Hacker News Reader

Comment by jaggederest | Hacker News Reader

Are any of them advocating the seizure of the means of production for the workers? Abolish the state or private property? Devolve control into local worker's councils or other non-hierarchical means of decision-making?

The US, in general, does not have any non-conservative judiciary. Stare decisis by itself ensures that there is a strong conservative streak in the available pool of jurists. So yes, the Supreme court has center-left (Sotomayor), centrist (Breyer, Kagan), center-right(Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch), and reactionaries (Alito and Thomas), but nobody as far "left" as it has "right".

Historically, for example, William O. Douglas was about as left as the court has gotten, and he was more in favor of environmentalism and ending the Vietnam war than really aggressive left wing concepts.

View on HN

The original claim was that thr Supreme Court has become highly partisan. The fact that justices switch sides and join with appointees of the opposite party is evidence against that claim.

Now you're bringing up a different claim, which is that the two major parties don't really represent a variety of ideas. That's a fine claim to make, but it doesn't contradict my point.

My point is that there is no "switch sides", because there are only 1.5 sides. Also, partisanship isn't the only force determining outcomes in the supreme court, it's just the most important one for many purposes.

The other major shift is actually more along the axis of social libertarian vs authoritarian, which is not as clearly divided as "republican vs democrat", especially considering the late RBG was clearly an authoritarian in some respects, despite being fairly left of center.

Taking any of this as evidence that the court is non-partisan is pretty incorrect: They're consistently partisan in clearly obvious ways, even controlling for other issues.

> Are any of them advocating the seizure of the means of production for the workers? Abolish the state or private property? Devolve control into local worker's councils or other non-hierarchical means of decision-making?

Are any of them arguing for an ethnostate? For shipping non-whites "back to where they came from"? For re-establishing anti-miscegenation laws?

Your perspective is absurd. Of course the court has a left wing. It's just not radical enough for your liking and, similarly, the court's right wing isn't radical enough for David Duke's liking.

Concentration camps and prison slavery not right wing enough for you? Just because it's commonplace here doesn't mean it's not extremely right wing. I don't think we need to get to full scale ethnic cleansing to be considered right wing. Voter disenfranchisement alone is something you rarely see outside of full on authoritarian dictatorships.

"Are any of them arguing for an ethnostate? For shipping non-whites "back to where they came from"? For re-establishing anti-miscegenation laws?"

Don't kid yourself. This is exactly what they're after. Another couple of elections of the likes of Trump and they may get it.

We're talking about supreme court justices...

Many of whom have been appointed by and with the support of people who have that very agenda.

The only debate among conservatives is over whether they should be overtly racist, like Trump, or covertly racist, like his predecessors.

If they get enough power, the velvet glove will slip from the iron fist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com