Its a "federal government" by name alone as there is no federalism left. Federalism could be interesting. It will have redundancies, wild differences. But that's the actual country we herald in our history books while we've done something else for the last 100 years.
The court has even expressed interest in going back further: revisiting the insular cases - the status of many of our territories and whether we should possess them at all - for reasons I find extremely universally agreeable, nowadays. If you read the SCOTUS decisions from 1901 they are super racist reasons why we have our territories. The only reason people would disagree is because they either haven't read them or they want to avoid the inconvenience. The constitution doesn't say "if its inconvenient ignore these articles, amendments and don't interpret me". Self determination is decided by the people of the territory in coordination with Congress.
so our radical court is going to undo racist rulings and disrupt an American colonizer streak? bring the cases, the challenge to a territory's status will probably even come from the left once people catch on with the most productive way to operate with this court
I get it, its a paradoxical standard, yes, its radical to do something we're all unfamiliar with. yes, a political entity with the adjective radical is a radical political entity. but are we using this in the colloquial way of illegitimate? no, not at all.
Are you arguing for the dismantling of Social Security? Medicare?
Are you arguing for Congress letting go of US territories to become their own sovereign countries? What if they want to remain part of the U.S.?
I’m arguing for more durable consensus. Look at the accession process of Texas versus a territory with Hispanics, Pacific Islanders or Asians, and see how many steps were done in the former versus how many were skipped in the latter. Do those steps and accept any outcome. I’m not arguing for any specific outcome of an areas status.
>This court has expressed and shown that it wont refrain from doing disruptive, inconvenient things and I haven't found any of its decisions to be contortions or surprising, after having read those decisions
You mean like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era
The immediate period before the new deal era that is universally ridiculed by every member of the Court today?
Its a predictive quality, instead of one based on feelings. Until I bring a case myself, I’m not arguing or advocating for anything, just listening far better than someone using their energy to protest something they have no control over.
Your example, although I consider it a strawman, I think also shows that even what people believe about this current court is not unique. If they dont like this court, they really wouldnt have liked that court.
This court has expressed and shown that it wont refrain from doing disruptive, inconvenient things and I haven't found any of its decisions to be contortions or surprising, after having read those decisions
I often feel like the narrative is the opposite of what I perceive, the media and people that want a different outcome say “they’re legislating from the bench!” when I see the prior court acting like a super congress with entire multipronged frameworks, and this court saying “yeaaaaahhh voters and elected representatives should decide that” whether there is a consensus failure or not, forcing consensus to be made where it was avoided indefinitely. I just dont see that as extreme, extreme would have been it using its privilege to say “yeah that's banned now across the whole republic” and they dont do that, its all quite professional
I dont know man, they are just waiting for someone to bring challenges to every remaining vestige of the New Deal and its expanded interpretation of interstate commerce, given that the 1930s court struck down most of the New Deal until it was threatened, I dont really find finishing the job to be so extreme, just unfamiliar because we were all raised post-New Deal