> (including the supreme court)
This seems like paranoid thinking. The Supreme Court has shifted ideologically to the right, but I haven’t seen any evidence they are part of a conspiracy to end democracy.
This seems like paranoid thinking. The Supreme Court has shifted ideologically to the right, but I haven’t seen any evidence they are part of a conspiracy to end democracy.
They ruled to allow state legislatures to override voters by changing state law to allow that:
https://news.yahoo.com/analysis-supreme-court-tilted-electio...
and an upcoming case to watch, where they're expected to further undermine laws:
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1106866830/supreme-court-to-t...
These are opinion pieces.
> They ruled to allow state legislatures to override voters by changing state law to allow that
No they didn’t. Nothing in the pieces linked states this.
> and an upcoming case to watch, where they're expected to further undermine laws:
This isn’t a meaningful sentence.
That refer to facts such as throwing out the voting rights act, and the decision on gerrymandering? Maybe try reading the opinion pieces??
The decision on gerrymandering is real.
But you seem to be thinking this is evidence of a conspiracy to end democracy rather than just normal bias. Even that piece admits that gerrymandering was invented by the democrats. This is just normal US politics at work.
Semantics.
"The decision on gerrymandering is real."
Yes. It is.
"But you seem to be thinking this is evidence of a conspiracy to end democracy rather than just normal bias. Even that piece admits that gerrymandering was invented by the democrats. This is just normal US politics at work."
Do you not understand the difference between democratic and Democratic? Otherwise, what's the relevance of gerrymandering having been invented by Democrats. The court upholding it is anti democratic
That it's a normal part of US politics engaged in by all political parties.
> The court upholding it is anti democratic.
Is it? If it's a normal part of US politics, that is far from clear.
The point is that it's not evidence of a conspiracy to end democracy.
Debatable. It's facially anti-democratic. That it's something that can be engaged in a partisan matter doesn't support your argument.
Prior attempts by states to do this in 2020 and 2000 failed in court, or led to the winning candidate (Gore) conceding, respectively. The 2020 standards that caused the election results to be upheld no longer apply in the states that changed their laws to take advantage of the new supreme court ruling.
What am I missing?
You seem fairly literate. Why would you ask this?