If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.
Lmao tell me you’re just posting outrage without reading the article without telling me.
If you had been bothered to read before making a retarded quip, you’d notice that the rejection by judge was because the ballot measure was not specific enough, and was just meant to tack a bunch of stuff on such that it could get passed simply by being attached to a different issue.
If you don’t see why that’s not how things should run, I only assume you’re the one person on earth who isn’t a corrupt politician that just absolutely salivates over every god awful omnibus bill with hundreds of riders for random garbage
I think one should criticize the influence of the courts rather than simply blaming ‘the conservatives’. The court system has become quite the monster over the past 100 years. They can have free reign over policy decisions that ought to be handled by the legislature. Because of judicial review, the Judicial branch of the federal government can effectively make law where there was none before which used to be the domain of the Legislatures and the populace.
Did you know that around a hundred years ago, the Legislative branch controlled the docket for the Supreme Court?
I know that’s not the point that you’re trying to make, as blaming your woes on the conservatives is much easier for the brain. I’m sure that if the average .world user had dictatorial power for a day, one of the first acts would be to disenfranchise the Christians because they are problem voters, and shortly after repealing the second amendment in its entirety.
I like guns and free exercise of religion thank you. I do agree that the judicial branch has expanded its own power too far. I think that is an inevitable result of the intractability of the legislative branch. When it comes to judges make no decisions that should have been laws, that have been coming from conservative justices most frequently in recent years (Dobbs, Bruen, and Citizens United to name a few).
I mostly agree, though I’d like to point out that the Dobbs decision was overturning this trend. Roe v. Wade was a case very much creating legislation where there was none. It didn’t have very good justification, but now with Dobbs, we have the opportunity to codify what we actually want in our law today. That was written in the Dobbs opinion IIRC. Nevada seems safe for those wishing to preserve abortion at the moment, but the Judge here is making things much more complicated than they ought to be.
(I really hate the citizens united case. The conservatives may have passed it, but the only thing it conserves are the elites)
but the Judge here is making things much more complicated than they ought to be.
How so? Is it not reasonable to enforce that ballot measures must be specific and not just a ton of stuff all bundled into a big all-or-nothing vote?
What’s illegal is different from what’s reasonable. I’m going to have to find the judge’s opinion, but the article doesn’t really give any reasons why it’s illegal.
Congress passes all sorts of these big bundles of law all the time
