The Supreme Court struck down a Biden administration vaccine-or-test rule for large employers while upholding a mandate for health-care employers — not an outright win for the administration, but a better outcome than the hostility at oral arguments forecasted.
Today, we are not wise
Kinda sums it up
Well we bitch that Congress is not functional, and it isn’t.
This court, installed by the fascistgop and it’s cult of personality, seems much more interested in promoting the welfare of the rich and powerful than in promoting the general welfare.
Their interpretation of the constitution is perverted to the point the founders would not even recognize the document.
May the 6 suffer carbon monoxide poisoning from the fumes of 10,000 unregulated auto exhaust systems.
It’s really difficult to have a functional legislative branch when one of the two major political parties has long been committed to drowning the government in a bathtub.
And it’s even more difficult when the anti-government party has such a decided advantage in both houses of congress because of the electoral college and extreme gerrymandering.
Is it though, or is it just a valid, if extreme, interpretation of a document that is vague on so many things.
ETA
This brief thread from @nycsouthpaw is interesting.
https://mobile.twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1482089150606192645
The Senate is for sure. But it is only one party that is contributing to the dysfunction in both House and Senate.
I agree, but at the same time we have two Dems who refuse to cooperate.
The only solution I know of is to vote. Unfortunately I live in TX, but I vote anyway, and I can not vote in WV or AZ.
While IANAL I felt that the robert’s court ruling on Citizen’s United was perverting the intent of the constitution. To me it made corporations super citizens and recognizing money as free speech it gave them ‘super free speech’ because of their massive amounts of money.
My feelings are just that, though, feelings not grounded in legal expertise or constitutional study. So perhaps it’s my understanding of the constitution that’s perverted. Originally the founders gave the right to vote to male landowners and denied it women, slaves, and others. Perhaps they did intend for money to be the ultimate amplifier of a tiered citizenship.
I do confess that my understanding of civic matters was highly influenced by my early civics classes and has been battered by the reality of today’s political world. It won’t keep me from continuing to support with my vote my own interpretation of what will bring about the most fair and just society.
I think they did, but in terms of “property ownership” of which monetary wealth is a component.
Yes, and the founders were certainly flawed individuals as are those of us alive today. I don’t believe, though, that the founders thought that the constitution was carved in stone. Indeed they added amendments immediately. There is no way they would have felt that 200 years later the original document wouldn’t or shouldn’t change dramatically in many ways.
I believe they had a goal in mind to create a fair and just society and gave us an initial, flexible, basis upon which to continue working toward such a society. I think most of America supports that concept and yet we are shackled by the enormous political and economic power of those opposed to such a fair and just society.
Getting down from my soapbox now (preaching to the choir, anyhow). 
They wouldn’t recognize the building it was written in.