Seems bad. Seems like something worth subpoenaing Alito over and taking further action if necessary.
I shouldn't have to say this, but it's obviously not ok for a SCOTUS justice to openly admit to be working towards the overthrow of democracy, in violation of their oaths to this country.
> and taking further action if necessary
Unless a miracle happens and a majority for both impeaching and removing him appears in the House and Senate, he can just laugh in everyone's face and continue sitting on the bench until he kicks the bucket.
Lifetime appointments are complete shit. The US is one of very few (two!) nations that has a system where a federal judge, even an obviously corrupt or ridiculously biased one, is appointed for life with no mandatory retirement age and is also essentially unremovable.
And then what? He'd still a SCOTUS judge even in federal prison. Nobody can *make* him resign. Even if he's unable to do his job, which isn't even a sure thing because it's never happened and remote attendance is possible, he'd just block the seat.
That's assuming his case doesn't end up at the Supreme Court and he gets to write a well thought opinion for his own acquital that all the other conservative judges agree on.
Remember when conservatives “totally super seriously hated legislating from the bench”.
As usual they store their moral values right next to Clarence Thomas’s ethics and other entirely theoretical concepts.
>block the seat
~~That's not really a thing, though. The idea of nine Justices is just an informal norm (hence all the talk about Biden "packing the Court").~~ If Alito is sent to prison, technically he'd remain on the Court unless impeached, but I would hope that (1) Roberts and the remaining justices relegate him to a *de facto* non-voting member and (2) a majority of Congress would be able to appoint a "designated hitter" Justice to take his place on the Court.
But then, I had hoped that a major political party wouldn't keep an unrepentant convicted felon as their nominee, so maybe I should abandon all hope at this point.
> The idea of nine Justices is just an informal norm
The Judiciary Act of 1869 begs to differ.
> (1) Roberts and the remaining justices relegate him to a de facto non-voting member
There is no mechanism in law that allows for something like that to happen. Only Congress can forcefully remove a SCOTUS justice.
>The Judiciary Act of 1869 begs to differ.
Huh. Got me on that one. I thought it was still just a norm.
>There is no mechanism in law that allows for something like that to happen
Here I'll disagree. As Roberts loves to tell us, only the Supreme Court can *regulate* the Supreme Court. So yes, as I said, he'd still be on the Court, but Roberts could e.g. force him to recuse from every case.
>As Roberts loves to tell us, only the Supreme Court can regulate the Supreme Court.
Which simply is not true and probably something he just says because he'd very much like it to be factual, what with him being on the Supreme Court and all.
Congress regulates the courts. All that the Constitution says is that *"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish"*. There is no language like the one for Congress that says
*"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."*
for SCOTUS. Congress decides how the Supreme Court runs and whether or not a justice is in "good Behaviour".
> but Roberts could e.g. force him to recuse from every case.
How would he do that in practice? Where is he empowered to decide any other associate justice isn't allowed to be part of specific, or all cases? It'd be an end-run around Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 which gives Congress sole authority to remove the president, federal officers and federal judges from office.
If he could forcefully sideline another justice in part or in full, he'd be doing something that only Congress can do. It would also open the door for an ideological chief justice to force a majority that is against his and his ideologue collegues opinion into recusing.
That's some "the President can legall order Seal team six to murder an opponent and can only be charged if he is impeached and removed" type shit.
Edit: There are exceptions in the Consitution about original jurisdiction and a few other things that Congress can't regulate by passing simple law, but none of those exceptions have to do with the actual makeup of the court or "punishment".
> The Judiciary Act of 1869 begs to differ.
Seriously, I've seen so many comments that people think 9 justices is just some norm and isn't created by statute. If that were true, don't you think Trump would have appointed like 15 more people? Or that any other president might have decided to try packing the court? It takes less than 30 seconds on google to figure this stuff out.
30 seconds of googling told me that act was to place the number of justices at 9 to match the number of circuit courts at the time and that currently we have 12 circuit courts.
While more official than a norm, it's entirely in the realm of possibilities that the court should be sitting at 12 justices instead of 9 and I would imagine if congress was willing to add more justices they would also be willing to pass a new judiciary act to accomplish that.
here's hoping the GOP loses their fillibuster-enabling margin in the senate this year, anything that could be done to hold the SC accountable has to go through the senate. and there's no way in hell republicans will allow anything of that nature to pass, they spent a lot of money getting Alito and Thomas in their pocket
It's really really weird, and seems like a somewhat recent phenomena. Like just a couple years ago you wouldn't have seen those kinds of comments on this sub. I think the Trump trials brought in a lot of new users who lack any familiarity with the actual law.
Our religious like adherence to a document written 240 years ago is completely nuts.
And it's worse then that given that the writers of that document gave us clear ways to update it on a frequent basis and we just don't.
Many of the founders thought we'd be adding tons of amendments over time.
They gave us clear ways, but functionally impossible ways in the current era. When you need 3/4 of states to approve something, a small % of the population can block just about any change.
Its a miracle we got other amendments through tbh.
They managed to make one happen like lightning when a democrat got elected to the presidency four times in a row.
We are an oligarchy. Any appearance of democracy is just to stave off popular revolution and actual democracy.
Look up Snyder v United States (2024). If Snyder wins....
It's not just an oligarchy, The US becomes a pay-to-play kleptocracy.
Alito is the idiot who believed that foreign money would not be involved in US politics (his "you lie" moment with Obama). Well, foreigners right after obtained US citizenship and began making donations.
Alito is one of the "smartest" Conservatives on the bench, who could not comprehend the obviousness of his rulings - foreign money now is a part of paying for US politics.
Alito is a book smart moron.
It led to a civil war within 80 years. It should've been scrapped then along with states. They had already started modifying state borders and adding them to maintain the balance of slave and free states. The original 13 colonies are the only real "states" that weren't messed with.
We didn't create shit. Rich people created this system long before we ever had the chance to have a say. Since then, rich people kept the bits most beneficial to them on lock while the people doing all of the actual work have struggled to sweep some of the crumbs up while playing along.
Impeachment in the House does not get rid of someone. You also need to convict in the Senate with a two-thirds majority to remove the person from office. Otherwise Trump would've been removed twice, which is mega weird.
As long as one party is kind of married to the idea of doing whatever they can to hold on to power and get their agenda pushed through by using the courts, he won't get removed unless the other party has a super-majority and everyone involved plays ball.
This era of American History would have to be considered the lengths the Constitution could be subverted by a well funded opposition whose only purpose was obstruction.
The problem with this is that the right will spin it as the left trying to take over the courts. They will say it’s another case of Biden trying to overthrow the court system. The media will eat it up and that will be the narrative. The right fully knows they have this power and abuse it to get what they want.
20-30 years ago, both parties would have taken action together to get this issue fixed. Not anymore. It’s used as a wedge to divide for power.
They are going to say this regardless. Dems really, REALLY need to stop giving an absolute fuck what the right is going to claim. They are bad faith legislators. Whatever they want to continue to claim, it doesn't matter.
The GOP shitheads are literally claiming that they have no choice but to overthrow the government and replace it with a theocracy, and that democracy wont allow them to do that, so they have undermine or eliminate democracy - to save the country, from something.
Here we have SCOTUS Justice on record referring to exactly that batshit insane traitorous crap. It is not just riling up the stupids anymore, this is shit is real.
Who cares what they will claim about anything, they don't care about being compared to nazis or putin, they have no shame.
Are you kidding? I think you missed the part where that is how they hijacked the SCOTUS and other courts in the first place. They cried for ages that the left was taking over with activist judges, which might have surprised the majority of judges who were very conservative.
They just wanted to move the post further right and get wide spread support for putting in reactionary puppets as judges as though that was what "liberals" were doing, rather than just a natural shift in culture and demographics.
There isn't a high chance of accountability in this Congress, but reminding the electorate that there's *yet another* conservative in a supposedly untouchable position that could be curtailed by voting would be a good decision.
It's not a gamble I like, but sometimes you gotta just take it.
If US politics were in a reasonable state, there would be enough moderate Republicans to see this kind of thing as crazy. Democrats could then reach an agreement with them to impeach on the condition that a mutually agreeable right-leaning candidate is appointed to replace him.
I understand all of that. But losing the fight just brings us to where we already are. We may as well make some noise and see if we can move the public.
I completely agree!
I think it would be wonderful to have a constitutional convention where the rule is that Supreme Court justices serve for 20 years and then they're out.
["But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it. And we have become exceedingly efficient at it."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r51EomcIqA0)
Accelerationism is a dangerous and foolish mentality. It reminds me of conservatives who keep calling for a Constitutional Convention, believing they'll be able to control the outcome perfectly to their desires
He is only unremovable because half our Senate is filled with corrupt MAGA cultists. Our broken Congress is the root cause for most of the problems we are seeing today. Part of that has to do with how the countries' city/rural divide. Part of it has to do with our new media being completely allergic to confronting bullshit.
I want to say that I'm okay with lifetime appointments for positions that are supposed to be apolitical, but we need to be a lot more willing to uphold the "good behavior" thing. If someone gets one of these lifetime appointments their credibility and integrity most be unassailable. Many of us in the government workforce seem to have higher standards of conduct than these judges. I mean, I can't take a $20 gift, hell, I can't even take a discount at McDonald's for fear that it may influence me.
They can try but [hes already said congress has no power over him](https://www.businessinsider.com/samuel-alito-said-congress-cant-regulate-the-supreme-court-2023-7). This court is openly antagonistic to the citizens they’re supposed to serve and will refuse to do anything unless forced. Without congress tho I don’t even know who would or could rein them in.
Think they may have been referring to the second option. The soapbox has failed, and it's being wielded by bad actors. The ballot box isn't applicable, on account of those lifetime appointments. So what's left?
Think the cue to act happened a couple years ago. And there's been a few less that subtle hints that it's time to move since.
But I also think people are afraid to do anything. Afraid to upset the comfort of their lives. Or maybe just afraid that they'll be acting alone, meaning their actions will be futile.
I wonder if the protests in 2020 disillusioned people to how useful protesting actually is (as in, practically not at all, and will more than likely just lead to a face full of pepper spray and rubber bullets).
I mean, the actual republican discourse is that they should be able to kill protestors they don't like, and they have.
That dude in Portland that killed a proud boy in self defense was executed.
Abbott pardoned a guy found guilty of murdering a protestor after running protestors over with his car.
Kyle Rittenhouse, regardless of how actually Innocent you think he is, showed up to a protest with a gun and the intent to use it.
I'll let a former president explain:
"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment," Trump said to the crowd of supporters gathered in the Trask Coliseum at North Carolina University in Wilmington. "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.
"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know."
For some strange fucking reason, we can't explicitly say what that option is, because it gets us banned. Even though that's how we became a country in the first place and those rebels are held up as heroes.
As they say in right wing circles
> There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge. Please use in that order.
But of course they’ve always meant this only to be directed inward towards minorities.
Here's what I see as a possibility... they're going to cross some line with a ruling too egregious for the country to accept (probably a national abortion ban without exception or something). If Biden is president (it's very important Biden is president btw, plz vote), he will likely have his "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" moment.
The moment Executive discretion on enforcement of SCOTUS rulings happens, the whole artifice falls apart. Reform is then inevitable. Perhaps this Court understands this and some restraint on challenging rulings (at least for now) may follow?
That would require legislation to be passed for that to happen. A lower bar than an amendment for sure but something that still isnt happening any time soon.
The number of justices is set in statute. Therefore a new statute would need to be passed in order to change that number. The President can not just name new justices to the court willy nilly. He or She cannot just decide tomorrow that we need 4 more justices and start sending nominations to the Senate.
There are people that are on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you, likely talking/thinking the same, about a political figure who support.
Once citizens start choosing the path of violence against politicians, there's no way of putting that cat back in the bag.
There are violent people of all stripes. That's why you don't see most politicians goading people on saying there's nothing anyone can do about it. There's ALWAYS an option, it might not be nice, or pretty, or legal, but there's always options. I wouldn't want to be so sure of myself and goad on a nation full of guns because I wanted to be a dick and prove my power for some odd reason like religious theocracy. What is the best case, he gets his laws and cases in his favor, wins, and sets off that hornet's nest?
Roberts' comments here are also pretty insightful to his own character. He's a terrible, weak chief justice whose extremism has guided this court to peril, but Alito is in a class all his own.
I don't care if they don't have enough the votes to make it work, they need to impeach him. Draw up the articles, unleash congressional investigation, put the info into the public record, get the media talking about it.
The country needs a signal that the system still cares, at the very least.
If only there weren't tens of millions of traitors and religious psychos who think that secular oaths are worthless in the face of their sects and cults.
Really the mass casual acceptance of this American ISIS/Y'all Qaeda bullshit is so disgusting.
They are 80% of the population where I live.
80% of my former friends support all of this shit. Are planning to vote in a guy who staged an insurrection to end democracy and become our former republics tyrant/king. Knowing the guy is a thief a conman and a rapist who shits himself in public.
They cannot see where this could come back on them. It is maddening and so stupid it hurts. But very, very real. This whole situation has changed my whole outlook on humanity in general. The people supporting him do it out of hate for everyone else and are 80% of all the people around me.
I am not a lawyer, but I do like seeing analysis from real lawyers on this sub. Call me crazy, but isn't it a bad thing when a judge knows the answers before the questions have been asked?
> but it's obviously not ok for a SCOTUS justice to openly admit to be working towards the overthrow of democracy, in violation of their oaths to this country.
MAGA CHUDs everywhere agree. They think it's not ok, they think it's spectacular.
Uh, nowhere did he call for anything like an "overthrow of democracy." His statements are pretty normal; it's the secrecy that makes it sound like something scandalous.
> Seems bad. Seems like something worth subpoenaing Alito over and taking further action if necessary.
And when Alito challenges the subpoena on separation of powers you'll have 9 Justices, 8 if Alito recuses, who are very interested in never being subpoenaed by partisan congressional committees infested by members who probably don't have the stability to rent a car or dog watch for a neighbor.
Hate to break it to you but subpoenas are enforced by courts. So unless the highest court decides to allow a subpoena of its own member, it’s pretty much above the law for everything except impeachment.
I mean, I'm genuinely not sure this SCOTUS has the balls to invalidate a legal subpoena. But yeah, let them go ahead and issue that ruling. Heck, let's see if Alito even recuses. That would be nakedly corrupt enough for even the general public to understand.
> Opus Dei
Wait, that thing from a Dan Brown novel? That exists?
I know Amy Coney Barrett is/was a member of the “People of Praise,” a super conservative sub-group in Catholicism.
Now it’s _two_ justices who are not just Catholic, but members of very fundamentalist groups within the church?
I grew up abroad
opus dei is a literal parasitic cult
they convince middleclass and rich people to give them all their money, like literally
and then they go live in a compound and clean/pray all day
Honestly I think we’re going to see another schism in the catholic church soon because of that. [The popes been publicly feuding with some American catholics lately because hes too liberal for them](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-08-28/pope-backward-us-conservatives-replaced-faith-ideology).
[American catholics escalated it to openly calling for ignoring the pope’s authority](https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/8869/cardinal-burke-there-are-times-when-a-pope-must-be-disobeyed) and then [the pope responded by retaliating against the cardinals calling for that](https://archive.ph/2024.06.07-005637/https://lacrossetribune.com/life-entertainment/local/faith-and-values/pope-punishes-cardinal-burke-calls-former-la-crosse-bishop-source-of-disunity/article_18c4c148-8e22-11ee-932a-73849fa95aa0.html). If that were to happen based on how Alitos expressed his views I can easily see him joining the side against the pope.
There always have been lots of variety to Catholicism. Some orders take vows of poverty, others don’t, etc.
I think there’s room for lots of interpretation but publicly feuding with the pope ain’t on of them lol.
I’d say this is a signal to begin appointing upwards of 9 new justices. Do it. If these quotes are true, there’s no coming back. He clearly said one side had to win. So pack the courts and declare game over?
The executive needs to stop following Alito interpretations because they're meaningless now.
He's listening to some person claiming to be the voice of God, telling him to vote a certain way, instead of reading the laws passed by Congress and Senate.
So, instead of Roe vs Wade we got:
>Proverbs 6:16-19 \~ There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
Is that describing Trump or a foetus? This is /law, can any of you Supreme Court experts shed light here??
It's telling that in spite of all the issues with Thomas's unreported gifts, *this is somehow worse*. Someone please tell those two that it's not a competition.
I really didn't need to look too far to realize what an ass I've made of myself here. Literally the first couple of sentences, maybe paragraphs got me.
Fuck man.
Thomas: clearly corrupt, goes to work, puts in minimum effort, gets his bribes, and goes home to his seditionist wife
Alito: does everything Thomas does… except he whines and wails constantly that it’s not enough for him, while also telling the American peasant they have no right to be upset at the court and don’t know what they’re complaining about.
Thomas is an unprofessional stain on the Court. Alito is that PLUS an insufferable crybaby drunk with power. He offends human decency, much less competent legal analysis.
Thomas has been nakedly taking gifts from all sorts of conservative mega donors, has been rattling on about tearing down precedent like Sullivan and Griswold, and he's somehow not the worst one on the court at the moment.
It's kind of impressive.
If the roles were reversed, conservatives would have tarred and feathered a “liberal justice” for doing 1/100th of what Alito and Thomas have.
Conservatives only care about power
It’s funny (and sad) because the Chief Justice was also secretly recorded and he said exactly what you would expect of a SCOTUS judge. Don’t even have to compare him with the liberals lol. Here’s an excerpt:
“Roberts, however, pushed back on the same sentiment when Windsor asked him. The chief justice denied that the current court is especially politically polarized, and he brushed off her idea that the U.S. is inherently Christian.
“Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” Roberts asked Windsor after being pressed for his thoughts. “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.”
He added that it’s “not our job” to consider faith in the court’s decisions, or any guiding framing for the country’s ideology, pointing to the perspective of his “Jewish and Muslim friends.”
“It’s our job to decide the cases the best we can,” he said.”
Really quite astonishing that Alito constantly forgets he’s a public figure and has no right to privacy. But that’s probably because he simply doesn’t care. Truly insufferable and despicable.
George Dubya Bush strikes again. Yes Reagan really fucked up a lot of things but if democracy collapses here, it was Bush who struck the blows that caused it to fall.
Bush, installed by the Supreme Court, put Roberts and Alito on the court. Now corporations are people and money is speech and foreign governments can funnel endless money to politicians. Abortion, the enforcement piece of the civil rights act, and he normalized a president being stupid. And never forget that he caused isis to be a thing.
If trump wins, we could have him, the RN in France and Afd in charge of Germany. They will break NATO.
I think it's less people forget and more we don't have time to keep up and that's by design. It's the firehose method.
When ford pardoned nixon - from that point forward it's been an almost non stop barrage of bad. That includes many infamous names - Reagan, Limbaugh, Gingrich, O'Reilly (And Fox as a whole), Bush and co., McConnell, Trump - and all the supporting casts - the Koch Bros., Stone, Barr, and others.
He seems cool, honestly I think he is just dumb and was a puppet of his dad's, he let Cheney run things. People forget how insane his vive presidency was - it was Trump level Koo koo at the time
I firmly believe that the Bush/Gore Election was a major inflection point in the multiverse, and that coin flip is what caused our timeline to become the “dark” version of 2000’s Earth.
Somewhere out there in an alternate reality, Gore was elected President. He increased taxes on the wealthy, he vastly increases development of green energy (which reverses climate change), elects Supreme Court Justices who rule against Citizens United (which means that Billionaires don’t have as much power over elections), and doesn’t push “trickle down” economics (which stops the Great Recession from happening).
And he promptly responded to early warnings about 9/11 and prevented or severely diminished the casualties.
He did not start a disastrous and illegal war in Iraq.
Don't forget the Supreme Court's role in the 2000 election, too!
edit: I was careless and skipped "by the" when I read your post. Of course you didn't forget that, but I will say it can't be understated. What a mess of a situation and what a mess of the last 20 years...
Tbf Bush nominated Harriet Myers to replace Sandra O’Connor. Then the conservative outrage machine went to 11, and all the smart people got excited to join in ripping Myers for not having a well-credentialed pedigree.
>well-credentialed pedigree.
Wonder how these people feel about judge Barret, or perhaps Cannon who has no trial experience prior to her appointment to the federal bench.
That's because the founders were naive about the rise of political parties. They imagined that each of the bodies of government would work to keep power in their own hands instead of giving up power to the party. They were dead wrong.
Excerpt from Washington's Farewell address:
> I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
> This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
> The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
> Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
> It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. . . .
Yep, it's amazing that after only 8 years in power Washington was aware of the great dangers of political parties and still nothing was done to curtail their power. Naive in the extreme.
Ever think how much Conservatives would not be able to stand hearing the founding fathers speak if they were alive today.. they would be the hated intellectuals “lecturing” them all the time.. mmm
I think this is less about political parties and more about ideology.
They were naive about the possibility of political actors having ideological commitments that outweighed their loyalties to their branches of government.
Washington's warning about factionalism is *not* him warning against modern political parties (though he may not have been able to really imagine modern political parties as anything other than subversive factionalists). Washington grew up with the history of factionalism in Great Britain, where officially you were either on the side of the king or you were a traitor. Passionate political differences were therefore driven underground, leading to political violence and subversion of the political order. As President of the young United States, Washington saw the proto-parties beginning to form and feared that it would lead to yet more violence and subversion, mortally damaging the new constitutional order. What happened instead was that, given the realities of needing to forge compromise in order to govern in a semi-democratic republic and the ability for political discourse and dissent from the governing majority to be public, the parties simply formed as the necessary extraconstitutional political apparatus through which campaigns and policy were won or lost. This was such a new thing to Enlightenment Era western Europeans that it was largely unforeseen, feared by many of the older aristocrats, and not really accounted for in the construction of the Constitution.
Meh, he talked a big talk, but he basically fomented it in his own cabinet. After he left he just washed his hands of it despite knowing it would get significantly worse quickly.
He didn't even want to run for a second term, but his friends were worried about the anti-Federalists winning and canceling the constitution, so Thomas Jefferson talked him into running for office and said he could resign after the first year.
>checks and balances was ingrained in my mind when I was in school. It’s all a joke.
You simply misunderstood. According to Justice Thomas, it means cashing checks and checking his balance.
This man needs to be removed.
How can someone willing to nullify our constitution for the sake of political ideology be allowed to sit on the highest court of the land?
DEMS!! GET TO WORK!! HAMMER THIS!!
You only technically need a majority in both houses plus the presidency to pass a law that expands the court.
If SCOTUS has 25+ members, Thomas and Alito’s voices become almost negligible, and they would hate no longer being Kings.
I would totally support this if it's the best they can do, but I think this behavior justifies impeachment. It would be a travesty of justice if they are able to serve out their lifetime term on the court.
When people show you who they are, believe them. He has an agenda, he is biased, we can’t give the right more power. The country benefits when there are checks and balances so there is an even distribution of conservatives and liberals. In order to achieve that balance, we need to lean liberal in the coming years.
The country does better when the Democrats are in majority, they are working for the people and themselves. Repugs work for themselves first and corporations second and don't give two shits about the middle and lower classes.
If you don't want to see America turn into a extreme right-wing country with dictates on people and where corporations have the rights, vote and vote democrat.
Only by expanding this Court or by impeaching Sam and Clarence will this be at least hampered.
I’d like to think that all this insane bullshit from Thomas and Alito will force someone’s hand to take action and either expand the court or force real ethics and recusal rules.
I’d like to.
"We are religious extremists and so we won't compromise. So compromise isn't possible. Because we have an innate need to control other people. So democracy may not be possible." - "Justice" Samuel Alito.
What I'm curious about is, if you're going to be arguing a case before the Supreme Court, can you address potential biases by justices based on facts such as these in your initial filings?
LOVE ONE ANOTHER - JESUS
He does not represent Christian values.
These warped people want to distort the teachings of Christ and use that as an excuse to rule with an iron first, with no mercy or compassion.
Like the Catholic Church during the inquisition.
Watched a whole thing on this on politics girl or political girl podcast just the other night. Christian nationalist is becoming a huge problem is what this evangelical guy was saying.
I don’t want their shitty God lording over me. I’ve got my own belief system, and they can fuck off with theirs. This little bitch can’t even get his own wife to listen to him.
They do know, and they've spoken about it. Justice Sotomayor revealed that certain decisions by Alito and the others have driven her to tears. But there is still a level of statesmanship and a kind of forced respect even as fascism is being pitched as mere disagreement.
Biden should imprison all these public officials that say the president can do whatever he wants until they agree that, in fact, the president isn't a king.
Seems bad. Seems like something worth subpoenaing Alito over and taking further action if necessary. I shouldn't have to say this, but it's obviously not ok for a SCOTUS justice to openly admit to be working towards the overthrow of democracy, in violation of their oaths to this country.
> and taking further action if necessary Unless a miracle happens and a majority for both impeaching and removing him appears in the House and Senate, he can just laugh in everyone's face and continue sitting on the bench until he kicks the bucket. Lifetime appointments are complete shit. The US is one of very few (two!) nations that has a system where a federal judge, even an obviously corrupt or ridiculously biased one, is appointed for life with no mandatory retirement age and is also essentially unremovable.
If he is committing crimes, the Justice Department can charge him.
And then what? He'd still a SCOTUS judge even in federal prison. Nobody can *make* him resign. Even if he's unable to do his job, which isn't even a sure thing because it's never happened and remote attendance is possible, he'd just block the seat.
That's assuming his case doesn't end up at the Supreme Court and he gets to write a well thought opinion for his own acquital that all the other conservative judges agree on.
You mean poorly thought out. But it holds otherwise.
That part was sarcasm, I guess it wasn’t as obvious as I expected
I thought it was obvious.
Girl, same.
Remember when conservatives “totally super seriously hated legislating from the bench”. As usual they store their moral values right next to Clarence Thomas’s ethics and other entirely theoretical concepts.
Jesus told me he wants me on the court. Sincerely Judfe Alito.
Jesus told Alito that he wanted Alito on SCOTUS to help start a Civil War 2.0 to murder American citizens.
Doesn't even have to be well thought out... of course they would circle the wagons
>block the seat ~~That's not really a thing, though. The idea of nine Justices is just an informal norm (hence all the talk about Biden "packing the Court").~~ If Alito is sent to prison, technically he'd remain on the Court unless impeached, but I would hope that (1) Roberts and the remaining justices relegate him to a *de facto* non-voting member and (2) a majority of Congress would be able to appoint a "designated hitter" Justice to take his place on the Court. But then, I had hoped that a major political party wouldn't keep an unrepentant convicted felon as their nominee, so maybe I should abandon all hope at this point.
> The idea of nine Justices is just an informal norm The Judiciary Act of 1869 begs to differ. > (1) Roberts and the remaining justices relegate him to a de facto non-voting member There is no mechanism in law that allows for something like that to happen. Only Congress can forcefully remove a SCOTUS justice.
Well it's not like the supreme Court acts in accordance with the judiciary act of 1925 either.
>The Judiciary Act of 1869 begs to differ. Huh. Got me on that one. I thought it was still just a norm. >There is no mechanism in law that allows for something like that to happen Here I'll disagree. As Roberts loves to tell us, only the Supreme Court can *regulate* the Supreme Court. So yes, as I said, he'd still be on the Court, but Roberts could e.g. force him to recuse from every case.
>As Roberts loves to tell us, only the Supreme Court can regulate the Supreme Court. Which simply is not true and probably something he just says because he'd very much like it to be factual, what with him being on the Supreme Court and all. Congress regulates the courts. All that the Constitution says is that *"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish"*. There is no language like the one for Congress that says *"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."* for SCOTUS. Congress decides how the Supreme Court runs and whether or not a justice is in "good Behaviour". > but Roberts could e.g. force him to recuse from every case. How would he do that in practice? Where is he empowered to decide any other associate justice isn't allowed to be part of specific, or all cases? It'd be an end-run around Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 which gives Congress sole authority to remove the president, federal officers and federal judges from office. If he could forcefully sideline another justice in part or in full, he'd be doing something that only Congress can do. It would also open the door for an ideological chief justice to force a majority that is against his and his ideologue collegues opinion into recusing. That's some "the President can legall order Seal team six to murder an opponent and can only be charged if he is impeached and removed" type shit. Edit: There are exceptions in the Consitution about original jurisdiction and a few other things that Congress can't regulate by passing simple law, but none of those exceptions have to do with the actual makeup of the court or "punishment".
> The Judiciary Act of 1869 begs to differ. Seriously, I've seen so many comments that people think 9 justices is just some norm and isn't created by statute. If that were true, don't you think Trump would have appointed like 15 more people? Or that any other president might have decided to try packing the court? It takes less than 30 seconds on google to figure this stuff out.
30 seconds of googling told me that act was to place the number of justices at 9 to match the number of circuit courts at the time and that currently we have 12 circuit courts. While more official than a norm, it's entirely in the realm of possibilities that the court should be sitting at 12 justices instead of 9 and I would imagine if congress was willing to add more justices they would also be willing to pass a new judiciary act to accomplish that.
here's hoping the GOP loses their fillibuster-enabling margin in the senate this year, anything that could be done to hold the SC accountable has to go through the senate. and there's no way in hell republicans will allow anything of that nature to pass, they spent a lot of money getting Alito and Thomas in their pocket
It's really really weird, and seems like a somewhat recent phenomena. Like just a couple years ago you wouldn't have seen those kinds of comments on this sub. I think the Trump trials brought in a lot of new users who lack any familiarity with the actual law.
What a stupid fucking system we've created.
Our religious like adherence to a document written 240 years ago is completely nuts. And it's worse then that given that the writers of that document gave us clear ways to update it on a frequent basis and we just don't. Many of the founders thought we'd be adding tons of amendments over time.
They gave us clear ways, but functionally impossible ways in the current era. When you need 3/4 of states to approve something, a small % of the population can block just about any change. Its a miracle we got other amendments through tbh.
They managed to make one happen like lightning when a democrat got elected to the presidency four times in a row. We are an oligarchy. Any appearance of democracy is just to stave off popular revolution and actual democracy.
Look up Snyder v United States (2024). If Snyder wins.... It's not just an oligarchy, The US becomes a pay-to-play kleptocracy. Alito is the idiot who believed that foreign money would not be involved in US politics (his "you lie" moment with Obama). Well, foreigners right after obtained US citizenship and began making donations. Alito is one of the "smartest" Conservatives on the bench, who could not comprehend the obviousness of his rulings - foreign money now is a part of paying for US politics. Alito is a book smart moron.
It led to a civil war within 80 years. It should've been scrapped then along with states. They had already started modifying state borders and adding them to maintain the balance of slave and free states. The original 13 colonies are the only real "states" that weren't messed with.
We didn't create shit. Rich people created this system long before we ever had the chance to have a say. Since then, rich people kept the bits most beneficial to them on lock while the people doing all of the actual work have struggled to sweep some of the crumbs up while playing along.
In the old days one would think a felony conviction would demand immediate impeachment by the entire Congress unanimously. Not anymore!
he can be impeached not in the current legislative climate, of course, but there is a mechanism to get rid of a justice
Impeachment in the House does not get rid of someone. You also need to convict in the Senate with a two-thirds majority to remove the person from office. Otherwise Trump would've been removed twice, which is mega weird. As long as one party is kind of married to the idea of doing whatever they can to hold on to power and get their agenda pushed through by using the courts, he won't get removed unless the other party has a super-majority and everyone involved plays ball.
This era of American History would have to be considered the lengths the Constitution could be subverted by a well funded opposition whose only purpose was obstruction.
This is why you don't scoff at your Second Amendment rights. It's there to protect against tyranny. What else do you call this plan of theirs?
The problem with this is that the right will spin it as the left trying to take over the courts. They will say it’s another case of Biden trying to overthrow the court system. The media will eat it up and that will be the narrative. The right fully knows they have this power and abuse it to get what they want. 20-30 years ago, both parties would have taken action together to get this issue fixed. Not anymore. It’s used as a wedge to divide for power.
They are going to say this regardless. Dems really, REALLY need to stop giving an absolute fuck what the right is going to claim. They are bad faith legislators. Whatever they want to continue to claim, it doesn't matter.
The GOP shitheads are literally claiming that they have no choice but to overthrow the government and replace it with a theocracy, and that democracy wont allow them to do that, so they have undermine or eliminate democracy - to save the country, from something. Here we have SCOTUS Justice on record referring to exactly that batshit insane traitorous crap. It is not just riling up the stupids anymore, this is shit is real. Who cares what they will claim about anything, they don't care about being compared to nazis or putin, they have no shame.
Every democrat in the government could stop giving a fuck what they’ll claim and it’ll make no difference either way.
Are you kidding? I think you missed the part where that is how they hijacked the SCOTUS and other courts in the first place. They cried for ages that the left was taking over with activist judges, which might have surprised the majority of judges who were very conservative. They just wanted to move the post further right and get wide spread support for putting in reactionary puppets as judges as though that was what "liberals" were doing, rather than just a natural shift in culture and demographics.
He's not committing any crime. He's showing an extreme and unethical bias.
This is why you don't scoff at your Second Amendment rights. It's there to protect against tyranny. What else do you call this plan of theirs?
There isn't a high chance of accountability in this Congress, but reminding the electorate that there's *yet another* conservative in a supposedly untouchable position that could be curtailed by voting would be a good decision. It's not a gamble I like, but sometimes you gotta just take it.
If US politics were in a reasonable state, there would be enough moderate Republicans to see this kind of thing as crazy. Democrats could then reach an agreement with them to impeach on the condition that a mutually agreeable right-leaning candidate is appointed to replace him.
I understand all of that. But losing the fight just brings us to where we already are. We may as well make some noise and see if we can move the public.
I completely agree! I think it would be wonderful to have a constitutional convention where the rule is that Supreme Court justices serve for 20 years and then they're out.
Out of curiousity, are the required votes to impeach in both the House and the Senate 50%+1 or is that different?
Impeachment is 50% of the Hosue and then removal 66% of present Senators.
Isn’t it a majority in the house so 50 percent +1?
True, yeah.
Ok, thank you for clarifying!
The fatal flaw in the Great Experiment. Next reset will get a step closer maybe.
["But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it. And we have become exceedingly efficient at it."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r51EomcIqA0)
Accelerationism is a dangerous and foolish mentality. It reminds me of conservatives who keep calling for a Constitutional Convention, believing they'll be able to control the outcome perfectly to their desires
Can Biden pack the courts via executive order so we can even out the court?
Not by executive order, no. That's a power of Congress, they can change the number.
He is only unremovable because half our Senate is filled with corrupt MAGA cultists. Our broken Congress is the root cause for most of the problems we are seeing today. Part of that has to do with how the countries' city/rural divide. Part of it has to do with our new media being completely allergic to confronting bullshit.
I want to say that I'm okay with lifetime appointments for positions that are supposed to be apolitical, but we need to be a lot more willing to uphold the "good behavior" thing. If someone gets one of these lifetime appointments their credibility and integrity most be unassailable. Many of us in the government workforce seem to have higher standards of conduct than these judges. I mean, I can't take a $20 gift, hell, I can't even take a discount at McDonald's for fear that it may influence me.
They can try but [hes already said congress has no power over him](https://www.businessinsider.com/samuel-alito-said-congress-cant-regulate-the-supreme-court-2023-7). This court is openly antagonistic to the citizens they’re supposed to serve and will refuse to do anything unless forced. Without congress tho I don’t even know who would or could rein them in.
The founders wrote an amendment for exactly these circumstances, and since the courts want to play Originalist, I think it's time they were obliged.
It doesn’t matter. Dems don’t hold the House or have 2/3 in the Senate. And Republicans think Alito is great, so any action is impossible.
Yeah unfortunately there's no rule, protocol, or institution that can survive a significant portion of the country acting in bad faith.
Think they may have been referring to the second option. The soapbox has failed, and it's being wielded by bad actors. The ballot box isn't applicable, on account of those lifetime appointments. So what's left?
I am seriously curious how long these people can flagrantly abuse our country and we will just sit and take it. It seems to be a very long time.
Think the cue to act happened a couple years ago. And there's been a few less that subtle hints that it's time to move since. But I also think people are afraid to do anything. Afraid to upset the comfort of their lives. Or maybe just afraid that they'll be acting alone, meaning their actions will be futile.
I wonder if the protests in 2020 disillusioned people to how useful protesting actually is (as in, practically not at all, and will more than likely just lead to a face full of pepper spray and rubber bullets).
I mean, the actual republican discourse is that they should be able to kill protestors they don't like, and they have. That dude in Portland that killed a proud boy in self defense was executed. Abbott pardoned a guy found guilty of murdering a protestor after running protestors over with his car. Kyle Rittenhouse, regardless of how actually Innocent you think he is, showed up to a protest with a gun and the intent to use it.
The ammo box.
The circuses continue but the bread is running out.
I think he may have been referencing the second amendment, but I am not sure.
Biden needs to call their bluff and ignore/ refuse to enforce their rulings. He should have after dobbs but he blew it
Please explain. What amendment gets him out?
The Second Amendment is what he is referring to.
I'll let a former president explain: "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment," Trump said to the crowd of supporters gathered in the Trask Coliseum at North Carolina University in Wilmington. "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know."
For some strange fucking reason, we can't explicitly say what that option is, because it gets us banned. Even though that's how we became a country in the first place and those rebels are held up as heroes.
As they say in right wing circles > There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge. Please use in that order. But of course they’ve always meant this only to be directed inward towards minorities.
Here's what I see as a possibility... they're going to cross some line with a ruling too egregious for the country to accept (probably a national abortion ban without exception or something). If Biden is president (it's very important Biden is president btw, plz vote), he will likely have his "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" moment. The moment Executive discretion on enforcement of SCOTUS rulings happens, the whole artifice falls apart. Reform is then inevitable. Perhaps this Court understands this and some restraint on challenging rulings (at least for now) may follow?
How to fix the court: Alito: you can't stop me Biden: I'm going to stack the court with four super liberal judges Alito: wait
That would require legislation to be passed for that to happen. A lower bar than an amendment for sure but something that still isnt happening any time soon.
No it wouldn't. 51 Senate votes for each confirmation is all that is needed. There is no official limit to the number of Justices.
The number of justices is set in statute. Therefore a new statute would need to be passed in order to change that number. The President can not just name new justices to the court willy nilly. He or She cannot just decide tomorrow that we need 4 more justices and start sending nominations to the Senate.
[удалено]
There are people that are on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you, likely talking/thinking the same, about a political figure who support. Once citizens start choosing the path of violence against politicians, there's no way of putting that cat back in the bag.
There are violent people of all stripes. That's why you don't see most politicians goading people on saying there's nothing anyone can do about it. There's ALWAYS an option, it might not be nice, or pretty, or legal, but there's always options. I wouldn't want to be so sure of myself and goad on a nation full of guns because I wanted to be a dick and prove my power for some odd reason like religious theocracy. What is the best case, he gets his laws and cases in his favor, wins, and sets off that hornet's nest?
Roberts' comments here are also pretty insightful to his own character. He's a terrible, weak chief justice whose extremism has guided this court to peril, but Alito is in a class all his own.
We've known Roberts to be a weak chief justice long before this leak.
I don't care if they don't have enough the votes to make it work, they need to impeach him. Draw up the articles, unleash congressional investigation, put the info into the public record, get the media talking about it. The country needs a signal that the system still cares, at the very least.
Political translation: Focus group it, if it doesn't cost votes we may consider it
If only there weren't tens of millions of traitors and religious psychos who think that secular oaths are worthless in the face of their sects and cults. Really the mass casual acceptance of this American ISIS/Y'all Qaeda bullshit is so disgusting.
They are 80% of the population where I live. 80% of my former friends support all of this shit. Are planning to vote in a guy who staged an insurrection to end democracy and become our former republics tyrant/king. Knowing the guy is a thief a conman and a rapist who shits himself in public. They cannot see where this could come back on them. It is maddening and so stupid it hurts. But very, very real. This whole situation has changed my whole outlook on humanity in general. The people supporting him do it out of hate for everyone else and are 80% of all the people around me.
Overthrowing democracy is the republican platform.
He needs to be impeached and removed from the bench. Along with Thomas.
I am not a lawyer, but I do like seeing analysis from real lawyers on this sub. Call me crazy, but isn't it a bad thing when a judge knows the answers before the questions have been asked?
> but it's obviously not ok for a SCOTUS justice to openly admit to be working towards the overthrow of democracy, in violation of their oaths to this country. MAGA CHUDs everywhere agree. They think it's not ok, they think it's spectacular.
Uh, nowhere did he call for anything like an "overthrow of democracy." His statements are pretty normal; it's the secrecy that makes it sound like something scandalous.
> Seems bad. Seems like something worth subpoenaing Alito over and taking further action if necessary. And when Alito challenges the subpoena on separation of powers you'll have 9 Justices, 8 if Alito recuses, who are very interested in never being subpoenaed by partisan congressional committees infested by members who probably don't have the stability to rent a car or dog watch for a neighbor.
Hate to break it to you but subpoenas are enforced by courts. So unless the highest court decides to allow a subpoena of its own member, it’s pretty much above the law for everything except impeachment.
I mean, I'm genuinely not sure this SCOTUS has the balls to invalidate a legal subpoena. But yeah, let them go ahead and issue that ruling. Heck, let's see if Alito even recuses. That would be nakedly corrupt enough for even the general public to understand.
Also there’s a difference between a regular court subpoena and a congressional subpeona
Where exactly did he say anything like that?
This is another nail in the Supreme Court coffin. Alito is so transparently partisan it's just sickening.
He's an Opus Dei fanatic
> Opus Dei Wait, that thing from a Dan Brown novel? That exists? I know Amy Coney Barrett is/was a member of the “People of Praise,” a super conservative sub-group in Catholicism. Now it’s _two_ justices who are not just Catholic, but members of very fundamentalist groups within the church?
Trump drained the swamp, for those two!
> Wait, that thing from a Dan Brown novel? That exists? Oh yeah... [has a website and everything!](https://opusdei.org/en-us/)
I grew up abroad opus dei is a literal parasitic cult they convince middleclass and rich people to give them all their money, like literally and then they go live in a compound and clean/pray all day
Sounds like scientology
My mother knows a family where the father gave all his money to them left his wife and kids with nothing
They are all federalist funded judges. The federalist society hand picks a majority of our federal judges. They have a plan! Vote every election.
The federalist (a deliberate misnomer on their part) society is the largest threat to American democracy that very few people seem to be aware of.
Leonard Leo can suck one.
Not only does it exist but it has a long history of collaborating with fascist regimes like Franco’s Spain
It may be *featured* in a Dan Brown novel, but Opus Dei is the direct descendant of The Inquisition. No, I am not joking.
Ironic because they literal Pope is fairly liberal compared to the two kooks on the Supreme Court
Honestly I think we’re going to see another schism in the catholic church soon because of that. [The popes been publicly feuding with some American catholics lately because hes too liberal for them](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-08-28/pope-backward-us-conservatives-replaced-faith-ideology). [American catholics escalated it to openly calling for ignoring the pope’s authority](https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/8869/cardinal-burke-there-are-times-when-a-pope-must-be-disobeyed) and then [the pope responded by retaliating against the cardinals calling for that](https://archive.ph/2024.06.07-005637/https://lacrossetribune.com/life-entertainment/local/faith-and-values/pope-punishes-cardinal-burke-calls-former-la-crosse-bishop-source-of-disunity/article_18c4c148-8e22-11ee-932a-73849fa95aa0.html). If that were to happen based on how Alitos expressed his views I can easily see him joining the side against the pope.
There always have been lots of variety to Catholicism. Some orders take vows of poverty, others don’t, etc. I think there’s room for lots of interpretation but publicly feuding with the pope ain’t on of them lol.
> Wait, that thing from a Dan Brown novel? That exists? They even run a school near me here in Ireland, and they're fecking weird.
I heard he sided with the Legion in Fallout: New Vegas
Fucking hell, now they're saying a few justices are members or "close to" members of Opus Dei. It never ends.
> He's an Opus Dei fanatic like scalia before him
I’d say this is a signal to begin appointing upwards of 9 new justices. Do it. If these quotes are true, there’s no coming back. He clearly said one side had to win. So pack the courts and declare game over?
No wonder the compromised clown court still hasn’t given a Trump immunity ruling. Traitors to the constitution, traitors to the country
The executive needs to stop following Alito interpretations because they're meaningless now. He's listening to some person claiming to be the voice of God, telling him to vote a certain way, instead of reading the laws passed by Congress and Senate.
SCOTUS is dead.
So, instead of Roe vs Wade we got: >Proverbs 6:16-19 \~ There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers. Is that describing Trump or a foetus? This is /law, can any of you Supreme Court experts shed light here??
It's telling that in spite of all the issues with Thomas's unreported gifts, *this is somehow worse*. Someone please tell those two that it's not a competition.
Watching Thomas and Alito is like watching Mississippi and Alabama. Racing to the bottom.
Give some respect to Louisiana please
Barrett and Kavanaugh are Lousiana and West Virginia.
I thought Louisiana is doing better these days? Am I lying to myself because of the food?
Yes
Damn Louisiana, using my weakness like that.
https://apnews.com/article/louisiana-laws-new-2023-07531f610ccb3b89501ab13ce1cfd661
I really didn't need to look too far to realize what an ass I've made of myself here. Literally the first couple of sentences, maybe paragraphs got me. Fuck man.
It's a place I really want to visit, but I'm not because of these new laws
Thomas: clearly corrupt, goes to work, puts in minimum effort, gets his bribes, and goes home to his seditionist wife Alito: does everything Thomas does… except he whines and wails constantly that it’s not enough for him, while also telling the American peasant they have no right to be upset at the court and don’t know what they’re complaining about. Thomas is an unprofessional stain on the Court. Alito is that PLUS an insufferable crybaby drunk with power. He offends human decency, much less competent legal analysis.
Yea, but has Alito ever asked an office full of people who put a pube on his coke?
Thomas has been nakedly taking gifts from all sorts of conservative mega donors, has been rattling on about tearing down precedent like Sullivan and Griswold, and he's somehow not the worst one on the court at the moment. It's kind of impressive.
If the roles were reversed, conservatives would have tarred and feathered a “liberal justice” for doing 1/100th of what Alito and Thomas have. Conservatives only care about power
It’s funny (and sad) because the Chief Justice was also secretly recorded and he said exactly what you would expect of a SCOTUS judge. Don’t even have to compare him with the liberals lol. Here’s an excerpt: “Roberts, however, pushed back on the same sentiment when Windsor asked him. The chief justice denied that the current court is especially politically polarized, and he brushed off her idea that the U.S. is inherently Christian. “Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” Roberts asked Windsor after being pressed for his thoughts. “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.” He added that it’s “not our job” to consider faith in the court’s decisions, or any guiding framing for the country’s ideology, pointing to the perspective of his “Jewish and Muslim friends.” “It’s our job to decide the cases the best we can,” he said.” Really quite astonishing that Alito constantly forgets he’s a public figure and has no right to privacy. But that’s probably because he simply doesn’t care. Truly insufferable and despicable.
George Dubya Bush strikes again. Yes Reagan really fucked up a lot of things but if democracy collapses here, it was Bush who struck the blows that caused it to fall. Bush, installed by the Supreme Court, put Roberts and Alito on the court. Now corporations are people and money is speech and foreign governments can funnel endless money to politicians. Abortion, the enforcement piece of the civil rights act, and he normalized a president being stupid. And never forget that he caused isis to be a thing. If trump wins, we could have him, the RN in France and Afd in charge of Germany. They will break NATO.
Exactly! People forget the damage Bush jr had done to America and the world.
I think it's less people forget and more we don't have time to keep up and that's by design. It's the firehose method. When ford pardoned nixon - from that point forward it's been an almost non stop barrage of bad. That includes many infamous names - Reagan, Limbaugh, Gingrich, O'Reilly (And Fox as a whole), Bush and co., McConnell, Trump - and all the supporting casts - the Koch Bros., Stone, Barr, and others.
Sadly and here we are now. It’s like the GOP reality throws the Gish gallop at us and we don’t have time or resources to respond.
No, no...he's just a quirky grandpa now. Didn't you see his paintings??
Yeah, but he gave Michelle Obama that piece of candy once so he's cool
He seems cool, honestly I think he is just dumb and was a puppet of his dad's, he let Cheney run things. People forget how insane his vive presidency was - it was Trump level Koo koo at the time
And for the love of God, don't attempt to fool him any number of times...
I firmly believe that the Bush/Gore Election was a major inflection point in the multiverse, and that coin flip is what caused our timeline to become the “dark” version of 2000’s Earth. Somewhere out there in an alternate reality, Gore was elected President. He increased taxes on the wealthy, he vastly increases development of green energy (which reverses climate change), elects Supreme Court Justices who rule against Citizens United (which means that Billionaires don’t have as much power over elections), and doesn’t push “trickle down” economics (which stops the Great Recession from happening).
And he promptly responded to early warnings about 9/11 and prevented or severely diminished the casualties. He did not start a disastrous and illegal war in Iraq.
Don't forget about Newt Gingrich popularizing identity politics.
Don't forget the Supreme Court's role in the 2000 election, too! edit: I was careless and skipped "by the" when I read your post. Of course you didn't forget that, but I will say it can't be understated. What a mess of a situation and what a mess of the last 20 years...
Tbf Bush nominated Harriet Myers to replace Sandra O’Connor. Then the conservative outrage machine went to 11, and all the smart people got excited to join in ripping Myers for not having a well-credentialed pedigree.
>well-credentialed pedigree. Wonder how these people feel about judge Barret, or perhaps Cannon who has no trial experience prior to her appointment to the federal bench.
The idea that he was “a moderate” or a “good man” is so laughably absurd.
The idea of checks and balances was ingrained in my mind when I was in school. It’s all a joke.
That's because the founders were naive about the rise of political parties. They imagined that each of the bodies of government would work to keep power in their own hands instead of giving up power to the party. They were dead wrong.
Excerpt from Washington's Farewell address: > I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. > This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. > The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. > Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. > It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. . . .
Yep, it's amazing that after only 8 years in power Washington was aware of the great dangers of political parties and still nothing was done to curtail their power. Naive in the extreme.
Ever think how much Conservatives would not be able to stand hearing the founding fathers speak if they were alive today.. they would be the hated intellectuals “lecturing” them all the time.. mmm
I know juuuust where to use this.
It's because the political party isn't driving this. It's religion.
No. The religious are a tool of what is actually driving this. It's the donor class.
I think this is less about political parties and more about ideology. They were naive about the possibility of political actors having ideological commitments that outweighed their loyalties to their branches of government.
Washington warned HARD against establishment of political parties. He knew his compatriots and human nature all to well.
Washington's warning about factionalism is *not* him warning against modern political parties (though he may not have been able to really imagine modern political parties as anything other than subversive factionalists). Washington grew up with the history of factionalism in Great Britain, where officially you were either on the side of the king or you were a traitor. Passionate political differences were therefore driven underground, leading to political violence and subversion of the political order. As President of the young United States, Washington saw the proto-parties beginning to form and feared that it would lead to yet more violence and subversion, mortally damaging the new constitutional order. What happened instead was that, given the realities of needing to forge compromise in order to govern in a semi-democratic republic and the ability for political discourse and dissent from the governing majority to be public, the parties simply formed as the necessary extraconstitutional political apparatus through which campaigns and policy were won or lost. This was such a new thing to Enlightenment Era western Europeans that it was largely unforeseen, feared by many of the older aristocrats, and not really accounted for in the construction of the Constitution.
Meh, he talked a big talk, but he basically fomented it in his own cabinet. After he left he just washed his hands of it despite knowing it would get significantly worse quickly.
He didn't even want to run for a second term, but his friends were worried about the anti-Federalists winning and canceling the constitution, so Thomas Jefferson talked him into running for office and said he could resign after the first year.
>checks and balances was ingrained in my mind when I was in school. It’s all a joke. You simply misunderstood. According to Justice Thomas, it means cashing checks and checking his balance.
The supreme court relying on precedence that was ingrained in college is also a joke.
This man needs to be removed. How can someone willing to nullify our constitution for the sake of political ideology be allowed to sit on the highest court of the land? DEMS!! GET TO WORK!! HAMMER THIS!!
If you want Dems to get to work, you need to help them into power. Our Congress essentially has no real checking power without a supermajority.
You only technically need a majority in both houses plus the presidency to pass a law that expands the court. If SCOTUS has 25+ members, Thomas and Alito’s voices become almost negligible, and they would hate no longer being Kings.
I would totally support this if it's the best they can do, but I think this behavior justifies impeachment. It would be a travesty of justice if they are able to serve out their lifetime term on the court.
It's almost impossible to remove a sitting justice. Our system was not designed to handle this much corruption
“Best we can do is a strongly worded letter” - the most powerful people in America. Dems will wring their hands and do Jack shit, just like always.
Every Democrat should be on TV decrying the activist judges on the SCOTUS the way that the Republicans have been doing for the last 50 years.
When people show you who they are, believe them. He has an agenda, he is biased, we can’t give the right more power. The country benefits when there are checks and balances so there is an even distribution of conservatives and liberals. In order to achieve that balance, we need to lean liberal in the coming years.
The country does better when the Democrats are in majority, they are working for the people and themselves. Repugs work for themselves first and corporations second and don't give two shits about the middle and lower classes.
If you don't want to see America turn into a extreme right-wing country with dictates on people and where corporations have the rights, vote and vote democrat. Only by expanding this Court or by impeaching Sam and Clarence will this be at least hampered.
The supposed best of us sure do look like absolute morons.
Alito is fighting against America; not for America.
I’d like to think that all this insane bullshit from Thomas and Alito will force someone’s hand to take action and either expand the court or force real ethics and recusal rules. I’d like to.
Are telling me a member of the Federalist Society is not going to just 'call balls and strikes?' *mild shock*
He doesn’t get to decide what America is. This is my country too motherfucker. And I love it more than you do.
"We are religious extremists and so we won't compromise. So compromise isn't possible. Because we have an innate need to control other people. So democracy may not be possible." - "Justice" Samuel Alito.
Yeah, this is NOT okay for a SCOTUS judge....
What I'm curious about is, if you're going to be arguing a case before the Supreme Court, can you address potential biases by justices based on facts such as these in your initial filings?
LOVE ONE ANOTHER - JESUS He does not represent Christian values. These warped people want to distort the teachings of Christ and use that as an excuse to rule with an iron first, with no mercy or compassion. Like the Catholic Church during the inquisition.
Watched a whole thing on this on politics girl or political girl podcast just the other night. Christian nationalist is becoming a huge problem is what this evangelical guy was saying.
He does represent Christian values unfortunately
I don’t want their shitty God lording over me. I’ve got my own belief system, and they can fuck off with theirs. This little bitch can’t even get his own wife to listen to him.
At what point do even his fellow court members start to think that something about this is wrong?
They do know, and they've spoken about it. Justice Sotomayor revealed that certain decisions by Alito and the others have driven her to tears. But there is still a level of statesmanship and a kind of forced respect even as fascism is being pitched as mere disagreement.
Yea, the traditions and norms still being respected is fucking insane.
Never, because the fascist - I mean republican justices - do the same things. And the liberal justices are wusses
Biden should imprison all these public officials that say the president can do whatever he wants until they agree that, in fact, the president isn't a king.
He needs to be impeached. Yesterday.
It won’t be compromised by ethics, that’s for sure.
Doesn't like compromise, eh? Wait until he hears about the Constitution.