about irony they will never see!)*

[@Billywashere89]

Speak truth

[@devinthadude88able]

(Writing down notes) ….Sooo you want this put in this in the video?!??

[@brettlovell8761]

...also what she said.

[@bobcharlotte8724]

As someone outside of america, its been interesting watching the country that always preached about being so free and just, have constitutional crisis one after another.

[@AvgJoeCrowe]

As someone inside America, it's scary as fuck and we can't wait to see your Soldiers help us the way we did Europe mid last century... only without waiting so long.

[@xxmatrixmasterxx9903]

I actually take solace in it. Over the past few years our institutions have handled mass misinformation campaigns, populist uprisings, political corruption at the highest level, legislative incompetence, and everything else. Yet the fire of freedom and liberty still burns. (just not as bright as usual)

[@dying_allthetime]

@@AvgJoeCrowe chill. It's scary but there will never be foreign soldiers in mainland America unless we invite them to the BBQ

[@val-zod1284]

@@AvgJoeCrowe cry you can’t kill any more babies, freak

[@hamnchee]

This is nowhere near a constitutional crisis. We live in the age of wild internet exaggeration.

[@kevinw2592]

The legislature stopped legislating because it became politically impossible. So everything was left for the court to decide. Once upon a time, elected officials worked together for the betterment of the nation. When that stopped, it placed all the burden, and all the power on the court.

[@Anjalena]

Well stated but I would also add why it became politically impossible; the addition of money into the system by powerful interests. Otherwise it sounds like they have no responsibility and no control if it just became politically impossible. Hopefully that makes sense. ☺️

[@nathanielwowchuk6880]

they do work towsrd the betterment of the nation, as long as those in the nation are the ones giving them money and keeping them employed

[@mitchclark1532]

That's not what happened. Elected officials have never worked for the betterment of the nation and neither have the courts. They have always been 100% political actors, working for corporate interests like almost every other political actor in this country from its inception.

[@Anjalena]

@@nathanielwowchuk6880 And that's one of the major issues. Being a public servant shouldn't been treated as a career. One of the congressmen recently, when the issue of insider trading was being discussed, actually complained that if the stock trading were to end for Congressional leaders, how would he, and they, better themselves? That's not what you're there for, Drippy. I know it wouldn't solve all the problems but if I had a few wishes, one would be that they could only serve one term. Period. Obviously the other wish would be too completely remove 💰 from politics and make super PACs and dark money in politics 100% illegal. I'd also try to remove the incentive for money in politics by putting campaigning online and reducing, as much as possible, the need for so much money in a campaign. I mean seriously, when it's a regular thing for someone to come out of Congress with way more wealth than they had when they went in, the system is completely fucked.

[@nathanielwowchuk6880]

@@Anjalena what you do is make political corruption a prison sentence. Then see how many even want to be in politics anymore

[@1krani]

We should've been asking this question about 80 years ago when they ruled on the National Firearms Act. Regardless of how you feel about guns, consider: should a ruling stand when only one side of the suit shows up to argue its case? Because the guy challenging the law died, his lawyer refused to continue the suit without being paid, but the case was still heard and, as you'd expect, SCOTUS ruled in favor of the only side whose arguments were actually presented.

[@DrSQUIRRELBOY12]

The fact that they specifically chose to let the case go to the supreme court because they knew the defendant wouldn't be able to hire anyone to argue is just insane.

[@ilvean3122]

The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the 2nd Amendment protects peoples right to bear arms. Did you happen to forget or are you ignoring that?

[@katyyulig]

Maybe not die the next time I guess /s

[@DrumWild]

@@ilvean3122 Posting something more frequently with copy/paste does not help your argument or make it any stronger.

[@1krani]

​​@@ilvean3122 The 2008 case isn't as broad as you think. If it were, the NFA would've been taken off the books and the ATF would just be know as AT. But, you are missing the point. The point is that the case against the NFA should never have been heard to begin with if only one side would be making arguments.

[@wademitchell3817]

Did you know that WWII Black veterans and descendants are STILL not allowed GI bill benefits? Can you imagine teaching WWII and GI Bill and not mentioning that 1 million Black veteran were excluded. There is a bill in the house and senate to change this. Authentic CRT seeks to uncover and remedy these inequities caused by systemic racism.

[@lkae4]

What's your source?

[@wademitchell3817]

@@lkae4 *Additional sources* - CBS news piece on GI Bill: kzbin.info/www/bejne/lWW8n3qCq897b7c - Black History in 2 minutes segment on GI Bill: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bZKZl42fpq2KgbM - Charlotte ABC11 segment: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oHi6g6CCbsyJhbs - Jon Steward discussion: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n322loRpqZuFfrM

[@lkae4]

@@wademitchell3817 I asked for sources and you gave me KZbin videos? That's extremely rude and ignorant. Don't ever post videos when people ask for sources again. Please try again.

[@WeaponizedGoochsweat]

@@wademitchell3817 KZbin is not a source of information appropriate for such claims.

[@KevinTheVillian]

@@lkae4 don't gotta be rude dude. Could be a kid lol. Just let the. Know youtube does not meet the requirements for a reliable source and press on

[@madisonadams374]

Thank you editor for keeping that comment in regarding "child labor" and the deadly work conditions they were REQUIRED to work in.

[@JonSmith-hk1bq]

Schools are generally the safest place a child can be. "Speak truth to power" apparently means using a tragedy for a cheap political point that makes no logical sense.

[@madisonadams374]

@@JonSmith-hk1bq (I know this is a little long, however, I would like to sincerely respond to your reply on my post.) Thanks for commenting on my post. I think I understand where I know you're coming from and I appreciate your honesty regarding the topic. I'm curious how much research you've done on school shootings as well as recent experiences you've had in primary schools? I'm a burnt out teacher and I admit I ended up seeking mental health regarding mass shootings and school shootings. In high school, I would occasionally have an intrusive thought about another student shooting up the school and I did sometimes look around the classroom to see where I could hide or how I could escape. Besides all the juvenile things that happen to most of us in high school, I did feel safe when it came to someone shooting up the place. Studying and becoming an effective educator takes a lot of time and a lot of work. It's difficult to have to listen to my professionalism lectures regarding child violence and abuse. My professions and mentors disclosed disturbing and heart breaking experiences they had over the years while teaching in primary schools. I think it's bizarre that during my field work and student teaching, the classroom teachers disclosed their plans in case an active shooter was in the building. As a teacher I believed my number one priority was to keep my students safe from any dangers. Research shows students are more engaged and focused on learning when they feel collectively safe in the classroom. My job is make sure my students are safe and comfort and able to learn without distractions. As a teacher, you always need to keep in mind that to some of my students, SCHOOL WAS THEIR SAFE HAVEN and their home life was challenging. Unfortunately, the last school I worked at was toxic and my "boss"/principal dismissed my concerns regarding a few of my students increasingly inappropriate behaviors and ultimately one student in particular became aware of the disconnect between the principal and myself. As a result, his behavior became out of control and several of my students didn't feel safe when he was around. Eventually, he just ignored me because he knew I had no power over disciplining him and my concerns kept falling on deaf ears and I was abused and yelled at by my boss because I WASN'T ABLE TO "fix" him and the situation. (I don't want to disclose some disturbing and inappropriate behavior this student did while at school but there was one situation where my first instinct was to call 911 regarding what happened.) The lack of support and respect and help my boss wasn't willing to offer me, started making my school day into one long anxious day where I knew I had to protect several of my students from their classmate as well as make sure he was safe. I became hypervigilant and jumped every time my boss would surprise me with a visit to observe my teaching/lessons. I did have anxiety disorders and depression when I was teaching however my mental health improved throughout college and student teaching. Teaching and learning makes me feel good. After several observations, I was able to conclude the student's behavior patterns and personally believed he would benefit seeing a mental health professional. I did teaching my class some coping skills and I believed he deserved getting more intense care from a therapist. I was not a mental health professional and I knew I would most likely get yelled at and reprimanded if I disclosed my findings and evaluation for my student. THE SCHOOL HAD NO COUNSELOR OR MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL. I was stressed out and overwhelmed because I knew getting him help might make him feel better and actually attend classes and turn in work/improve his scores. Anyways, I didn't believe it was in the best interest to share with my boss my thoughts and possible solutions. She liked to cut me off, jump to conclusions and I didn't want to be accused of diagnosing my students. I just wanted to try and find resources and help if that was the actual case. He was frustrated and disturbed and acted several years younger then he truly was and he was able to act within his age group. The last week or so I ended up back sliding and I start obsessing about all the dangers that could happen in my classroom. My boss ordered me to leave the one student alone and I no longer had power and control over my whole class which led to an ultimate daily diester the last week I was there. I started to have compulsive thoughts regarding possible violence that could occur in my classroom and how dangerous it was for me to not have authority to talk or even hold him accountable for his actions. My boss was the one in charge of him, yet I had to spend the whole school day trying to following orders and let one of my students do whatever during class. The worst feeling in the world is knowing he was out of my control yet still my responsibility. School shootings in the U.S. are at random and even though you want to believe it won't happen to you, you realize that it could happen because there's no link or pattern or region where school shootings are more likely. I began having nightmares and compulsively worrying about what I would do if a shooter came into my classroom. How would I get the one student to listen to me again, so I could direct him to safety? I still cared about all of my students and didn't want anything to happen to any of them. I ended up doing out patient treatment for OCD and one of the topics I had to work on was lowering my anxiety regarding guns, mass/school shootings. I had to disclose that I kept imaging someone coming into my classroom and I would have no time to stop the shooter and my whole class was killed including myself. I had to write a script and reread it several times a day for exposure therapy. I had to keep going back and imagining this traumatizing event in my head. I still sometimes have residual nightmares every time a school shooting happens. Innocent children are being killed for no reason. School shouldn't be a place where you think you might die or your child. this was a political video but this issue is not political for me. I don't care anymore about gun debates...frankly keep all your guns just in case people attack you and you will have your gun right there and be able to effectively kill the "bad" guys. I come from a military family and trust me, if the corrupt government turns on us, they have far more deadly strategies to kill us. School children on the other hand are required to go to school, unarmed and the belief that they are safe and secure. They are innocent and young. I posted on the video because I truly care about the safety of our kids. They are our most valuable asset in life and deserve to grow up feeling confident and safe in life. The fact that there are adults that still believe that it is normal and ok for someone to shoot up a school and KILL ANY CHILD is baffling. We are just letting these shootings to keep happening and knowing that there will be others due to the lack of....I don't know caring?

[@madisonadams374]

@@JonSmith-hk1bq P.S. We personally don't know each other and my reply is about the problem that we are facing and how people are effected by school kids being killed. I'm not personally attacking you, I want to help protect school children and let them grow up to live their own lives. I'm sure we agree on other societal issues. Sometimes I take a step back and reflect on current events and I ask myself, are GUNS really worth school children getting killed. A new strategy/tactic might be worthwhile. Gun owners can still own guns and shoot things or whatever you enjoy doing. I wish you the best.

[@GenerationNextNextNext]

@@madisonadams374 Your story is similar to mine. Being an educator was the most thankless job ever. I started as a paraprofessional, too, which didn't help, because I was always seen as a "Teacher's Aid" and not a "real teacher" (though I had the credentials). It made transitioning into being a full-fledged teacher difficult for others to grasp. The amount of respect that I got being a paraprofessional (doing a teacher's job literally because we were short on substitutes) and not getting paid a teacher's salary was already bad enough, but being treated as inferior because I started as a teacher's paraprofessional, making my efforts as a teacher feel woothless...It was too much.

[@Dark_Tesla]

@@madisonadams374 I like to ask people what their number is. "Ok so theoretically, how many kids are you ok with being killed before you think it's important enough to change your mind?? 100? 1,000? 1,000,000 maybe?"

[@kirbymarchbarcena]

This may be about the highest court of the land but the issues in the lower courts like decision-making, logistics, and personnel benefits must be addressed.

[@mitchclark1532]

We need to democratize the entire court system. It's insane the way it's set up right now. And we wonder why we can't have nice things.

[@davidhochstetler4068]

@@mitchclark1532 you democratize the court system and the nation falls apart to the whims of whatever the public is tricking into supporting that week

[@lesterabinguna341]

@@mitchclark1532 That would get a country closer to a pure democracy which would detriment or doom said country. The decisions on governmental and judicial affairs should not rest on the general population alone, especially on court rulings that requires extensive knowledge of the law and application of reason/logic. One may argue that the general population can properly take on such affairs if they were educated, but that's the thing though, the education system must be highly improved first before we let the general population on anything other than voting the electorate. Even the right to suffrage is not ideally exercised because most people won't bother reading laws or policies anyway.

[@Tron08]

One thing I find frustrating is the conflation that "working as intended" === "working well/justly"

[@hugofraga6012]

Jamal Greene's How Rights Went Wrong gives an important context to this discussion--highly recommend it to anyone looking to dig deeper.

[@danielland3767]

I just put it in my Amazon cart

[@hugofraga6012]

@Robert Arnold Not sure that it is ad eundum quo nemo ante iit

[@DanielHowardIRE]

Very interesting video for somebody not from the US nor has ever lived there. In my country, Ireland, we've also got a Supreme Court and it's quite similar in several ways. The judges tend to also come from elite backgrounds, the President appoints them, their tenure is until mandatory retirement (aged 70 in Ireland for them), their main purpose is ensure that the Irish constitution is upheld and they can decided to take on our reject cases forwarded by the Court of Appeal. The Irish Supreme Court also tends towards a conservatism such as in 1983 which is upheld the criminalisation of homosexuality (Norris vs. Attorney General). The SC is also meant to be apolitical like our President, however he/she appoints judges on binding advice of the government. The parallels between Ireland and the US are evident as both countries are republics as opposed to the UK which is not and doesn't have a constitution in fact. Now let me point out the differences. Firstly, in Ireland the Constitution is frequently changed through referenda. Public consultation groups are established for a particular issue which requires constitutional amendment and involves all stakeholders. This usually takes several years and involves regular surveying of the population to gauge support. The results are reported to the government which then decides whether to hold a referendum or not. If it does, the Referendum Commission which is independent is tasked with providing unbiased and factual literature on the referendum and there is a window in which debates take place in the media and posters are put up and leaflets are distributed. Finally, a referendum is held and if passed, it is legally binding and the government must act on it. For example, in 2018 a referendum on abortion took place which passed and the construction has been subsequently amended to reflect this. The only way of undoing this would be to hold another referendum. That's the main difference in Ireland. I understand in the US this would be hard to do due to the size of the country but at least it would be more democratic. I believe it should be the people who get to decide how their country is, not a handful of SC judges. Another difference is the Irish Supreme Court is tied to the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. In the 1983 case about the criminalisation of homosexuality in Ireland, Norris took the Irish State to the ECHR which ruled that the Irish State was in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Anyway sorry for the long post but I thought it would be interesting for US people to understand how things worked in a much better way though by no means perfect in other republics with similar values and histories. ;)

[@JABRIEL251]

God, I wish ours had mandatory retirement...

[@blackfish86]

Thank you for this I did not know this about Ireland. Britian does have a constitution, it's just not codified into one document and that's the danger, some laws and rules that are constitutional are easy to spot like the Magna Carta others are more flexible and based on longstanding practices and agreements and it's up to the Supreme Court to decide on which become constitutionally important.

[@joeblow3990]

Sounds like the Irish Constitution can be changed to take into account a changing society and a changing world. I am going to go on a limb here and claim that the Irish Supreme Court justices do not hold the view that their rulings should be based on what they think would be the views of an Irishman living in the 1780s. Yet that is the view that the right wing wackos in the United States Supreme Court hold on to. What was the original intent of the framers of the constitution when they wrote the document?

[@doomsdayrabbit4398]

My family was forced to relocate to the US due to the 1850 genocide. Can I come back for free now?

[@SosKok]

I suppose it is not conservative like you said. But legal formalism which proclaims that any law is a text and only text with any non-textual attributes irrelevant. And it is mostly mainstream in legal philosophy. It look conservatively only because legal formalism tends to interpret laws in context of its actual world-usage and most of laws in common law are kinda old and represent old, conservative today word-usage context. There are plenty cases there formalism would look liberal/socialist if original law were very emancipatory at its time or in case of historically recent laws.

[@TyroPirate]

Kind of ironic that the founders were relatively forward thinking in trying to set up a new government for the time period... Yet they intentionally created a system that would be stuck forever in their time, and end up becoming reactionary

[@tann_man]

Define 'reactionary'

[@TyroPirate]

@@tann_man Going back to how things used to be

[@tann_man]

@@TyroPirate How exactly did they create a reactionary system? The history of America has been an expansion of the application of the self evident truth that we are endowed by our creator with the inalienable right to life, liberty and property. Most notably we expanded the concept to men who didn't own property, then to black men, shortly after we expanded the concept to include women and minorities, and the disabled and to the sexually deviant. Is there anyone with substantial institutional power trying to go back to 1776?

[@Drekromancer]

That's actually brilliant. Thank you for sharing.

[@gamer38998]

You forget all the amendments to the constitution

[@Zytaco]

"But when you tie your decision making to an unchanging document..." Because the constitution has never been changed, and definitely does not contain provisions for changing it.

[@drbobcat6]

It's effectively impossible to change when partisanship and gridlock has paralyzed the American legislative process. It's unlikely the country will see another amendment passed for generations, at least.

[@shockmethodx]

Spicy episode. I'm here for it!

[@slevinchannel7589]

Then you will like 'Some More News'.

[@batman5224]

Of course, most people will only complain about the Supreme Court if they disagree with their decision on an issue.

[@Garchomp4LiFee]

Or fail to realize that most of them are 9-0, 8-1, and similar.

[@1krani]

I have learned to complain about the fact that the only people who can check the court's power are the Senate, and no Senator since the days of the Founding Fathers has had the stones to call for impeaching a SCOTUS justice.

[@sirrom835]

Well, yeah, especially when the decision is going to affect so many people negatively.

[@chris0000924]

If they did their job 70% of the government wouldn't exist

[@davidgill3356]

@@sirrom835 then complain to legislators, they make the laws.

[@skynet4496]

The supreme court serves big power, always has and always will. These days they'll never go after big pharma/corporations. "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." - Judge Charles Evans Hughes

[@davidgill3356]

These days huh? When exactly did the court ever have the power to go after anyone? You don’t even know what they do and yet you run your mouth with these retarded theories about who they serve. Go back to the kids table dipshit.

[@solaresat]

Miranda v Arizona

[@HGRAP1]

The judges basically said they shouldn’t decide and let states decide. If anything they gave more power to the people

[@drbobcat6]

@@HGRAP1 And corporations don't have a massive influence on politics at the state level? It's no different there than it is nationally. State legislators are still elected off of PACs and harassed by lobbyists, just of a smaller scale. They do not represent the people anymore than those in DC. Also, letting the states decide has historically been terrible for minority groups. The situation only improves when ultimatums come from on high.

[@jr_xtreme8940]

This has always seemed like a flawed idea to me. Granting lifetime appointments to people who were chosen due to their political affiliations. They remain as the biased constant through the cycles of a growing nation. Don't question the 9 behind the curtain...simply rejoice that the political scales are in ur parties favor this time

[@olivercuenca4109]

It probably made more sense when lifespans were shorter. In theory, appointees of the previous government staying on during the next one could be a moderating influence. It's just that now they go on and on and on, not just through the next government but the one after that etc.

[@Drekromancer]

@@olivercuenca4109 Honestly, that's a great take. And I think it's the best argument I've seen in favor of term limits.

[@VolkXue]

people used to be better and Americans used to be better. Sadly here we are with our modern Republicans that are historically horrible for the country

[@anmolt3840051]

@@VolkXue Americans used to own slaves and publicly lynch black people so they definitely weren't better

[@basedstreamingatcozy-dot-t7126]

@@VolkXue yeah, America's skin tone has gotten a lot 'darker', and our souls a lot less Christian since the good days.

[@arx3516]

I think that the real problem lies with the legislative branch that never managed to update the constitution.

[@ill_bred_demon9059]

Unfortunately we made the constitution INCREDIBLY hard to amend and there are a lot of people who don't want to see rights codified into the constitution. Take the Equal Rights Amendment. It would have made the rights established by the Civil Rights Act part of the US constitution so no future congress could simply say "it's fine to discriminated against women, racial, and sexual minorities" and repeal the act. But people who hated the civil rights act were able to fear monger it to death and clutch their pearls over "unnecessary" amendments since congress already established those rights.

[@GenerationNextNextNext]

People don't yet realize that it's just a piece of paper. Just like we overthrew the king and his laws, we can overthrow the constitution to ensure we establish more fair and just laws that include the people who should have been involved with its inception in the first place. But too many people are afraid of anarchy.

[@iseeundeadpeople9]

@Haku Yuki And that's a damn shame.

[@mattja52]

When something is in your favor why would you update it?

[@basedstreamingatcozy-dot-t7126]

imagine thinking the constitution should just be changed willy nilly. I bet you're one of those freaks who want 'hate speech' laws and despise the first amendment.

[@chalinofalcone871]

"If it were really the case that men could be deprived of their natural rights so utterly as never to have any further influence on [political] affairs, expect with the permission of the holders of sovereign right, it would then be possible to maintain with impunity the most violent tyranny, which, I suppose, not one would for an instant admit." [The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza, Vol. 1, translated/intro by R.H.M. Elwes, 1951, Theologico-political Treatise, Ch. XVII, Of The Hebrew Theocracy] [brackets added by Tim Caffery, 2019]

[@ProfPsycDad]

"expect with the permission of the holders" Shouldn't this read " *except* with the permission of the holders of sovereign right"? Asking for clarity...

[@TheVaryox]

In Germany our "supreme judges" (Verfassungsrichter) get elected by the parliament and the federal council, where the candidates get suggested by parties (the three biggest parties take turns), but need to reach a two thirds majority to get the office, and in our party landscape they need to get all the votes of two to three parties, which means that any too partisan candidate should automatically lose. We also have the added advantage that our founding document is not from the friggin baroque era like yours. I believe it's somewhat more exhaustive, too.

[@Shinkajo]

Who cares?

[@TheVaryox]

@@Shinkajo They can only hold office for 12 years max, or until they are 68 years old, whatever happens first, and they can't get re-elected. Our constitutional court also can't enforce anything by itself, because it has no command over the executive, like in the US. Though that has never been a problem. Up until recently, that is, when the officials of the city of Wetzlar refused to rent out their city hall to the neo nazi party NPD, despite the court ruling that they have to.

[@SuperSupermanX1999]

In the UK our Supreme Court was made completely independent of Parliament and the government back in the 2000s, so judges are chosen by other legal professionals. Means there's absolutely no partisanship. This is balanced out by the fact that judicial review can be carried out against the government but not Parliament.

[@TheVaryox]

@@SuperSupermanX1999 Interesting. But doesn't that somewhat contradict the point about separation of forces that those forces should keep each other in check? Depending on the process of judges getting chosen, there might be a risk of the whole council drifting somewhat into partisanship, if people choose successors who think like themselves. How is that controlled for?

[@benvoliothefirst]

@@Shinkajo I, for one, am 100% behind any system that isn't the US one, at this point.

[@TheNeodarkwing]

It's funny that VA's slogan is "VA is for lovers" when there was a Supreme Court case called VA vs Loving.

[@cameraman502]

It is interesting that a video ostensibly about how the Court became so power does not actually engage in that question, instead arguing about why it isn't making the rulings the channel writers would prefer. Whether the Courts should have the power to rule on abortion or racial justice, how they got that power, and if not them who should have it? These are obviously difficult questions, but Wisecrack argued that they would examine them. They failed to do so and offered only polemics.

[@JonSmith-hk1bq]

Yes, this is essentially a hit piece on the Supreme Court because the liberal wing of the court has lost its sway. If Garland had actually replaced Scalia and created a lasting liberal majority that ramped up the Court's power beyond anything we've seen, this same group would instead be lecturing us on how we should meekly obey the court without a second thought no matter how unchained from law it became.

[@Raziel312]

Yeah, it seems that it's always the side that is in the minority of whatever the Court's currently configuration is, that is complaining that the Court is in desperate need of reform. Meanwhile, the side that is in the majority argues for the sacredness of the Court. The body that is supposed to be above the partisan fray is actually totally enmeshed in it. That's why it always makes me sigh when someone complains that an issue should be regarded as "nonpartisan". The truth is, the moment a Democrat or Republican brings the issue up.. it's partisan.

[@JonSmith-hk1bq]

@@Raziel312 Thing is, conservatives didn't try to destroy the court. It was never even considered. Instead, they embarked on a highly rigorous change in judicial philosophy that's come to hold sway and has only come to fruition 50 years later. It's Democrats that want to hit the self-destruct button the moment they lose power.

[@dante6563]

This response is an example of...tell you're an idiot without telling me you're an idiot.

[@JonSmith-hk1bq]

@@dante6563

[@caliph20]

Seems like primarily a failure of congress. If the constitution doesn't include those rights and the super majority is for those rights, then laws can be passed and the constitution can be changed. The constitution is old, but it's not unchanging if enough people want it to. Asking scotus to change things is actually giving them too much power. It's not in their purview.

[@davidgill3356]

The whole initial assertion that making things just and fair is idiotic. I thought these guys were academics.

[@daveyc02909]

The problem then is that congress is very corrupt, something the constitution (as it currently stands) hasn't been able to prevent

[@caliph20]

@@daveyc02909 that's just an anti-democratic opinion. "The other guy disagrees with me so he must be evil" unfortunately the reality is that people have different opinions and opinions effect congress and the senate. But no one said 50% + 1 is a meaningful way of settling law. That's why the standard is 60% for change and 70% for meaningful change. Trying to make law via scotus has always been anti democratic. Roe/wade was anti democratic based on super flimsy tangential arguments. The reason scotus is conservative is that scotus isn't supposed to make law. Just compare law to the constitution. Wisecracks arguments is that scotus should be a way to circumvent congress. And textualism is bad. Which is extremely anti democratic

[@kevinw2592]

I agree with your thesis, but in the current climate I don't think it's possible. The Equal rights amendment still hasn't been passed after 50 years.

[@seanspeltwrong4402]

​@@kevinw2592 equal rights amendment? what is the story with that, havent heard of it

[@andrepp1701]

Hasn’t this decision effectively negated the power of the justices to legislate by giving said power it back to the individual states?

[@ASlaveToReason]

Dont let your hate facts interfear with my Reeeeeee

[@icerres1067]

Yeah, I’m confused why people are so upset about that. The more local laws, the more power to the local people.

[@innocento.1552]

Because people move like sheep since the internet. The follow the loudest voice without reasoning

[@danielpruitt8550]

Lol exactly states rights was the point of America, so therefore make you're voice heard in you're state.

[@mattevans4377]

Because California and New York state want to dictate to Texas and Florida how they should be run.

[@loner419]

Oh don't mind me just popping in for no particular reason at all.

[@TenebrionDF]

Longtime fan - this is easily the best video you guys have put out in ages. It feels authentic, and I'd love to see more.

[@davidgill3356]

Dude….if by best you mean most ignorant you’re right. The need to stick to dissecting Rick and Morty.

[@TenebrionDF]

@@davidgill3356 Hot take.

[@TheCreepypro]

thank you for giving people a crash course on the history of the court because the reality is they haven't been paragons of justice and fairness like most would think

[@edwinlor7932]

Oh snap, props to the editor!

[@BoyNamedSue4]

I remember learning in the 5th grade the Supreme Court basically decided what powers they had and it always stuck with me.

[@stevengrimes371]

who the fuck taught you that, your 5th grade teacher was a retard, the constitution decides what power they have

[@VincenzoC749]

Congrats, you had a communist for a 5th grade teacher.

[@BoyNamedSue4]

@@VincenzoC749 your comment is as hilarious as it is unoriginal.

[@VincenzoC749]

@@BoyNamedSue4 and also correct.

[@Brian-tn4cd]

@@VincenzoC749 cool, his teacher taught him a truth of the world and he's better informed because of it, your point?

[@Wastelander84]

You seem to confuse the job of the judiciary with the job of the legislature. They are there to interpret the laws and ensure that they don’t infringe upon constitutional rights. Your issues with their early interpretations should be issues with the legislature not passing amendments. That’s how you add/change rights, not through an unelected branch.

[@xuto2693]

"Ending slavery didn't end racism" It didn't end slavery either. If anything, it codified it even harder. Can we talk about how a barely defined court literally ruled itself into existence as an absolute supreme power?

[@jarcuuuble5819]

Slavery does not exist in America today. Prison is not slavery. Paid work is not slavery. You hating society and being a loser is not slavery. You bring down the very meaning of the word when you spit dribble like that

[@vienlacrose]

The opinion stated above is ahistorical and contrary to the text of the 13th amendment itself.

[@thibaultl1956]

@@jarcuuuble5819 Let me give you a hint, they're not saying that prison is slavery, but instead that America has ongoing slavery within its prisons. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." And it's regarded as slavery in the 13th amendment. So, piss off. Not everything called slavery has to be chattel slavery. Also... How could you possibly be so detached from history that you think that just because they receive a fraction of the compensation their labor is worth that it can't be slavery at all? Even the fucking Pharaohs provided their slaves some compensation.

[@Itcouldbebunnies]

@@jarcuuuble5819 Yes, it does. Read the 13th Amendment if you don't believe it.

[@jarcuuuble5819]

@@Itcouldbebunnies it literally has a section specifically for punishment being an exception.

[@LokiBeckonswow]

11:29 hey fam, massive respect to you for not backing down with this statement, we must never deny such harsh realities as this, we must always say it as it is, honestly like this is always necessary - where I come from, we call this 'calling out bullshit' - sadly this is not such a common behaviour, so I feel very inspired when I see others really staring these difficult truths directly in the eye

[@benvoliothefirst]

Came here to say this. 100% got your back, editor.

[@Destiny87]

I respect his opinion, but it is a little overblown. School shootings are horrible things that must be stopped, but they're still a relative rarity. It's not like kids go to school and it's a coin flip whether they'll be shot or not. It's like saying going outside is deadly because a meteor might land on you. And I find it ironic that he's worried about children's safety yet doesn't seem to be outraged about a ruling that allows the killing of babies.

[@danielland3767]

I had to listen again, about that...all facts

[@benvoliothefirst]

@@Destiny87 I hope you're never forced to confront the reality of your stupidity, because it will be anguish

[@fabiolopez6917]

@@Destiny87 School shootings shouldn't even be something children need to be thinking of. The fact that schools have school shooting drills tells you all you need to know.

[@nobody8717]

Q: How did the Supreme Court become powerful? A: Constitution of these United States Article III. Oh. That was simple.

[@nobody8717]

Surprised that a federation of individual states would consider the overruling government as an oppressing force? Maybe read any history book.

[@nobody8717]

lol Adam's "nemesis" Thomas. They were basically friends who disagreed on some political issues. jfc.

[@nobody8717]

Or, it could be the fact that they have lifetime appointments, and social issues change every 2 years that leads you to think the court is "always" conservative... Ya know. The other side of that coin you refuse to look at.

[@M.A.C.01]

Marbury V. Madison actually

[@golith41]

lol

[@rogersam1294]

I don't know that they flexed any power. Someone brought a case to court. They decided. It's the process.

[@bothi00]

Ya, you have no idea what the law, jurisprudence, or precedent are (or what those words even mean) and how they operate do you?

[@rogersam1294]

@@bothi00 I mean, the Supreme Court would know better than me.

[@gearsie_]

Holy shit, I've been binging Wisecrack's political videos, and this channel has gotten really progressive over recent years. Not saying that's bad or good, just interesting since it's usually the opposite

[@darienjewel1072]

Makes me concerned that the videos won’t do much to convince people to new ideas. Progressives will just feel validated and non-progressives will just tune out.

[@gearsie_]

@@darienjewel1072 Aye, that is a concern but better to hope and be wrong, than to give up and potentially lose helping someone accept some new ideals (especially ideals whose purpose is to lift up the people who built this damn country)

[@TheSinisterProdigy]

Jared left and he was more... let's say diverse and over time he was less involved. Not good or bad but that's probably what you're seeing.

[@gearsie_]

@@TheSinisterProdigy interesting!

[@heyyo2631]

@@darienjewel1072 they’ll become Regressive?

[@cannibalfan01]

Also the Supreme Court can use whatever reasoning they want for rulings cause the only thing that can over rule the Supreme Court is another case that makes it to the Supreme Court or a Constitutional amendment. Alito could've used the Lorem ipsum default text as his argument to why Roe v Wade is unconstitutional and nothing can stop them.

[@richardarriaga6271]

With the shadow docket, they don't need any reasoning. Just rule.

[@basedstreamingatcozy-dot-t7126]

like how the liberal justices only ended up saying "Roe V Wade needs to stand cause it'll be bad for women." No constitutional argument at all, just feelings.

[@darkgalaxy5548]

Same true of Burger, who legislated from the bench, also using the Lorum ipsum argument.

[@ceciland18]

The line about kids going to school and not protected from deadly conditions just made me hit that subscribe button.

[@SomeRedDame]

thank you editors for being the perfect amount of spicy, this vid made my day

[@santiagogarza8121]

The problem is that with your two party system it's almost imposible to amend the constitution so governments do that by selecting justices that align with them instead of amending the constitution or passing bills

[@santiagogarza8121]

Also you don't have a legal framework for the courts to expand on human rights. By most county's standards that's archaic, but it wouldn't be great for any court to just decide on rights because they want to without any preexisting law that allows them to do so

[@santiagogarza8121]

@Robert Arnold a revolution is what happens when you ignore your people for enough time. I really hope you don't have to live through that horror to receive actual change

[@willhelmberkly3025]

This is not a bug, this is a feature. I am sorry if my right to exist offends you but my AR-15 is not.

[@santiagogarza8121]

@Haku Yuki I know it's supposed to be hard, but within your system it's almost impossible. It's not s matter of legal framework but of political reality. I think you should be worried that this choices are being made by the SC, weather you like them or not

[@basedstreamingatcozy-dot-t7126]

@@santiagogarza8121 which is a good thing because you people make literally everything out to be a 'human right'.

[@TheLastGreatDon]

Editor is based and also as sad and cloaked in darkness as the rest of America. Appreciate you editor.

[@malokingi23]

I tried looking for Supreme Injustice but only found a book by Paul Finkelman. I've been adding books to my list of books to read and I was trying to find the book mentioned. But all I found was this one: Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court's Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America, Adam Cohen.

[@HamSaladtv]

Paul Finkleman is a good historian and also a nice guy in person.

[@jodav6866]

I love visiting and reading the comments thanks y'all.

[@davidmallinson]

Couldn’t be more relevant with the news today

[@bothi00]

15:16 incorrect. They are originalists. What you described is originalism. Textualism allows judges to interpret words with modern definitions. It can also derive so much more from those words on the text that would give grounding to some of the more tenuous or unenumerated rights. Even at that, you have it wrong. Kavanaugh is not an originalist (or Textualist for that matter), and Clarence Thomas is

[@KevinACarroll1996]

I was quite confused watching this video because it came across like it was judging the courts decisions from a perspective of what we would like them to do instead of what they're supposed to do. Like during the history of the court segment, it came across like the court was abusing it's power or was corrupt in it's decisions for things such as child labor laws or slavery laws. As great as it would have been to have them make such decisions, the Supreme Court is supposed to review laws to see if they're constitutional as well as serve as the highest court in the US. It's not their job to change the laws, that's the job of the executive branch. I'm not sure if I missed something in the video, if I did then please let me know. But this video didn't seem particularly focused on the question the title stated to me.

[@epiren]

Incorrect, the Executive "executes" the laws. The Legislative creates and changes the laws. The Judicial interprets and can strike down the laws, and, in striking them down, change them.

[@KevinACarroll1996]

@@epiren Yes, but it's based off of cases they see and laws passed by Congress. They can't just out of the blue decide something because they want to.

[@JonSmith-hk1bq]

In the specific case of the child labor laws, he is largely correct. The freedom of contract idea from the Lochner case is now considered an exercise in judicial overreach. However, you are correct in general that the video is perfectly fine with a powerful Supreme Court, assuming that it rules in the way that it wants. In fact, most of the video is filled with complaints that the court isn't more muscular. The Supreme Court has actually been a fairly left-leaning institution on social views for the past 70 years and until a conservative majority emerged, the producers of this video would have lauded the power of the Court to impose its will. This was true all the way up to the Lawrence decision a few years ago that legalized gay marriage. What you are actually seeing is fear that now that a conservative majority has emerged, that the conservative wing will behave in as activist a manner as he actually wants the court to act to fit his views. The primary case kinda proves that. If the Court strikes down Roe, it will actually be a massive reversal of power on the issue where the Court previously declared its preferred outcome the law, it will instead give all that power back to the legislatures. Precisely the opposite of accruing power. In essence, he wants the court to be an "I Win" button for his own policies, but now that the other side is in charge, he fears they will be as lacking in ethics as he himself is on the issues and wants to burn the institution that to the ground out of fear.

[@adamtapparo2168]

@@KevinACarroll1996 the Supreme Court is sent tens of thousands of cases to review each year. All they have to do is pick one that would set the precedent they want and if they have the majority in the court, it’s almost guaranteed to go through.

[@dexboat1733]

@@epiren Ok sure, but it's presumably not striking down laws randomly because they personally don't like them.

[@spintheblock3x385]

“Speak truth to power.” Damn that was hard!!!

[@cjeromet1971]

Speak Truth to Idiots more like it , cuz many people here who disagree with what the SC did , dont even understand why it needed to happen.

[@marcuswalters8093]

In the UK, the high court has no explicit ties to party. A Tory judge would be frighteningly alien.

[@lindseysummers5351]

Both Republicans and Democrats play ignorance, that they cannot believe any of "their" judges would ever decide cases based upon their own ideologies and personal opinion. The rest of us know better.

[@Garbimba1900]

11:37 WELL SAID!!!!!!!!!! Well done, editor!

[@ThePageTurnerPT]

Mike: *starts off video* Then SURPRISE HELEN HAS ENTERED THE RING! I hope all is well. Need more Helen and Craig and the other Wisecrack hosts yo Not that Mike isn't good and all, I've just been conditioned to expect more of the others with all the Mike stuff

[@dandooshnanoosh]

Mike is consistently pretty bad. He seems to be an ideologue who takes way too much for granted.

[@Z3rk]

A bit of criticism - when talking about slavery, you (rightly) imply that it is morally wrong. True, but the Supreme Court's job is to interpret existing laws, and how challenges to the existing law are handled. It seems like you gloss over this completely, and imply (to uninformed listeners) that the judges' job is to discern moral good and moral bad, and that parsing existing law is unimportant/secondary. The video essay is fairly good otherwise, but there's several small but significant implications made that are very misleading.

[@runningbetweenspaces]

I mean what's so wrong with keeping people as cattle. They can work harder than us so we just gotta make sure the laws work for u- OH WAIT, THATS THE WHOLE STATES RIGHTS ARGUMENT!!

[@dumpllin9742]

I feel this video also glosses over the nations feeling towards slavery. They seem to make the argument that the Supreme Court is bad because it enabled this stuff even though they did not make the laws. Most of the country was racist at these times and the court just reflected that

[@yearswriter]

Isn't the spirit of the law a thing? And laws generally adapt to the current moral consensus? And with a court as a concept you expect someone to solve moral dilemma to satisfy a sense of justice. I.E. any court exist to solve moral dilemma, that maybe more complicated than good or bad, but it isn't too harmful to boiled it down to that?

[@runningbetweenspaces]

@@dumpllin9742 but that's the point. The system was made and is still is made for white people. We legit had a supreme judge during reconstruction say "OMG YOU GUYS ARE FREE STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT STUFF" Even TO THIS DAY we have this happen. With police not having to protect you to the fact they want to take away women's reproductive rights shows that this country has and will be rigged until a revolution happens

[@Bullfrog777]

I think you missed the point of the video. The writers KNOW the Supreme Court doesn’t doesn’t make its ruling morally (hence the talk about slavery and child labor). The aspect of the video you’re missing is that it’s not like the Supreme Court is a natural phenomenon we have no control over. Why can’t we MAKE the Supreme Court an arbiter for morals, the American people, etc, instead of one that’s AGAINST us.

[@holidaygerry]

Wisecrack just gets better and better. Thanks editor.

[@LokiBeckonswow]

yeah this channel is a philosophical necessity for the modern world

[@tueboas]

A thumbs up for the editor!

[@SephoneNorth]

The editor heard your dare and said "yeah, eff it, let's go."

[@biggerdoofus]

I think your overall points are correct, but you missed some of the nuances. Only a fraction of supreme court cases are actually about the constitution. They also get many cases about figuring out how the laws made by congress would apply, if it'd even be possible to apply them at all (the concept of being "unconstitutionally vague" is relevant here). In those cases, and in the cases of amendments, "textualism" wouldn't ask how the founding fathers would understand the text. It would ask how the actual lawmakers who wrote the text would understand it. A good example of this was the Obamacare case, where the conservative side of the court argued that the individual mandate couldn't be a tax because congress didn't say it was, whereas the swing vote (Chief Justice Roberts) pointed out that the actual mechanics written into the law were definitely based on how taxes work. There's also the issue of how else one interprets the law. Textualism is attractive because it gives a rigid methodology to follow to appear unbiased, but with the downside of being nonsense to normal people most of the time. However, even the more liberal ways to interpret things aren't actually as different from textualism as the majority of the population would want. That's why most supreme court decisions aren't controversial. If the supreme court actually went as far as people want them to, especially as far as activists would prefer, they would be just making up laws. Lastly, the amendment process may be hard, but it has still been done 27 times. Further, if it's done again, the next amendment could include making amending the constitution easier, should congress choose to do it. Ultimately, the problem is and always has been the other branches not feeling that it's politically viable to go further.

[@chris0000924]

Or how the government now had the right to force you to buy a healthcare that's why it was originally striked down

[@theLetterDoubleYou]

+1, & Richardson v Ramirez 1974 shows the supreme court has been modifying its responsibility to defend constitutional rights for decades.

[@Democlis]

You say that but then you see things like citizens united that basically said corporations are people too, tell me were in your constitution it defines corporations as part of "we the people". That is what people most complain about textualism, the fact an unelected person can ignore 99% of a document and latch on a single phrase, sometimes even a part of a phrase, while ignoring the whole rest of the text surrounding it to justify their decision. Whant a good example? Just look how they justify gun rights, the point out to the "right of people to bear arms" part of the text to strike down a ton of regulations but pretend that is no "a WELL REGULATED millitian being nescessary to protect the states," part of the text, that implies regullations should be a common thing...

[@folumb]

As an actual solution, I've recently heard that we should go back to having federal circuit judges "riding circuit" except in this case, have them serve terms on the supreme court in rotating fashion. Every federal circuit judge will have his/her opportunity on the supreme court bench and they can all be replaced at once or in succession. It may still be possible to seed the court with idealogues but gaining a majority will be nearly impossible to coordinate given all their tenures would have to line up perfectly. Further, you could have the docket set by the outgoing circuit judges so that if somehow all left wing or right wing judges are seated at the same time, they can't just decide to rule on partisan cases (after all, judges don't have any "expertise" that would dictate which cases they will hear since they rely on amicus and expert testimony to get this). In this way the composition of the court is ever changing, outside of the legislative cycle and the tendency of it to be molded by a few members ideology for several decades is broken because it has no time to form one

[@mitchclark1532]

So the court would still be full of partisan political operators, except no one would have a majority? lol Your idea doesn't make sense. Federal judges are partisan political actors as well. Where do you think justices come from? Lower courts. This isn't a problem with the Supreme Court. This is a problem with the entire U.S. court system. Why throw the bums out if you're just gonna replace them with new bums? We need to fundamentally change the system from the current broken system to one that works. The most absurd part of your plan is where the court is filled with "all left wing or right wing judges" (Why would you want a system that does this???) so you prevent them from ruling on "partisan cases". Literally jibberish. You're dancing around the real solution here: democracy. We have a court system that is dictated to us, a congress that doesn't want to fix it, and we wonder why we can't have the nice things that we want and need. lol Go figure.

[@Rokaize]

The problem is that the Supreme Court is weaponized. Your solution wouldn’t work because as soon as one side doesn’t get what they want, they immediately call for the Supreme Court to be done away with. Then a few years later, the opposite happens. All the arguments you’re seeing now happened in 2015 with the gay marriage ruling. There hasn’t been a a single new point brought up about it since then. The same people who were thanking and rooting for the Supreme Court in 2015 are the same ones saying it needs to be stopped now in 2022. You’re under the illusion that they actually want the Supreme Court to be fair and balanced. Neither side wants that. They want a cudgel to bash the opposition with.

[@HGRAP1]

It could work but states would then wait for a favourable court to send their cases to the Supreme Court. It would make the cases even more partisan because they wouldn’t be “forced” to send them as they do now.

[@reptocilicus]

It happened because Congress has not been very good at passing laws that involve compromise over the last few decades and some proposed laws do not have as widespread of support as the proponents would like, so some people have wanted the Court to pick up the slack and find ways to progress the laws of our nation-and some Courts have been willing to go with them on that. And then Congress doesn’t do anything check or balance them.

[@AaronGuest]

Wait what the hell does compromise have to do with anything? If something is unconstitutional then it should be struck down.

[@chris0000924]

Maybe congress shouldn't pass unnecessary laws since the legal code is already a giant entangled mess?

[@GiancarloPaniccia]

Love how the editor saw that challenge and was like ok, bet.

[@ScamallDorcha]

He was like: ¨Challenge accepted.¨

[@RARufus]

The idea was they are appointed for life so they can follow the law without retaliation, but they are essentially political appointees who have increasing follow party lines.

[@APaleDot]

Even with term limits, they wouldn't have to fear retaliation. You could cycle out justices every 15-20 years and still make it difficult to remove one before their term is up.

[@chalinofalcone871]

"What bad luck that the city of Rome survived even when its empire was smashed. That the Pope kept it going! The vain emperors could capture her empty ruins & the name of Rome within them! Rome conquered Christianity by becoming Christendom. Every apostasy from Rome was merely a new great war. Every conversion to Rome, in the farthest corners of the world, was a continuance of the classical plunderings. America was discovered to reanimate slavery! Spain, as a Roman province, was the new lord of the world. Then the renewal of the Germanic plundering forays in the twentieth century. Only the measure gigantically magnified, the entire earth instead of the Mediterranean, a hundred times as many people meeting with destruction, participating in it. There twenty Christian centuries were necessary to give the ancient & naked Roman idea a garment for its nakedness & a conscience for weak moment. And now the idea is here, perfect & equipped with all the forces of the soul. Who will destroy it? Is it indestructible? Has mankind, with a thousand fold efforts, carefully conquered its own annihilation?" [The Human Province, Elias Canetti, 1973, English Edition, 1978, Sec. "1943“]

[@m.s.1067]

A significant problem on why the court is so political is that the nominees are confirmed with a simple majority a very divided Senate. Meaning one party on its own can confirm a candidate. In most other democracies that elect their constitutional court judges, they are elected by qualified majorities, forcing opposing parties to agree on a more neutral candidate.

[@CottonCandySharks]

Weird how our government doesn't actually care about its people, just the 1%

[@Soletestament]

not weird at all...... It's a government illegally formed by merchant class colonists intending to usurp the democracy established by the war for independence. Very few among those drafting and ratifying the constitution are among the names you typically hear about due to heroism during the war. Which should have struck any student as really odd. Basically the merchants stole the country from the people and never gave it back.

[@Diavolo-ey2om]

Oh is that why the 1% pay most of the taxes?

[@APaleDot]

@Haku Yuki The 1% will always have the connections and resources to obtain safe abortions. Outlawing abortions really just disempowers the poor, and traps them into cycles of poverty, further widening the gap between rich and poor. Furthermore, outlawing abortion keeps the population growing in order to feed the growth of companies owned by the rich, while forcing this growing population into competition with each other for jobs. Basically, it disempowers workers in order to maintain an underclass which cannot escape poverty.

[@APaleDot]

@Haku Yuki Lol, ok. So just going to ignore everything I said. Got it.

[@thegodofimagination]

@Haku Yuki or now read this out people should be able to have fun with out a blade damocles over there heads everytime

[@ChickenVeggi]

one simple thing is absolutely clear, the court didn’t just not protect vulnerable people but actively blocked progress. If you’re against activist judges that’s fine but you have to oppose them blocking progressive laws passed by the legislature

[@TweakaliciousTV]

Editor: "Say I won't..."

[@jenniefelix2283]

Truth to power...As a teacher thank you Michael and the editor

[@hehexd4557]

6-3 majority and GOP are a lock for the midterms. Keep crying about racism and sexism while the average American gawks at food/gas prices. HAHAH

[@drwalka10]

How is a child going to school today similar to child labor ? Please unretard that statement

[@JonSmith-hk1bq]

@@drwalka10 He's trying to make the false case that schools are unsafe.

[@jenniefelix2283]

The comment was directed toward the statement that schools are not safe.

[@JonSmith-hk1bq]

@@jenniefelix2283 Which is a false statement that hurts your students by making them feel unsafe. You should retract it.

[@icerres1067]

How did the governing body that decides if things are constitutional or not go wrong by deciding that a right under a vague clause that really didn’t apply and thus decided that the federal government had no power to enforce this right and left it to the states? It seems like it just did it’s job.

[@danielc-s8056]

because the 10th amendment reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal government to the states or to the people. the default in constitutional law is against the central federal government

[@novacaine_]

Well this is extremely relevant right now

[@davidjameson3419]

Im confused so your saying that the majority of Americans didnt support the over turning of roe v wade and that the supreme court doesn’t reflect the will of the people, but they ruled that the decision is up to the states so ones vote is more accurate in their representation due to a smaller voting population? Isn’t leaving a law up to the states more democratic? Also congress voting history doesn’t represent the will of the people either due to lobbying and the influence of money.

[@joelanderson5285]

They are biased toward left wing causes, so they are sore about not getting the ruling they wanted.

[@TimeOfSin]

It would be if not for stuff like gerrymandering and historical momentum.

[@joelanderson5285]

@@TimeOfSin The Dems are historically and today the kings of gerrymandering! What historical momentum?

[@papagrazi2827]

President Andrew Jackson actually did refuse to follow the Supreme Court's decision, granted it's a horrific example with the trail of tears but it's possible for the Executive branch to say no

[@shaun7142]

The problem with this video is that it focuses on the Supreme Court as an individual institution. Yes (for example), the court stated that schools are not constitutionally required to be equal, but what body made the decision to make them unequal in the first place? The legislative branch could fix a lot of issues, and frankly that is their job. I don't want the Supreme Court to make the kinds of decisions that some people are calling for. I want the people who I vote for to make those decisions. Now, the Supreme Court has obviously done some ... shall we say problematic things, including several over the past few decades, but that same time period has seen things like the Patriot Act (which the courts have unfortunately largely defended). Basically, it's not one institution, it's the entire government screwing up. And I think most of the proposals for change are mostly about trying to swing the court in a particular party's favor, rather than trying to turn the court into a neutral arbiter (that is, it's theoretical purpose). At the end of the day, what we need to do is reduce political polarization. And the effort to do so is going to require people to give up some things in exchange for long term stability. That is, people are going to have to decide if getting everything they want is more important than the republic. Edit to add: Also, "pure" democracy is problematic for a number of reasons. For one thing, all of the young people right now are having to deal with the, frankly gigantic, "Baby Boomer" voting bloc. This bloc has been making decisions that benefit themselves for decades, and in the process has created many of the problems that exist for the current generations, even while their own lives continue to improve in some ways. Democracy is great in many ways, but let's not act like it is perfect. There are reasons why we choose a less than "pure" democracy.

[@ProfPsycDad]

Boooooyyyy howdy am I waiting for just a few more years to pass by, when certain aforementioned voting blocs pass away....im fairly certain the country will still be here.

[@TheKenganKing]

But this is about the Supreme Court not everything else.

[@shaun7142]

@@TheKenganKing Yes, but they chose to make the video about a single part of a larger organization, and they specifically chose to criticise them for things that are outside their focus. The Legislative Branch makes the laws, and the Executive enforces the laws, and the Judicial Branch interprets the laws. If the Judicial Branch interprets the laws in a way that the people do not like, then the Legislative branch is obligated to do something about it, as they are the ones who make the laws to begin with (in theory). The Judicial Branch should not use the people's discontent as an excuse to skip over the Legislative Branch, they need to follow their part of the process. It sucks that it takes so long to get important things done, but it is important that the government (of all institutions) follow its own rules.

[@Drekromancer]

@@shaun7142 Good argument. I think that puts some new perspective on the issue. Thanks for sharing.

[@TheKenganKing]

@@shaun7142 Not really. The video is about how they got so powerful. You're making this way too deep

[@corduroy99]

They are not some philosopher kings or ANYTHING even remotely like that.

[@ComedyJakob]

Generally speaking, for the last 100 years, the Supreme Court has been responsible for much of the United States' progress. Are we really going to overrule Marbury v. Madison because the court is currently conservative? Fickle.

[@seand.g423]

Pfft... Probably...

[@chris0000924]

Because supreme court is full of people you don't like you want it gone...lol entitled Americans

[@arvinbuenaagua5161]

So overturning Roe v Wade is okay as long as it isnt Marbury v Madison?

[@JonSmith-hk1bq]

@@arvinbuenaagua5161 Overturning Roe is okay because it was a really bad ruling that's poisoned judicial politics for half a century.

[@dexboat1733]

@@arvinbuenaagua5161 The court overturned Roe because they believe it's reasoning does not fit with the Constitution. That's the object of the discussion, not whether one personally agrees with abortion or not.

[@thorostudios6263]

Thomas Jefferson wrote that any constitution has to lapse roughly after every generation. He said “the earth belongs to the living and not to the dead” which meant that previous generations could not bind the current generation to accept the laws and constitution drawn up by their ancestors. It was meant to be rewritten. We just lack any original thinkers these days.

[@basedstreamingatcozy-dot-t7126]

the founders also said that the system of America was made for a people of good moral character (White Christian Men)

[@Black_Caucus]

Very informative video. Found out about you from Lance of The Serf Times!

[@jeb791]

regardless on what side your on roe v wade decision was a terrible one the Supreme Court made legislation. instead of getting angry at the supreme court get mad at your senators

[@KevinACarroll1996]

Were senators fine with leaving it as a Supreme Court decision or was there attempts to solidify it into law through the Senate and House?

[@dexboat1733]

@@KevinACarroll1996 I doubt they could pass such a law, seeing as how the house and senate have been flipping between the parties every few years, there's no way a law that controversial favoring one side or the other at the national level will stand for more than a couple years.

[@KevinACarroll1996]

@@dexboat1733 I mean it's been in effect for almost 50 years. I'm sure at some point it could have been made into law and then there would be two levels to get through to remove it. My personal (and maybe pessimistic) opinion is that there wasn't much motivation to solidify it since it's such great campaign material.

[@Xmar4]

@@KevinACarroll1996 That's kind of where I'm at. I think the Democratic party over the last 50 years ultimately failed us in not solidifying Roe v Wade into law. It just feels like the Republican party works so hard to remove rights and pull this country to the right, ultimately giving power to massive corporations and the rich through the guise of "state's right" and "limiting government" while the Democrats have utterly failed to counteract this. Though, considering they all answer to the same massively rich political donors, I guess it's not surprising. And like it was said in the video, the Supreme Court is NOT apolitical, and for decades Republicans have been working to appoint a conservative majority. At the VERY least, it seems like the judges need term limits. But if the legislative branch doesn't actually do anything, then we're still kinda screwed. IDK man, this whole thing sucks and is infuriating.

[@Drekromancer]

@@Xmar4 Good take. You added a few wrinkles to my brain today. Thank you for sharing.

[@MartijnterHaar]

Good that this video points out the first-mover disadvantage of the US Constitution, which has been made into some sacred text by some, but actually is really outdated. One of the good things of living in Western Europe is that we fixed our constitutions when the horrors of the first half of the 20th century where still fresh in mind, giving rise to a bunch of great national constitutions, the ECHR and the European Court of Human Rights.

[@persoro4015]

Actually, it's arguably a advantage because of the vagueness allows a lot of flexibility within changing the framework, whereas looking at most european constiutions, they are far more rigid, and much more spelled out

[@Drekromancer]

@@persoro4015 Arguably is the right word. Because that flexibility can be great for exploring options or correcting past mistakes, but it can also undermine fundamental protections by making them negotiable. I agree that the flexibility is helpful in many circumstances - however, I think that a flexible take on an ancient document leaves the law too subject to interpretation in a world so much more complex than the world it was written for. I think we would do well with a full review and update of the constitution every 50-100 years - and then people would use that flexible interpretation system to work from the newest draft. I think that would still give us flexibility and enshrine pivotal rights, but it would ultimately make our foundational document much less out of touch.

[@persoro4015]

@@Drekromancer It isn't that ancient though, there are people alive who's grandparents were around during the constiution, the problem with putting in TOO much in a constiution is that it makes the value of it's words meaningless

[@basedstreamingatcozy-dot-t7126]

considering that none of your 'great national constitutions' have free speech, I'd say America did it the best.

[@andrewwilson9183]

You assume new is better

[@1krani]

15:29 How does it account for the invention of the AK-47? Dude, the Founding Fathers let you own cannons and warships in an age where piracy was worldwide and still very lucrative. You could literally own and operate your very own pirate navy if you had the cash for it, and the U.S. would only take your cannons if they caught you looting ships with them. What's a glorified repeating mechanism (which had existed on crossbows since the Chinese invented them) next to literal artillery?

[@19MAD95]

Source?

[@DrSQUIRRELBOY12]

@@19MAD95 Just read the Federalist Papers.

[@draneym2003]

@@zoanth4 Funny how I'm not allowed to drive an F1 car on the streets, but you can have any weapon you want. What's the difference, really?

[@74rocktiger74]

@@draneym2003 turn signals and head lights dumbass

[@Chrisxantixemox]

@@draneym2003I will bet you it's far easier for me to by a F1 car than it is for you to purchase an automatic firearm. And it's a lot more illegal to use a firearm in the streets than it is to drive a F1 car in the street.

[@mma93067]

Wait. What do you mean by “the constitution is an old document that doesn’t reflect the present day” Isn’t the whole damn point of the legislative body to make new laws, remove old ones and amend existing ones to better reflect the current state of the society? The constitution is supposed to be a living document. What do we even vote for then?

[@KarlSnarks]

For which representatives of capital rule over us with the veneer of democracy

[@thegodofimagination]

Hit nail on the head even the founding fathers themselves said "the constitution of United States should be changed every 5 years to meet with an ever changing world"

[@Chrisxantixemox]

You keep insinuating that the SCOTUS referring the decision back to the states as a bad thing. But citizens have much, much more power to influence, petition, and protest laws in their own states than they do for federal laws. If the supreme court said "well the states should decide" and then the states decide that slavery is legal, then that is an issue with the people in that state. We are a nation of states -- that is fundamental to the entire system of government. For example, abortion will still be 100% legal and widely available in states like New York. And, if people got together in the states that want to ban or otherwise restrict abortion, then they have a much better chance at voting into office state-level politicians that can make those changes than they can voting in a national election. The constitution is hard to change for basically the reason Hamilton stated as you quoted. You also see the same exact "special appointed people" in literally the presidential election (See the electoral college). And I love how your quintessential argument "We're all still operating by a playbook written by slave owners in the late 1700s" is such an egregious use of a logical fallacy that I KNOW you KNOW. OH and EVERY time that one party achieves a superiority in the SCOTUS, the other party then collectively tries to argue for the changes that you are proposing here, that is nothing new, please do not act like this is a recent progressive idea. You are only supporting it because you very clearly have a political bias. One thing I enjoyed about this channel is that you always seemed to offer counter points in your opinion videos. However here, you seem to have gone on a tirade fueled by emotion rather than critical thinking and fact based evidence and any such counter points have been intentionally removed.

[@Lucarioguild7]

I find it hilarious you can fully acknowledge the fact that any party can achieve a superiority in the SCOTUS at all, but don't see any problem with whats supposed to be an unbiased system not only having members with a clear political bias but such a strong bias we can see it having sway over rulings.

[@zed739]

I love how completely mask-off you are in being comfortable with women being tortured and criminalized for getting an abortion just because you can think of at least one incredibly complex path that a woman COULD take to get one IF everything in her life lines up perfectly. Goddamn, centrists are just as insufferable as the right. Stop sniffing your farts dude.

[@Chrisxantixemox]

​@@zed739 I'm actually a very staunch supporter of abortion rights for all women under all circumstances. But if you want to attack your projected political ideas for me in KZbin comments, have at it. All I said is that it is easier for citizens to influence state legislature than it is for them to sway federal legislature.

[@Chrisxantixemox]

​@@Lucarioguild7 I don't think I said it wasn't an issue. I just think it's funny that each side only see's it as an issue when the system is not beneficial towards them. And therefore, the issue will never be resolved because neither party will ever concede power or "their chance to rule" to the other. If you believe that such a system can exist where there are these perfect unbiased individuals leading the way, you must really be living on another planet.

[@sneakerboots]

This video fails to consider that the supreme court is bound by the laws of the Congress. They don't rule on what is "good" or "the way things should be" but rather they rule on "what the law actually says". Most of their worst decisions are because we had BAD LAWS, not because the court itself was failing to do is duty.

[@matthewtyra3006]

This take overlooks situations like Roe where SCOTUS chooses to ignore decades of legal precedent, as well as the tricky nature of interpreting laws based on “what the law actually says” (ie, the ‘All *Men* Are Created Equal’ fallacy). Not just that, but this SCOTUS also chose in Carson v. Makin to actively misinterpret the definition of the word “private” in order to allow prayer in a public school setting. So instead of ruling on what the law actually said, they in fact ruled directly on what they thought was “good” or “the way things should be” despite needing to lie about case facts to do so.

[@matthewtyra3006]

SCOTUS is also not bound by the laws of Congress in the sense that they choose which cases they get to hear. Congress has nothing to do with that. With 3 liberal judges on the court, the conservative majority can literally refuse to take any cases that risk upsetting a conservative precedent, while choosing only to take cases that could overturn a liberal/leftist precedent. Which is exactly what they’ve been doing.

[@sneakerboots]

Every sentence you've written is incorrect. They didn't "ignore" the precedent any more than they did for Brown vs BoE, Lawrence vs Texas, and a host of others - I assume you support those decisions? The "Men" fallacy is unsupported stupidity, as no court case has ever held that the term excluded women in it's use. And, finally, Carson vs Makin didn't turn on the use of the word "private", so your smokescreen is irrelevant and incorrect.

[@sneakerboots]

The ability to choose their cases has nothing whatsoever to do with being bound by the law Congress wrote - it's like saying since the sky is blue the earth cannot be solid. What I said was the SCOTUS can only rule on the law as it is, not as they wish it to be, and unfortunately sometimes "morally wrong" does not mean "unconstitutional".

[@matthewtyra3006]

@@sneakerboots John, that’s literally what I’m saying. They’re in no way bound by the laws of Congress if they can subvert Congress entirely in the sense that they choose what cases they hear. You also had nothing to say about the other points I made directly refuting this “as the law was written” piece you’re harping on.

[@muralmarshall5044]

This aged beautifully.

[@basedstreamingatcozy-dot-t7126]

Almost as beautifully as the people who said Trump was a bad president.

[@nachfullbarertrank5230]

@@basedstreamingatcozy-dot-t7126 at least biden isn't actively trying to divide and destroy the country, you guys are doing that for him

[@basedstreamingatcozy-dot-t7126]

@@nachfullbarertrank5230 lololololol, he isn't trying to divide and destroy the country? okay guy.

[@kurtisbrooks1699]

You people's bias is embarrassing and I can't stomach finishing this tright

[@DenBlackwolf]

Just commenting to show love.

[@PetersonSilva]

Great video!!

[@bothi00]

17:51 incorrect. That was ruled in 1974 in Milliken v Bradley

[@aristotleawes]

This is an amazing channel and criminally underviewed IMO

[@TH3F4LC0Nx]

Bruh they have 3 million subscribers. That's pretty damn good, I'd say.

[@aristotleawes]

@@TH3F4LC0Nx I used the word ‘underviewed’ specifically. He has a respectable number of views and subs but comparing his sub to view ratio to other creators I follow, his stands out. 3 million subs with about 50k-300k views a vid. Compare that to a channel I follow called ‘micsmike’ with about 700k subs getting between at least 300k views up to 4 million on some vids. Just one example.

[@chalinofalcone871]

“Again, when it is contended that the taking and holding possession of land amounts to an acknowledgment of the sovereign, and a virtual promise of allegiance to his laws, it is necessary to the validity of the argument to prove, that the inhabitants, who first composed and constituted the state, collectively possessed a right to the soil of the country;-a right to parcel it out to whom they pleased, and to annex to the donation what conditions they thought fit. How came they by this right? An agreement amongst themselves would not confer it: that could only adjust what already belonged to them. A society of men vote themselves to be the owners of a region of the world;-does that vote, unaccompanied especially with any culture, inclosure, or proper act of occupation, make it theirs? does it entitle them to exclude others from it, or to dictate the conditions upon which it shall be enjoyed? Yet this original collective right and ownership is the foundation of all the reasoning, by which the duty of allegiance is inferred from the possession of land.” [The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy, By William Paley: CHAPTER III; THE DUTY OF SUBMISSION TO CIVIL GOV’T EXPLAINED]

[@9000ck]

What went wrong? The US forgot it was a democracy and lost any traditions of decency that it had.

[@uberhuber7903]

It's easy to blame the decision on bias if you are really passionate about what you believe. Even if I disagree with the ruling, it makes sense. It's difficult to imagine someone being unbiased if you yourself are really polarized and live in that mindset.

[@adamramsey5787]

The title was "How The Supreme Court Got So Powerful." The speaker trailed off into some sort of social justice diatribe, and didn't even mentioned how the 14 Amendment changed the court. The speaker infers that the Supreme Court should do more to supersede the legislative process. In the United States, someone is free to work to convince the public to vote for something. Should there be more Amendments? Someone is free to work to convince the public, to convince congress to pass more Amendments. The Supreme Courts job is to "Settle Disputes." A judge is Your Honor or The Honorable. A dishonorable judge is disbarred. Given a dishonorable judge was not disbarred, that may be an institutionalization of corruption. Roe v Wade would be an example of where the Supreme Court discovered or legislated rights not in the Constitution, and decided they were Secular Priests, capable of ruling on moral issues. It wasn't the first time either. We are still debating Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade was a horrible decision where the Supreme Court discovered powers it didn't have, and a dispute was not settled. There was a #RoevWade here, and the speaker didn't cover issues surrounding it. Instead, he quotes people who are domestic enemies to the US Constitution, who seem to want Civil War.

[@adamramsey5787]

Here is something to think about: King Henry VIII was Secular Authority ruling over a Christian Nation. Nation refers to the people and the culture, and religion is a big part of culture. The Pope was religious authority. King Henry VIII wants a divorce. He goes to the Pope, religious authority, and asks for a divorce. The Pope says "No." King Henry VIII made himself head of Church and State. This puts a Separation of Church and State into context. Does the State of California have the right to grant "No Fault Divorce" to people married in a Church? It doesn't matter what Christian Denomination someone was of, No Fault Divorce isn't in the Bible. A marriage granted in a Church cannot be ended by Secular Judges in the United States without Church's delegating that authority. The Supreme Court ruling with Roe vs Wade, or defining marriage, would be similar. They were bad decisions.

[@Chrisxantixemox]

Congress: *Passes unconstitutional laws* SCOTUS: "You can't do that" Wisecrack: "Why is the supreme court so corrupt?"

[@CT_Taylor]

Congress : passes unconstiutional law SCOTUS: We dont have any constitutional power to do anything about this everyone: THAT MAKES NO SENSE Congress: passes unconstiutional law SCOTUS: its constitutional now, because reasons. Sun was in my eye, and criag was down by the safeway

[@r0ckrabb1t71]

This video makes two contrary complaints. First, the Supreme Court isn't accountable to the people through elections [8:36 & 22:21]. A position that courts are bad as they have radical undemocratic power. Second, they did not act on what are today clear ethical decisions (slavery[9:28], child labour [11:30], etc.). However, these were controversial at the time, however heinous that may seem in retrospect. This amounts to a position that courts are bad because they haven't exercised radical undemocratic power. As the video points out, the courts opted not to make a decision and let people vote on it. So, I think the issues mentioned can be better attributed to the failures of the other branches of government. They often put forth ethically abhorrent policies, which the courts often resisted more than the legislature and executive. Where the court is being accused of supporting such policies, it is where they are leaning on textualism [15:20]. If the court interprets things textually, elect someone who will change the text. I get that the constitution is hard to change, but the constitution is far from the only thing the supreme court rules on. In conclusion, this video's arguments make no sense, even if I do agree with the point that the courts need reform and depoliticization. (As was put in place in countries such as the UK). (edited for citations)

[@only20frickinletters]

"these were controversial at the time" Not really. Both were opposed by the majority of people and supported by the economic elite. The Supreme Court struck down democratic anti-slavery laws [9:07]. Edit: The second complaint isn't that the court did not act on clear ethical decisions, but that it *did* act against them.

[@r0ckrabb1t71]

​@@only20frickinletters Both issues were controversial. Slavery had just had a civil war fought over it, and the [9:07] point relates to before the civil war. The right to freely contract [10:40] (which was at the core of the child labour argument) was well established in English common law and tied to the anti paternalistic american political values of the time.

[@only20frickinletters]

@@r0ckrabb1t71 I suppose I should've been clearer. The Supreme Court, in both instances, *was* acting on what are today clear ethical decisions, i.e. exerting radical undemocratic power, but they were doing so *against* democratically passed progressive laws. The video is consistent in showing how the unaccountable nature of the court leads it to support conservatism.

[@r0ckrabb1t71]

​@@only20frickinletters I'd agree that the court is by nature conservative (in the literal sense rather than favoring one party), however I would not agree that this translated into exerting radical undemocratic power. I believe that the comment at [9:07] is a reference to Prigg v Pennsylvania 1842, (however it is unclear) that case came down to one state trying to protect escaped slaves from another collecting them. At a time where slavery was embedded in the constitution, it would be hard for a court to rule against it. However, that is not the job of the judiciary, they do not write the laws but only interpret what is written. The laws were heinous, but on the national level they were democratically established.

[@lazymansload520]

Trump got elected and had the rare chance to add three lapdog justices to the court. That’s what happened.

[@philinegro]

Absolutely in love with this video

[@joelloua]

*starts video with original Constitutional intent of SCOTUS *precedes to complain about SCOTUS not doing what he would want it to do how he would want it to do. Dude you know there are two other branches of Government. All this “social reform” and “benifiting th common man” stuff is called Legislation. You already told me SCOTUS wasn’t meant to make legislation so what’s the problem?

[@basedstreamingatcozy-dot-t7126]

of course they're complaining. They're leftists who aren't getting their way,

[@PyroK8]

The editor wins this truth or dare

[@justinrivera1618]

The second you stop looking at this country like a democracy which it was never intended to be. You’ll be able to effectively enacts some of the changes you’re looking for. As for myself, I like checks and balances I don’t want to live in a place where the president has authority absolute nor do I want to live in a parliamentary system either. The court is too powerful at present but only someone who gets the machine is going to be able to do anything about it.

[@Cusacck]

Thank you, Editor.