[flagged]

▲ ventana 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The problem is that the other half of the country will probably have something to say about activist leftist justices with their agenda. This is just not the constructive way of arguing.

Disclaimer: I'm a legal immigrant myself, and of course I appreciate the today's ruling in favor of jus soli.

▲ rootusrootus 2 days ago | parent [-]

What is the activist leftist agenda, anyway? Civil rights for everyone? Universal healthcare? The right wing activist agenda seems both better organized and universally punitive. One wants to force the government to help me, the other to punish me. And yet only the leftists are a danger to our country?

	▲	ventana 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Just for the record, I was responding to the (now flagged) comment which used some similar meaningless name calling towards the dissenting justices, to which I responded that this name calling game can be played by both sides.
	▲	andrekandre 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		`> And yet only the leftists are a danger to our country?` its more like a danger to capital interests (restricting what businesses can do, universal programs reducing markets etc)... and alot of people associate that freedom as fundamental as anything (i'm not arguing either way btw, just my understanding)

▲ ycdeebs 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Aaaaand, there it is. If I disagree with a ruling, or with the politics of the president that appointed a judge that made a ruling, then the rulings are “illegitimate”.

	▲	SauciestGNU 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, justices who take bribes or whose spouses help to organize a coup and an insurrection against the United States are not legitimate (Thomas, Alito). I'm more apt to listen to Gorsuch, even though he was in the dissent here, because he seems like a legitimate thoughtful jurist.