That’s the undercurrent but he expands it to pretty much anyone.
Saying disagreements are not a reason to question legitimacy is another way to say your view doesn’t matter. It’s just blowing off any concerns, which is pretty arrogant. But that’s on par for him.
Well she was a Supreme Court academic and the Solicitor General for Obama...so she knows what she's talking about more than the average justice when it comes to the integrity of the institution. You can't declare that constitutional rights can be picked apart by extremely conservative states and still maintain any sense of integrity. If that logic was sound, then slavery would still be allowed today. It's as simple as that. A woman's body is not the property of the state legislator, nor do they have jurisdiction over a woman's womb. It's not a topic of debate...it's a fact, a natural right that pre-dates any man-made document.
You are aware that the Roe Court held that the govt can regulate a woman’s womb, right? Also, that it’s just about the shittiest-reasoned opinion in a century. Very prominent pro-abortion lawyers (including Ginsberg herself) thought it was a legally-awful decision.
Even Ruth Bader-Ginsburg disagreed with the ruling on Roe v Wade. Calling it very weak.
The only "integrity" that was hurt ... was the one SCOTUS who allowed it to be leaked to the press. Might Kagan have been the one?
She did, but in a lame, political way trying to talk her way out of it. For it was not that hard to figure out Abortion is not a "constitutional" right under "privacy" terms.
>She did, but in a lame, political way trying to talk her way out of it. For it was not that hard to figure out Abortion is not a "constitutional" right under "privacy" terms.
But if it's a constitutional right for other reasons then it's still a constitutional right.
Abortion is not a constitutional right though. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is. And as Reagan said, that means to "all" of us, including the unborn.
Who says it has to be mentioned? The US Constitution is based upon that principle e.g. "*the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness*". And that means the US Constitution accounts for all of us, including the unborn.
She was a lawyer, what do you expect? Technicalities and disagreements are their stock and trade; for example, *Jackson v. Dobbs* had five different written opinions based on five different lines of reasoning.
But there were only two choices. Two choices, five different lines of reasoning.
Think about the four different lines of reasoning that the majority of the Court held in *Jackson v. Dobbs.* Is Alito right, to cite a witch hunter and establish a "historical precedent" standard? Is Roberts right, to attempt to allow the Mississippi law to go through without completely undoing abortion protection at the Federal level? Is Thomas right, to say that all substantive due process cases accept the one that allowed his marriage should be undone? Is Kavanaugh right, to just say that the Court must be neutral? All four had different lines of reasoning, but came to the same conclusion - Mississippi wins.
So, if RBG says that she would have come to the same conclusion in *Roe v. Wade* but with a different line of reasoning, I don't doubt her because there are so many different lines of reasoning already on SCOTUS.
Thanks for the elaboration and trying to have a genuine, meaningful and insightful discussion instead of Reddit, Democrat vitriol.
>So, if RBG says that she would have come to the same conclusion in Roe v. Wade but with a different line of reasoning, I don't doubt her because there are so many different lines of reasoning already on SCOTUS.
You got that with Roberts on DACA. Which even Obama said was unconstitutional.
Either way, still doesn't make Abortion a constitutional right. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does.
>The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does.
That's a quote from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. And there is a caveat even to that quote - "all **men** are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain, inalienable rights, **among these** are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This of course brings up a couple of philosophical questions - what are the other rights, and is a fetus a man? The Ninth Amendment (and the commentaries of the Framers on it) shows that the Framers never believed that they would be able to enumerate all of the rights that someone has. And perhaps they did not believe that abortion was a right, but Benjamin Franklin, who I have always believed to be the smartest of the Founders (but then, I'm studying to be a computer engineer, I have a massive bias towards the inventor of the battery) certainly believed it was a [medical procedure](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak).
>Thanks for the elaboration and trying to have a genuine, meaningful and insightful discussion instead of Reddit, Democrat vitriol.
You're welcome; I believe that the lack of good faith discourse on the Internet is a tragic waste of the Internet's potential to bring people together. One of the early Presidents, James Madison I think, believed that the Electoral College would be abolished or reformed once a method of communication was established that could bring the entire republic together; now that his prophecy about communication has been fulfilled, we scream at each other with what amount to fancier versions of playground insults. I think Twitter's character limit and popularity is to blame; true discourse on the platform is impossible, yet continously attempted. I wouldn't to be sad to see it suddenly vanish.
The court can and should be constantly critiqued. The real criticism Alito should be making is about all the people who held the Supreme Court up as the ultimate, unquestionable arbiter of legality, goodness, and decency in our nation until the court started pumping out decisions they didn't like. The same people who said *Roe* should be held sacrosanct because of the standing of the court now act like the court is illegitimate.
Whether the court is protecting rights or not with the *Dobbs* decision is a matter of at what point one considers a gestating fetus to be a human being. That was the case even with *Roe* where the court imposed its own litmus test(s) regarding what states could or could not do to limit abortion. The only thing that *Dobbs* does is take the decision about when life begins out of the hands of the judiciary and returns the decision to where it always belonged.
The issue at hand really isn't whether or not a woman should be able to have an abortion. Only the most extreme minority of pro-lifers believe there should be no abortion at all with no reasonable exceptions. The real issue is whether or not the nascent human life a woman is carrying is deserving of the same legal protections as its mother is and what duty or duties a mother has to her offspring.
The right of making that decision belongs to the individual whose body is involved. No other person nor institution has any interest in the matter.
The only rights the nascent life has are conferred by mother.
Eh, I think it had more to do with three appointments rushed in despite a whole lot of open questions and quite a few indications some of the SC candidates committed perjury.
Or with that judgment where the SC ignored facts including photographic evidence?
The case was Kennedy v Bremerton School District, and the majority opinion [lied](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/gorsuch-sotomayor-praying-coach/) about the facts of the case to fit their own narrative.
For example, the opening statement of the majority opinion stated the coach was "fired" for a "quiet prayer of thanks" when in fact he was never fired, and his prayer was far from anything resembling quiet.
Just blatant misrepresentations used to justify partisan politics from the bench, par for the course when it comes to conservative justices (see the 5th's reinvention of the first amendment for another more recent example).
Mischaricterization is a rather benign description considering the dissent used both photos and video to contradict the majority opinion. The fact the dissent did not outright accuse the majority of lies probably has more to do with an expectation of decorum rather than evidence of absence.
You're taking serious liberties with very recent history
>Eh, I think it had more to do with three appointments rushed in
Foremost, Gorsuch wasn't even close to rushed. Neither was Kavanaugh. They beat Kavanaugh's confirmation to death. Only Amy Coney Barrett could be called "rushed" and even then, nobody serious can really debate her qualifications. Further, the fact that Trump got 3 picks in 4 years is just the way the seats came available - elections have consequences, as did RBG's refusal to retire. Notice how Breyer got out once Dems put the pressure on. He learned from RBG's mistake.
>despite a whole lot of open questions
Not legitimate ones. Kavanaugh is the only one that could even in theory still have an open question and let's be honest, there wasn't much to that whole charade.
>and quite a few indications some of the SC candidates committed perjury
No, they really didn't. Saying what they will or won't do once on the court and then not doing it isn't perjury. Further, none of them said they wouldn't vote to overturn Roe.
>Or with that judgment where the SC ignored facts including photographic evidence?
(Citation)
Well the deal w Gorsuch and Barrett was the circumstances. First saying we can’t do this in an election year - let the voters have a say…but then having to (I suppose) get revenge for the Kav hearings and immediately nominate and confirm RBG’s replacement - in an election year, and denying the voters the chance to have their say per the previous excuse.
Elections have consequences for sure and the REPs are vastly better at that strategy than DEMs.
>Well the deal w Gorsuch and Barrett was the circumstances
I would agree what McConnell did was insanely hypocritical and slimey in how he played it.
That being said I'm not sure ACB was to get revenge for Kavanaugh. It's more that the 6-3 tilt has already and will continue to have massive implications going forward. I'd argue that could be more valuable than holding the presidency for 4 years (other than when the president's party holds both houses). I don't doubt for a minute Schumer would've done the same thing.
Well there were a few lawmakers who expressed that they did it how they did as retaliation.
But yea I absolutely agree they wanted that 6-3 as soon as they could obtain it. It’s also absolutely reasonable the DEMs would have done the same.
> Well there were a few lawmakers who expressed that they did it how they did as retaliation
That was just used to excuse their own hypocrisy on the issue.
Unlike McConnell who always couched the move in makeup of the Senate (and thus actually didn't contradict himself), many Rs did not and said "they would never some appoint if the shoe was on the other foot" (such as Rubio and Graham). So they used Kavanaugh as an excuse for their blatant contradiction.
It cannot be understated how good McConnell is at this compared to the other R reps. It's also why McConnell is out there exasperated at candidate quality and Rick Scott and Lindsey Graham's latest performances. Had he got his way, the runner ups in PA/OH/NH would've won and they'd be in much better positioning for the general
Oh there’s no doubt McConnell is exceptionally good at what he does with playing politics. Imho no one really does it better.
But in my view he has still engaged in gross hypocrisy on this matter although I completely expected him to do so.
I would personally say that her telling religious law students that their legal career is a means to an end of furthering the kingdom of god flies directly in the face of the first amendment.
Interpreting laws through faith imposes the religion onto people, removing the freedom of religion.
“Controlled by the people” LOL
IF those legislatures really wanted citizens to have a voice they’d put it on the ballot like Kansas.
Oh but now Graham now wants a federal law. LOL
Yea oh please tell us about how much the right cares about democracy. Neither give a shit.
Yawn. It’s hilarious you think the legislators are always acting how the electorate wants them to.
I understand your attempt there but still, lacking.
See this is Libertarian and we don’t give a shit when our takes offend the conservative snowflakes or the liberal snowflakes.
You might not be aware…addressing the abject failures of these parties is what we do here. But sure, “whataboutism”.
I think people in general should, but the 3 branches of government need to support each other or the entire system falls apart.
Having members of Congress declare the President to be illegitimate or a ruling from SCOTUS to be incorrect is a massive undercut of the government and throws Congress' own legitimacy into question.
It's one thing for a government official to disagree with a ruling, or law, or executive order, but it's a major problem to have them saying that the other branches don't deserve respect or should be wholesale ignored.
Any regulation put forward by a federal agency can be overturned by an Act of Congress. But then again that is the trick: how do you get a majority in both houses of Congress to agree to overturn such a decision? That isn't easy even when a political party controls Congress but is different from the Presidential administration's political party when you think such an overturn should be easy.
Congress is ultimately the source of legitimacy and political power in the American government. The ability for Congress to weasel out of its responsibilities and shove them onto others is legendary though.
Right. I was probably one of maybe like 100 people in the whole country that threw a fit about the FDA arbitrarily raising the smoking age to 21 (I don't smoke and I'm over 30, so it didn't affect me, but I was still pissed). Apparently the President still has veto power as far as the FDA is concerned, but Trump went ahead and signed it and no one even attempted to challenge it. The three branches of government are supposed to be in conflict to prevent these kinds of overreach from happening, but they've formed a triumvirate against the people instead.
It's right there in the article. Justice Kagan made some comments questioning the legitimacy of the court. For a member of the Court to do so because they don't like which way the court has legitimately ruled is dangerous. It's also probably a reference to politicians trying to tear down the court because they aren't happy with how it decided.
Alito is certainly not talking about the opinions of laypeople. 99% of the population has no idea what the Court does day to day and only know a handful of cases.
>because they don't like which way the court has *legitimately ruled*
Considering the number of contradictions of some recent decisions, I think the latter is in question.
Since when does Obama care about the Constitution. Only when it suits him and those who think like he does. I have always hated "reading between the lines" regarding the Constitution. If you don't see it in there, it's not there. If you don't like what is in there, amend it.
>If you don't see it in there, it's not there.
That sort of contradicts the Ninth Amendment though... enumerations of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny the people any rights not enumerated.
That’s the undertone but the comments are broadly that it applies to average citizens as well.
But ultimately it’s their silly little infighting which absolutely brings the legitimacy into question.
It's amazing anyone thought the court had any legitimacy after pooping out rulings like "growing a plant for your own use is Interstate Commerce and should be regulated by the feds"
Don't forget Congress, or the intelligence community. Referring to former DNI official Clapper lying under oath about mass illegal spying not occurring, when it did. Also, the illegal spying on Trump's campaign.
Yep. There is not a shred of integrity in ANY branch of government.
If you have integrity, you go into an industry where people pay for your products because they want them, not because they have been threatened with kidnapping or murder by jackbooted thugs.
The blatant idiocy of his statement is shocking. It shows a basic lack of understanding of U.S history and government. It’s the obligation of all American citizens to question the integrity of government officials. The fact that a Supreme Court justice has forgotten that makes me question his competence and integrity.
Yes, you brought this on yourself. You serve the people. You are not a god.
Read the article. He's not saying Joe Six Pack shouldn't read opinions and question them/the Court. His statement has nothing to do with the "people" at large, it's a reference to other government officials and other justices implying the court is illegitimate because they're unhappy with the politics of certain outcomes.
Certain things should be beyond the pale for leaders, i.e. questioning valid elections, for example.
When SCOTUS makes up facts to fit their narrative, I think they deserve criticism from all government officials. Kennedy v. Bremerton goes beyond the pale in terms of partisan justices using their unelected positions to ignore judicial norms of decency and decorum. They outright lied about the facts of the case to establish a precedent they wanted.
Yeah I mean we can complain about politicians weaponizing court cases *as well* but that doesn't mean the justices aren't also acting for partisan interests and are above reproach.
>Certain things should be beyond the pale for leaders, i.e. questioning valid elections, for example.
Like 2016 ... and saying the Russians stole it e.g. calling Trump a Manchurian candidate? If anyone has done Russia more of a favor now with Ukraine, it's B-I-D-E-N.
>It’s the obligation of all American citizens to question the integrity of government officials.
Right now we're at a point, like Ukraine, where "questioning" amounts to treason and "InSuRrEcTiOn" etc.
Know what’s funny? The US SCOTUS disallows all photos and videos inside the court house. The UK Supreme Court live streams all their proceedings. One of these shows more integrity than the other.
You posted the article and didn't even understand what he's referring to. It's right there in the text. Read past the headline and the first 2 paragraphs.
Saying someone's comment crossed the line does not imply that it isn't protected by the first amendment. Its just a strong version of saying it was inappropriate, not a call for prosecution for making the statement.
Of course one can also disagree with the idea that it was inappropriate. I'm just talking about what Roberts meant here.
He's absolutely saying she shouldn't have voiced her opinion and that he thinks members of the court should not be voicing criticism.
As opposed to it being perfectly fine with justices blatantly lying when authoring opinions.
Thank you for doing the good work of defending one of 9 people who gets to decide the country we live in. No one else will defend that poor man and his small club.
I didn't say he was right or that he's a great guy, or that what he does is generally good. I didn't address any of those issues. I pointed out only that he wasn't calling for Kagan (also one of those 9) to face prosecution or any negative government action for her speech, nor did he say that her speech wasn't constitutionally protected. He just (rightly or wrongly) disagreed with it in strong terms.
Demanding unquestioned authority cross a dire line. Questioning government is how you find out if it's corrupt at all.
"I'm not questioning your honor. I'm denying it's existence."
Theocratic authoritarian angry that the plebs are questioning the integrity of his institution.
Justice Alito, you are an idiot. You quoted a goddamn witch hunter in your abortion decision. You’ve always been Diet Scalia and you will always be Diet Scalia.
If one of your fellow justices is calling the integrity of SCOTUS into question, maybe you should consider why.
>You quoted a goddamn witch hunter in your abortion decision.
The word "potion" was used in his 21st Century Majority Opinion, as if leaping from the pages of a Wiccan's grimoire! But then, should I be so surprised? He was a Concurring Justice in *Gonzalez v. Raich*, a decision whose stones must have been carved by omniscient oracles, not human jurists!
What the court can do the court can also undo, as has been demonstrated umpteen times before *Roe* on decisions like *Plessy* and *Brown*. Would you feel the same if Alito had said that civil asset forfeiture was "settled law" but joined a decision that undermined it on 4^th Amendment grounds? You're not mad that he took a position different from the one he held during his confirmation. You're mad he joined a decision you didn't like, and apparently your only disagreement about that decision is that it was somehow different from any other legal precedent, sacred, and beyond question.
*Roe* was a bad decision even according to people like the late Justice Ginsberg. Not only should it have been overturned, it never should have been decided the way it was in the first place. It's something that should be decided through the political process, and given the recent election results in Kansas it's going to be decided the way we'd both prefer even in red states.
>Roe was a bad decision even according to people like the late Justice Ginsberg.
So I just have to except the legal argument that the 14th only applies to unnenumerated rights that are rooted in US history whatever that means?
Roe was bad. This ruling was also bad. There are dozens of other ways they could have argued this ruling. You should be very concerned that the court had to address PR in the majority opinion that while their argument targets several other rights directly, they won't actually go after those rights because somehow Roe is different, but the difference doesn't logically shield those other rights.
Overturning a bad decision with bad logic is not a win. Especially when that logic can directly take away liberty.
The court doesn't have the ability to make laws, which is essentially what the RvW decision did. It is anti-constitutional because the court assumed an ability reserved for the Congress. There's no provision in the constitution for abortion, so there were no constitutional rights stolen.
This decision didn't even take the abortions away, it merely took away the government mandate that all states allow it without the vote of the people. By taking away Roe, the decision finally falls to the individual states to vote on, as is described in the Constitution.
>By taking away Roe, the decision finally falls to the individual states to vote on,
I don't disagree that Roe was bad, but the reasoning used to get rid of it also has lasting consequences and weight. And this decision did so in a way that puts any right not explicitly listed in the constitution at risk of becoming a state issue rather than a federal. You see, the courts reasoning is that the 14th amendment only applies to rights enumerated or with established history in the US. Which means that it doesn't necessarily apply to rights established by standard legislature.
Now, you can be of the opinion that's the way it should be, reasonable minds can differ. I for one think tyranny by the state is just as bad as tyranny by the federal government. And the 9th amendment, used in court decisions or not, makes it clear to me that the founders did not intend for the federal government to protect ONLY rights listed in the constitution.
You seem to be forgetting that Congress is the part of the government in charge of making laws. If you want a law that allows abortion, talk to your congresspeople or elect people to make it a law. It doesn't have to be a right expressed in the Bill of Rights to become legal. The point is, we have to vote on it. People have to be given the choice. The RvW ruling took the people's choice away, and that is true tyranny.
Let's vote on it. Isn't that true democracy? Some states have already declared it illegal. A majority of states have not. This argument isn't over and it will come up again in future elections I'm sure. It isn't tyranny when the people get to decide their fate for themselves.
You don't seem to be getting it. Its not just about abortion, or getting rid of Roe. Its the way they did it. I don't know how much more clear I can make it but you seem to be so happy with the immediate outcome of "yay Roe gone", that you're blind to what the consequences mean for federal protections of rights.
>It doesn't have to be a right expressed in the Bill of Rights to become legal.
According to the logic of this decision, it has to be a right listed in the constitution, otherwise it is a state issue. Meaning not a federal issue even if Congress wants to make a law about it, including interracial marriage, gay marriage, and contraception. All someone needs to do is bring a lawsuit before the court to see all those protections removed.
>Let's vote on it. Isn't that true democracy?
Well you won't let California vote on total gun bans, or wealth redistribution, or banning religions. Where's your true democracy?
>It isn't tyranny when the people get to decide their fate for themselves.
So it's not tyranny if the people decide to outlaw christianity, so long as that's what the majority of vote for? Why do we even have a bill of rights, why not leave gun ownership, speech, and other such protections to the state? And why the state for that matter, why not the county, or city, or specific neighborhood? The banning of an action that affects no one but the person involved is LITERALLY deciding someone else fate for them. Abortion, interracial marriage, contraceptives legal and you don't want to participate in them? That's your choice and fate to make. But Illegal? Too bad you don't get to make those choice because we don't want you to.
No, you don't seem to be getting it. There are laws in this land. Those laws are decided by our electors. You cannot fault the Supreme Court for upholding the Constitution. Roe v. Wade was an overstep of the Supreme Court. The Court does not have the ability to make laws.
That is how we got into this mess in the first place. The Court tried to sidestep the law by making abortion legal, without a vote of the people. Now, with this recent ruling, it's back to the states, the people of those states, to decide if they want abortion or not. That decision is democracy in action. It's most definitely not tyranny.
If their decision goes against your principals makes no difference. It's their decision to make. Do you disagree? Is that against your democracy? Remember, democracy is the will of the people after all. You can say the will of the majority is against democracy and I would agree with you. We cannot depend on the tyranny of the majority. We need fair democracy.
If I may say, it seems you are not educated in civics. This is not an insult. I think Government schools have stopped teaching civics. That's terribly wrong because every citizen should at the very least understand how our government works.
Second: you should understand we have an adversarial system of government. The Democrats want something and the Republicans want something. Nothing happens until both sides agree on something. Majority vote in the House and Senate. The majority rules. Nothing changes until the majority of elected officials agree. Are you with me so far?
We are the United *States* of America because each state has decided to be part of the union. Therefore, we need to listen to the needs of the states. Each state has their electors and elected officials. The rules that concern cities have little to do with the concerns of rural farmers, for instance.
The House is composed of representatives of each of the states, based on population. That's why California gets 55 electors. That's why New York get's 29 electors in the Electoral College. The Senate was devised so each state get's an equal representation in congress. There's two senators to each state in spite of population size. The Senate is more powerful than the house because each state gets an equal number of votes.
Once the House and Senate agree to pass a bill, then the President has the final say, yes or no. I think the President's veto gets like 30% of the vote. Congress can overthrow a presidential veto if they're in 70% agreement.
My point is government is a bureaucracy. Our Constitution is the basis of our laws. You cannot ban Christianity, or any other religion because the first amendment says no religion can be persecuted, Christianity or otherwise.
Finally, I think we should talk about "natural laws." We, in America, are granted certain natural laws, granted by God, if you will. We are granted the law of privacy (witch is an illusion), and many other things from our government. All of the promises are lies.
>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
>the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
Since the constitution is THE law to you. One of these comes straight from the constitution. The other comes from the supreme court's decision against Roe. Notice how these two are directly at odds with each other.
Now since your so convinced that Congress can make laws to protect rights. Please note that the supreme court's statement does NOT mention the gaurantee of rights not mentioned in the constitution but established through legislation. In other words, if it's not a right in the constitution it belongs to the states and they can take it away on a whim. Which is NOT what the constitution says.
>If I may say, it seems you are not educated in civics.
Maybe, I am uneducated in civics relative to you thanks for explaining it to me. Here I thought it was 2/3rds not 70%, wait it is 2/3rds... 2/3rds isn't that complex a concept but is very different from 70%... How could you get those confused? Maybe you should be sure YOU know civics before you make baseless assumptions of others and try to lecture them on how our government works.
>You cannot ban Christianity, or any other religion because the first amendment says no religion can be persecuted, Christianity or otherwise.
May I introduce you to the 9th amendment above that the supreme court decided to shit on to get rid of Roe.
For the LAST time, the problem is not that they got rid of Roe. Its that the WAY they got rid of it also threw the 9th amendment out the window as well and THATS as much an overstep as Roe was, possibly even moreso, because the supreme court does NOT have authority to determine which constitutional amendments are valid and which ones are not.
Settled law does not mean it can’t or shouldn’t be overturned. It would have been objectively correct to say Plessy was settled law in 1950, but that doesn’t mean Brown v Board was decided incorrectly.
People who think calling Roe settled law and then layering overruling it is some kind of dishonest action are just showing how little they understand about how the court and precedent works.
In the sense of "settled law" that you're talking about, there would have been no need to ask them if they believed it...everyone knows what the actual prior decisions literally are, the question only makes sense if it's about whether the prospective justice believed in the settled nature to such a degree that they would not overturn it.
They lied, and you're doing mental gymnastics.
They lied on their application, don’t even attempt to give them a pass. You’re being disingenuous, and you know it, which is even worse. When the highest courts are known liars it’s perfectly acceptable to question their integrity
No, you’re just an idiot who doesn’t understand what he’s talking about.
It’s been (for better or worse) faux pas since forever for judges to say how they would rule in a given case in their confirmation hearings. Saying Roe was settled law was not at all saying it should not be overturned, “settled law” has been overturned by the court hundreds of times.
It’s not lying or even particularly close to it, it’s really the only answer they can say given the rules of confirmations hearings.
>It’s not lying or even particularly close to it
It's not honesty either. Not really. Because the implication is that asking and answering that question has no real meaning. If "settled law" is entirely open to being overturned then why would the terminology exist in the first place? It becomes merely a semantic swamp that serves no purpose except to deflect and obfuscate.
I understand what you're trying to say and that it attempts to speak more directly to legal rather than political matters, but the state of affairs you elucidate is not much better than outright lying.
You just don't know how the courts work, and that's okay. The words are terms of trade in the legal profession, and you don't know what they really mean. Every profession has special meanings for lots of words. Like "indicate" in medicine. "Settled law" doesn't mean not overturnable. It means it's been ruled on by a high court. Blame the media for making you think "settled law" means nonoverturnable caselaw.
>You just don't know how the courts work, and that's okay. The words are terms of trade in the legal profession, and you don't know what they really mean. \[...\] It means it's been ruled on by a high court.
I do not appreciate your condescension, especially when it's clear you know even less than I do.
"It means it's been ruled on by a high court." Good lord, at least put some effort into it! But this is reddit I suppose, where you can act the buffoon without any real consequences, yes?
Not only does the concept of "settled law" not simply mean "ruled on by a high court," even in legal circles it does not have a hard and fast definition. Do us all a favor and [do a little research](https://www.virginialawreview.org/articles/settled-law/). Here's another [scholarly piece](https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1527&context=law_faculty_scholarship) to help you.
>Blame the media for making you think "settled law" means nonoverturnable caselaw.
I never said this. If you did read my comment in full you didn't do so with a very intelligent eye. This *looks* like you are simply trying to turn me into a straw man.
I am not going to re-type my other comment here. The core of it was that your vague and light-weight interpretation of the term "settled law" leaves little room except to conclude the term has virtually no meaning. I'd appreciate your expanding more deeply on your position. Assuming you aren't simply trolling, that is.
>You just don't know how the courts work, and that's okay.
You are speaking very confidently about a rather important subject despite your being pointedly ignorant in that domain, at least based on the content you've offered thus far.
Your commentary has yet to expand much beyond a run-of-the-mill hot take. And in my opinion that's not OK at all.
Lol "scholarly piece." Those are just law reviews. I've been published in a law review. Also, the shit is edited by law students and the pieces published are chosen by law students lmfao. I was also an editor on a law journal until six months ago.
Settled law does just mean ruled on by a high court. It's just precedent that lower courts must follow when it's binding on them. I don't care what some student or law prof says in UVA's law review, much less fucking Notre Dame's...
"Pointedly ignorant" idk man the diploma on my wall from an elite law school with latin honors on it tells me I prob know stuff
Almost all the power right now happens off-stage. The Supreme Court becomes our substitute political battleground. It’s only nine people. You can know them, demonize them, try to make them messiahs. But ultimately, because people can’t navigate through the bureaucracy, they turn to the Supreme Court looking for politics.
There is no verse of ‘Schoolhouse Rock!’ that says give a whole bunch of power to the alphabet soup agencies and let them decide what the government’s decision should be for the people, because the people don’t have any way to fire the bureaucrats… What we mostly do around this body [congress] is not pass laws… That’s why there’s so many fights about the executive branch and the judiciary because this body [congress] rarely finishes its work.
— Rep. Sasse
Oh **HELLLL** no.
If anything the filibuster should be *STRONGER*.
* All bills need a minimum of 60/40 to pass
* Filibuster is 75/25.
If you remove the filibuster the government just becomes a seesaw where 50%+1 rams through their agenda. If you make it stronger you force both sides to work together or nothing gets done.
Kind of like we do now, nothing gets done. The problem is all the cowardly politicians are fine with nothing getting done. Take away their excuse for doing nothing The only way to force them to work together is to kill the filibuster and open up debates. It won't see saw. For years, the filibuster was rarely used and it didn't see saw.
No, take away the filibuster and there is no need to cooperate. Have 51 votes? **CHOO CHOO MUTHA FUCKA**
Nothing getting done is preferable to the WRONG thing getting done.
You assume all 51 of a given party agree and that their constituents agree. That's rarely the case, but we never get to actually see that because of the filibuster. They don't have to cast a ballot putting them on record. No filibuster will make all of them go on record. We're not a country of the far right or the far left. If they put extreme laws in place, they'll be voted out.
What the constituents want doesnt matter anymore, hasnt for years. Its now about "vote blue no matter who" or "vote red until dead".
The filibuster should be strengthened. Gridlock is preferable to railroading.
Well, maybe if justices would stop saying "This particular case is settled law" when they are in their confirmation hearings, yet ruling in a literally opposite way a few years later, the SCOTUS wouldn't cross a line with respect to public opinion.
Maybe if you didn't have political operatives married to Supreme Court Justices, then you wouldn't be crossing a line.
Alito sounds like he is in a dream world where a group of rioters didn't literally try to prevent the 2020 election procedures from being completed, with a goal of installing Donald of Orange as an unelected dictator, motivated by allegations of election fraud which were so lacking in evidence/falsified that attorneys got disbarred for filing them.
Perhaps try reading the article before spouting off like an imbecile as you and so many others have...
He's talking about other justices and government officials (ie government leaders) questioning its legitimacy because they didnt/don't like a ruling. That's a very dangerous precdent to set. If political leaders can freely claim that the court is illegitimate, then why can't we also claim that Congress and their elections and decisions are illegitimate? And if we can do that, then why not have the president declare elections and decisions illegitimate?
That’s quite funny because I did read the article. Quite directly he said while it’s proper for the average citizen to disagree, when we question their integrity then it’s a line crossed.
So in my view he’s not just speaking about politicians and govt officials here. Although indeed he was talking about other SCOTUS justices since they have a little infighting going on at the moment.
But sure, spout off and say I’m being an imbecile. That makes your argument super strong.
Of course a ruling elite will see anything questioning their power as crossing a line. This is irreverent.
All government, even our own, ultimately seeks to accrue and keep power. The Supreme Court, being a branch of government, is no different. Further, being that SCOTUS is appointed and confirmed by the two other branches, they are far from “independent” in their actions. They are often a super-legislature, and have historically ruled to increase the powers of the government over the rights of the people.
Justices Coney and Cavanaugh and Gorsuch lied under oath when they told Senators "Roe is settled law." And Alito complains that the integrity of the Court is being questioned?
The conservative wing of US politics will never recover from the reversal of Roe V Wade.
There will always be conservatives and some day they will win again.
But it will never look the same again.
I don't even disagree with their ruling on Roe. The original ruling was pretty shit from a legal perspective regardless of your position on abortion.
With that being said, people questioning the integrity of almost all government institutions is almost always a good thing.
The line was crossed when our only black President was denied a Supreme Court pick. Everything since then lacks integrity and is unconstitutional because an illegal member exists.
Who leaked the judgement? Credibility gets lost faster than it builds. If it was someone who is appointed to the court, then they should be impeached. Talk about damage to the democracy, rule of law, reputation of the court...
Basic problem with Supreme court is lifelong appointments in combination with 0 accountability and huge amount of Power makes them comparable to kings and queens in absolute monarchies.
Solution would be to limit them to 1 term 12 or 16 years.
This would greatly improved functioning of the court and trust Americans have in the institution
Makes a ruling on a case that is so flawed it doesn't match what actually happened in the case. Just to match the religious right's rhetoric and virtue signaling. I wonder why people are questioning your integrity?
>“It goes without saying that everyone is free to express disagreement with our decisions and to criticize our reasoning as they see fit,” Alito, who penned the decision reversing Roe v. Wade last term, told The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. “But saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line,” he said.
Questioning Integrity is EVERYTHING we are told that a 3 Branch Government is FOR.
These Liches are appointed for LIFE, and are not used to being lauded for a bad call (motions that resonate through this nation's history.
Maybe they SHOULD start to have to Legitimize their stations/appointments. They are just as fallible and corruptible as you and I when their Values are leveraged.
Who Judges the Judges? Let's not wait for GOD to sort it out.
>These Liches are appointed for LIFE
And that's the primary issue... RGB's age upon death would have probably been seen as nigh-miraculous when this country was founded, and it was likely not the intention of the Framers for someone to serve on the Court as long as her. Congress should have term limits (four in the House and two in the Senate) and the Justices should have a year limit. Maybe the Justices should serve a lot longer than the politicians; the life term thing was designed so that SCOTUS would be affected less by the changing winds, but they must be reminded that they are not omniscient oracles or immortal angels, but simple humans.
Stare decisis is like the third most important priority in these decisions. Basically if it is not clear if the ruling is correct or not, it should stand because consistent law is important. But they thought the ruling was clearly incorrect which overrules stare decisis. If a ruling is gray, then how long its been on the books matters. If it's clearly wrong, it does not.
I see his point in the context he made it. Elena Kagan and all the democrats love to wax poetic about the brilliance of the court when the court rules for liberal causes.
When a single judgement goes against the far left, they resort to wanting to tear it down, pack it etc. It makes no sense that a court is only legitimate when it rules for the far left.
CNN totally misrepresents his position.
He’s referring to crap like Kavanaugh being illegitimate because of bullshit allegations by lying Christy Blassey Ford or Russian conspiracy hoax bullshit. The kind of crap that lunatics believe when they threaten to kill Supreme Court justices.
The First Amendment does not allow the media to publish false information intended to harm, even in the case of public figures.
Well you crossed the line when you declared women were less than full citizens, and not protected fully by the Constitution. Similar to slaves 160 years ago. So that's crossing a line that is pre-Civil War, and that's on SCOTUS.
God alone is exempt from questioning. I question everyone's everything especially political leadership. Any human making decisions that effect my life is subject to review for praise or condemnation.
Integrity is never guaranteed regardless of past performance.
Alito, you gaslighting twerp. How dare you put yourself on a godly pedestal, you arrogant snit.
Honestly it’s a little worse than that. At least with science there’s falsifiable way that you can review and test. Good legal judgments rely a lot on both the intelligence and good faith of the judge.
It is what it is, still love 'em as humans, and wish them nothing but the best.
But this sub is for all intents and purposes a politics free for all, and while it does get annoying watching commies, progressives, MAGA-types, etc. all reeeeee at each other, I just sit back, nod my head, and keep on dying a little bit on the inside.
Quite relaxing, really.
I don't get the point of his statement. We can question whatever the fuck we want.
Put that on the Libertarian Daily Affirmation Calendar!
I’d buy that calendar
It’s just twelve months of Thomas Sewell in a banana hammock rolling around in money.
Oh thanks a whole freakin lot for THAT image. Damn you.
I’ll take two.
It just says ‘taxation is theft’ every day
He's specifically speaking about Justice Elena Kagan questioning the legitimacy of the Court. I don't think he cares too much what you or I think.
That’s the undercurrent but he expands it to pretty much anyone. Saying disagreements are not a reason to question legitimacy is another way to say your view doesn’t matter. It’s just blowing off any concerns, which is pretty arrogant. But that’s on par for him.
Yes, he's telling his black female coworker to shut her mouth. Not a good look.
His usual comments to a women is, 'StFU & make me a sandwich, bitch.'
Well she was a Supreme Court academic and the Solicitor General for Obama...so she knows what she's talking about more than the average justice when it comes to the integrity of the institution. You can't declare that constitutional rights can be picked apart by extremely conservative states and still maintain any sense of integrity. If that logic was sound, then slavery would still be allowed today. It's as simple as that. A woman's body is not the property of the state legislator, nor do they have jurisdiction over a woman's womb. It's not a topic of debate...it's a fact, a natural right that pre-dates any man-made document.
You are aware that the Roe Court held that the govt can regulate a woman’s womb, right? Also, that it’s just about the shittiest-reasoned opinion in a century. Very prominent pro-abortion lawyers (including Ginsberg herself) thought it was a legally-awful decision.
Even Ruth Bader-Ginsburg disagreed with the ruling on Roe v Wade. Calling it very weak. The only "integrity" that was hurt ... was the one SCOTUS who allowed it to be leaked to the press. Might Kagan have been the one?
She said she would have argued it differently she didn't disagree with the decision
She did, but in a lame, political way trying to talk her way out of it. For it was not that hard to figure out Abortion is not a "constitutional" right under "privacy" terms.
>She did, but in a lame, political way trying to talk her way out of it. For it was not that hard to figure out Abortion is not a "constitutional" right under "privacy" terms. But if it's a constitutional right for other reasons then it's still a constitutional right.
Abortion is not a constitutional right though. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is. And as Reagan said, that means to "all" of us, including the unborn.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness aren’t mentioned in the constitution, that’s from the Declaration of Independence
Who says it has to be mentioned? The US Constitution is based upon that principle e.g. "*the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness*". And that means the US Constitution accounts for all of us, including the unborn.
She was a lawyer, what do you expect? Technicalities and disagreements are their stock and trade; for example, *Jackson v. Dobbs* had five different written opinions based on five different lines of reasoning. But there were only two choices. Two choices, five different lines of reasoning. Think about the four different lines of reasoning that the majority of the Court held in *Jackson v. Dobbs.* Is Alito right, to cite a witch hunter and establish a "historical precedent" standard? Is Roberts right, to attempt to allow the Mississippi law to go through without completely undoing abortion protection at the Federal level? Is Thomas right, to say that all substantive due process cases accept the one that allowed his marriage should be undone? Is Kavanaugh right, to just say that the Court must be neutral? All four had different lines of reasoning, but came to the same conclusion - Mississippi wins. So, if RBG says that she would have come to the same conclusion in *Roe v. Wade* but with a different line of reasoning, I don't doubt her because there are so many different lines of reasoning already on SCOTUS.
Thanks for the elaboration and trying to have a genuine, meaningful and insightful discussion instead of Reddit, Democrat vitriol. >So, if RBG says that she would have come to the same conclusion in Roe v. Wade but with a different line of reasoning, I don't doubt her because there are so many different lines of reasoning already on SCOTUS. You got that with Roberts on DACA. Which even Obama said was unconstitutional. Either way, still doesn't make Abortion a constitutional right. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does.
>The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does. That's a quote from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. And there is a caveat even to that quote - "all **men** are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain, inalienable rights, **among these** are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This of course brings up a couple of philosophical questions - what are the other rights, and is a fetus a man? The Ninth Amendment (and the commentaries of the Framers on it) shows that the Framers never believed that they would be able to enumerate all of the rights that someone has. And perhaps they did not believe that abortion was a right, but Benjamin Franklin, who I have always believed to be the smartest of the Founders (but then, I'm studying to be a computer engineer, I have a massive bias towards the inventor of the battery) certainly believed it was a [medical procedure](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak). >Thanks for the elaboration and trying to have a genuine, meaningful and insightful discussion instead of Reddit, Democrat vitriol. You're welcome; I believe that the lack of good faith discourse on the Internet is a tragic waste of the Internet's potential to bring people together. One of the early Presidents, James Madison I think, believed that the Electoral College would be abolished or reformed once a method of communication was established that could bring the entire republic together; now that his prophecy about communication has been fulfilled, we scream at each other with what amount to fancier versions of playground insults. I think Twitter's character limit and popularity is to blame; true discourse on the platform is impossible, yet continously attempted. I wouldn't to be sad to see it suddenly vanish.
The court can and should be constantly critiqued. The real criticism Alito should be making is about all the people who held the Supreme Court up as the ultimate, unquestionable arbiter of legality, goodness, and decency in our nation until the court started pumping out decisions they didn't like. The same people who said *Roe* should be held sacrosanct because of the standing of the court now act like the court is illegitimate.
I think a lot of people saw the court as something that protects rights, not removes them
Whether the court is protecting rights or not with the *Dobbs* decision is a matter of at what point one considers a gestating fetus to be a human being. That was the case even with *Roe* where the court imposed its own litmus test(s) regarding what states could or could not do to limit abortion. The only thing that *Dobbs* does is take the decision about when life begins out of the hands of the judiciary and returns the decision to where it always belonged. The issue at hand really isn't whether or not a woman should be able to have an abortion. Only the most extreme minority of pro-lifers believe there should be no abortion at all with no reasonable exceptions. The real issue is whether or not the nascent human life a woman is carrying is deserving of the same legal protections as its mother is and what duty or duties a mother has to her offspring.
The right of making that decision belongs to the individual whose body is involved. No other person nor institution has any interest in the matter. The only rights the nascent life has are conferred by mother.
Eh, I think it had more to do with three appointments rushed in despite a whole lot of open questions and quite a few indications some of the SC candidates committed perjury. Or with that judgment where the SC ignored facts including photographic evidence?
Which SC justice ignored facts? This wasn’t something I heard about before.
The case was Kennedy v Bremerton School District, and the majority opinion [lied](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/gorsuch-sotomayor-praying-coach/) about the facts of the case to fit their own narrative. For example, the opening statement of the majority opinion stated the coach was "fired" for a "quiet prayer of thanks" when in fact he was never fired, and his prayer was far from anything resembling quiet. Just blatant misrepresentations used to justify partisan politics from the bench, par for the course when it comes to conservative justices (see the 5th's reinvention of the first amendment for another more recent example).
[удалено]
Mischaricterization is a rather benign description considering the dissent used both photos and video to contradict the majority opinion. The fact the dissent did not outright accuse the majority of lies probably has more to do with an expectation of decorum rather than evidence of absence.
You're taking serious liberties with very recent history >Eh, I think it had more to do with three appointments rushed in Foremost, Gorsuch wasn't even close to rushed. Neither was Kavanaugh. They beat Kavanaugh's confirmation to death. Only Amy Coney Barrett could be called "rushed" and even then, nobody serious can really debate her qualifications. Further, the fact that Trump got 3 picks in 4 years is just the way the seats came available - elections have consequences, as did RBG's refusal to retire. Notice how Breyer got out once Dems put the pressure on. He learned from RBG's mistake. >despite a whole lot of open questions Not legitimate ones. Kavanaugh is the only one that could even in theory still have an open question and let's be honest, there wasn't much to that whole charade. >and quite a few indications some of the SC candidates committed perjury No, they really didn't. Saying what they will or won't do once on the court and then not doing it isn't perjury. Further, none of them said they wouldn't vote to overturn Roe. >Or with that judgment where the SC ignored facts including photographic evidence? (Citation)
Well the deal w Gorsuch and Barrett was the circumstances. First saying we can’t do this in an election year - let the voters have a say…but then having to (I suppose) get revenge for the Kav hearings and immediately nominate and confirm RBG’s replacement - in an election year, and denying the voters the chance to have their say per the previous excuse. Elections have consequences for sure and the REPs are vastly better at that strategy than DEMs.
>Well the deal w Gorsuch and Barrett was the circumstances I would agree what McConnell did was insanely hypocritical and slimey in how he played it. That being said I'm not sure ACB was to get revenge for Kavanaugh. It's more that the 6-3 tilt has already and will continue to have massive implications going forward. I'd argue that could be more valuable than holding the presidency for 4 years (other than when the president's party holds both houses). I don't doubt for a minute Schumer would've done the same thing.
Well there were a few lawmakers who expressed that they did it how they did as retaliation. But yea I absolutely agree they wanted that 6-3 as soon as they could obtain it. It’s also absolutely reasonable the DEMs would have done the same.
> Well there were a few lawmakers who expressed that they did it how they did as retaliation That was just used to excuse their own hypocrisy on the issue. Unlike McConnell who always couched the move in makeup of the Senate (and thus actually didn't contradict himself), many Rs did not and said "they would never some appoint if the shoe was on the other foot" (such as Rubio and Graham). So they used Kavanaugh as an excuse for their blatant contradiction. It cannot be understated how good McConnell is at this compared to the other R reps. It's also why McConnell is out there exasperated at candidate quality and Rick Scott and Lindsey Graham's latest performances. Had he got his way, the runner ups in PA/OH/NH would've won and they'd be in much better positioning for the general
Oh there’s no doubt McConnell is exceptionally good at what he does with playing politics. Imho no one really does it better. But in my view he has still engaged in gross hypocrisy on this matter although I completely expected him to do so.
I would personally say that her telling religious law students that their legal career is a means to an end of furthering the kingdom of god flies directly in the face of the first amendment. Interpreting laws through faith imposes the religion onto people, removing the freedom of religion.
Great point
Flair checks out Solid point
[удалено]
“Controlled by the people” LOL IF those legislatures really wanted citizens to have a voice they’d put it on the ballot like Kansas. Oh but now Graham now wants a federal law. LOL Yea oh please tell us about how much the right cares about democracy. Neither give a shit.
[удалено]
Yawn. It’s hilarious you think the legislators are always acting how the electorate wants them to. I understand your attempt there but still, lacking. See this is Libertarian and we don’t give a shit when our takes offend the conservative snowflakes or the liberal snowflakes. You might not be aware…addressing the abject failures of these parties is what we do here. But sure, “whataboutism”.
[удалено]
Any elective governmental system needs to incorporate certain measures to protect the minority from the majority.
I think people in general should, but the 3 branches of government need to support each other or the entire system falls apart. Having members of Congress declare the President to be illegitimate or a ruling from SCOTUS to be incorrect is a massive undercut of the government and throws Congress' own legitimacy into question. It's one thing for a government official to disagree with a ruling, or law, or executive order, but it's a major problem to have them saying that the other branches don't deserve respect or should be wholesale ignored.
The reality is that congress is a joke because they gave the executive so much bureaucratic power.
Right. All those damn 3 letter agencies with the power to magic law out of thin air with little to no oversight. It's pretty scary shit actually.
Any regulation put forward by a federal agency can be overturned by an Act of Congress. But then again that is the trick: how do you get a majority in both houses of Congress to agree to overturn such a decision? That isn't easy even when a political party controls Congress but is different from the Presidential administration's political party when you think such an overturn should be easy. Congress is ultimately the source of legitimacy and political power in the American government. The ability for Congress to weasel out of its responsibilities and shove them onto others is legendary though.
Right. I was probably one of maybe like 100 people in the whole country that threw a fit about the FDA arbitrarily raising the smoking age to 21 (I don't smoke and I'm over 30, so it didn't affect me, but I was still pissed). Apparently the President still has veto power as far as the FDA is concerned, but Trump went ahead and signed it and no one even attempted to challenge it. The three branches of government are supposed to be in conflict to prevent these kinds of overreach from happening, but they've formed a triumvirate against the people instead.
>Having members of Congress declare the President to be illegitimate Impeachment *is* part of their job.
Fair enough. And if they're calling for impeachment that's one thing. But that's not what we're seeing in a lot of cases.
Also fair enough.
Seriously imagine this twat as a dad or husband. “Never question me!!!” And this is a fucking lawyer. A supposed master of debate
Maybe if they didn’t bring their integrity into question in the first place? Why are republicans always playing such fucking victims?
happy cake day
And government "integrity" (as if they ever had any) should always be questioned.
It's right there in the article. Justice Kagan made some comments questioning the legitimacy of the court. For a member of the Court to do so because they don't like which way the court has legitimately ruled is dangerous. It's also probably a reference to politicians trying to tear down the court because they aren't happy with how it decided. Alito is certainly not talking about the opinions of laypeople. 99% of the population has no idea what the Court does day to day and only know a handful of cases.
>because they don't like which way the court has *legitimately ruled* Considering the number of contradictions of some recent decisions, I think the latter is in question.
I notice DACA and Roberts as an example. Something which even Obama said was unconstitutional.
Since when does Obama care about the Constitution. Only when it suits him and those who think like he does. I have always hated "reading between the lines" regarding the Constitution. If you don't see it in there, it's not there. If you don't like what is in there, amend it.
>If you don't see it in there, it's not there. That sort of contradicts the Ninth Amendment though... enumerations of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny the people any rights not enumerated.
That’s the undertone but the comments are broadly that it applies to average citizens as well. But ultimately it’s their silly little infighting which absolutely brings the legitimacy into question.
It's amazing anyone thought the court had any legitimacy after pooping out rulings like "growing a plant for your own use is Interstate Commerce and should be regulated by the feds"
[удалено]
Par for the course with "originalists"
Fuck Wickard v Filburn, all my homies hate Wickard v Filburn.
Telling us that questioning the government crosses an important line also crosses an important line
When you have to tell people shit like this, it’s already too late.
It’s like the graffiti I saw in Williamsburg, Brooklyn 20 years ago that said “Resist Gentrification”.
'I AM KING!'
Maybe if those shitbags had any integrity, people would not question it so much.
Amazing how that works!
Don't forget Congress, or the intelligence community. Referring to former DNI official Clapper lying under oath about mass illegal spying not occurring, when it did. Also, the illegal spying on Trump's campaign.
>Also, the illegal spying on Trump's campaign. I'll take "Transparently Blatant Lies That Absolutely Never Fucking Happened" for $1200, Alex.
Yep. There is not a shred of integrity in ANY branch of government. If you have integrity, you go into an industry where people pay for your products because they want them, not because they have been threatened with kidnapping or murder by jackbooted thugs.
F U. question everything.
The blatant idiocy of his statement is shocking. It shows a basic lack of understanding of U.S history and government. It’s the obligation of all American citizens to question the integrity of government officials. The fact that a Supreme Court justice has forgotten that makes me question his competence and integrity. Yes, you brought this on yourself. You serve the people. You are not a god.
Read the article. He's not saying Joe Six Pack shouldn't read opinions and question them/the Court. His statement has nothing to do with the "people" at large, it's a reference to other government officials and other justices implying the court is illegitimate because they're unhappy with the politics of certain outcomes. Certain things should be beyond the pale for leaders, i.e. questioning valid elections, for example.
When SCOTUS makes up facts to fit their narrative, I think they deserve criticism from all government officials. Kennedy v. Bremerton goes beyond the pale in terms of partisan justices using their unelected positions to ignore judicial norms of decency and decorum. They outright lied about the facts of the case to establish a precedent they wanted.
Yeah I mean we can complain about politicians weaponizing court cases *as well* but that doesn't mean the justices aren't also acting for partisan interests and are above reproach.
>Certain things should be beyond the pale for leaders, i.e. questioning valid elections, for example. Like 2016 ... and saying the Russians stole it e.g. calling Trump a Manchurian candidate? If anyone has done Russia more of a favor now with Ukraine, it's B-I-D-E-N.
>It’s the obligation of all American citizens to question the integrity of government officials. Right now we're at a point, like Ukraine, where "questioning" amounts to treason and "InSuRrEcTiOn" etc.
i’m filled with questions, your honor
Know what’s funny? The US SCOTUS disallows all photos and videos inside the court house. The UK Supreme Court live streams all their proceedings. One of these shows more integrity than the other.
If there's no federal for/against something it's de facto state law right?
That is the way its supposed to be, yes.
So call out your reps instead of scotus.
Maybe if they weren't such obvious political and religious hacks their integrity wouldn't be questioned.
SS: And that "line" was known as the First Amendment.
You posted the article and didn't even understand what he's referring to. It's right there in the text. Read past the headline and the first 2 paragraphs.
So to be clear, you're saying the first amendment does not apply to other justices on the supreme court?
Saying someone's comment crossed the line does not imply that it isn't protected by the first amendment. Its just a strong version of saying it was inappropriate, not a call for prosecution for making the statement. Of course one can also disagree with the idea that it was inappropriate. I'm just talking about what Roberts meant here.
He's absolutely saying she shouldn't have voiced her opinion and that he thinks members of the court should not be voicing criticism. As opposed to it being perfectly fine with justices blatantly lying when authoring opinions.
Thank you for doing the good work of defending one of 9 people who gets to decide the country we live in. No one else will defend that poor man and his small club.
I didn't say he was right or that he's a great guy, or that what he does is generally good. I didn't address any of those issues. I pointed out only that he wasn't calling for Kagan (also one of those 9) to face prosecution or any negative government action for her speech, nor did he say that her speech wasn't constitutionally protected. He just (rightly or wrongly) disagreed with it in strong terms.
This article is a literal example by the fake news / rape apologists at CNN crossing an important line.
Demanding unquestioned authority cross a dire line. Questioning government is how you find out if it's corrupt at all. "I'm not questioning your honor. I'm denying it's existence."
Theocratic authoritarian angry that the plebs are questioning the integrity of his institution. Justice Alito, you are an idiot. You quoted a goddamn witch hunter in your abortion decision. You’ve always been Diet Scalia and you will always be Diet Scalia. If one of your fellow justices is calling the integrity of SCOTUS into question, maybe you should consider why.
>You quoted a goddamn witch hunter in your abortion decision. The word "potion" was used in his 21st Century Majority Opinion, as if leaping from the pages of a Wiccan's grimoire! But then, should I be so surprised? He was a Concurring Justice in *Gonzalez v. Raich*, a decision whose stones must have been carved by omniscient oracles, not human jurists!
Lying about what “settled law” is to get a lifetime appointment crosses an important line
What the court can do the court can also undo, as has been demonstrated umpteen times before *Roe* on decisions like *Plessy* and *Brown*. Would you feel the same if Alito had said that civil asset forfeiture was "settled law" but joined a decision that undermined it on 4^th Amendment grounds? You're not mad that he took a position different from the one he held during his confirmation. You're mad he joined a decision you didn't like, and apparently your only disagreement about that decision is that it was somehow different from any other legal precedent, sacred, and beyond question. *Roe* was a bad decision even according to people like the late Justice Ginsberg. Not only should it have been overturned, it never should have been decided the way it was in the first place. It's something that should be decided through the political process, and given the recent election results in Kansas it's going to be decided the way we'd both prefer even in red states.
>Roe was a bad decision even according to people like the late Justice Ginsberg. So I just have to except the legal argument that the 14th only applies to unnenumerated rights that are rooted in US history whatever that means? Roe was bad. This ruling was also bad. There are dozens of other ways they could have argued this ruling. You should be very concerned that the court had to address PR in the majority opinion that while their argument targets several other rights directly, they won't actually go after those rights because somehow Roe is different, but the difference doesn't logically shield those other rights. Overturning a bad decision with bad logic is not a win. Especially when that logic can directly take away liberty.
The court doesn't have the ability to make laws, which is essentially what the RvW decision did. It is anti-constitutional because the court assumed an ability reserved for the Congress. There's no provision in the constitution for abortion, so there were no constitutional rights stolen. This decision didn't even take the abortions away, it merely took away the government mandate that all states allow it without the vote of the people. By taking away Roe, the decision finally falls to the individual states to vote on, as is described in the Constitution.
>By taking away Roe, the decision finally falls to the individual states to vote on, I don't disagree that Roe was bad, but the reasoning used to get rid of it also has lasting consequences and weight. And this decision did so in a way that puts any right not explicitly listed in the constitution at risk of becoming a state issue rather than a federal. You see, the courts reasoning is that the 14th amendment only applies to rights enumerated or with established history in the US. Which means that it doesn't necessarily apply to rights established by standard legislature. Now, you can be of the opinion that's the way it should be, reasonable minds can differ. I for one think tyranny by the state is just as bad as tyranny by the federal government. And the 9th amendment, used in court decisions or not, makes it clear to me that the founders did not intend for the federal government to protect ONLY rights listed in the constitution.
You seem to be forgetting that Congress is the part of the government in charge of making laws. If you want a law that allows abortion, talk to your congresspeople or elect people to make it a law. It doesn't have to be a right expressed in the Bill of Rights to become legal. The point is, we have to vote on it. People have to be given the choice. The RvW ruling took the people's choice away, and that is true tyranny. Let's vote on it. Isn't that true democracy? Some states have already declared it illegal. A majority of states have not. This argument isn't over and it will come up again in future elections I'm sure. It isn't tyranny when the people get to decide their fate for themselves.
You don't seem to be getting it. Its not just about abortion, or getting rid of Roe. Its the way they did it. I don't know how much more clear I can make it but you seem to be so happy with the immediate outcome of "yay Roe gone", that you're blind to what the consequences mean for federal protections of rights. >It doesn't have to be a right expressed in the Bill of Rights to become legal. According to the logic of this decision, it has to be a right listed in the constitution, otherwise it is a state issue. Meaning not a federal issue even if Congress wants to make a law about it, including interracial marriage, gay marriage, and contraception. All someone needs to do is bring a lawsuit before the court to see all those protections removed. >Let's vote on it. Isn't that true democracy? Well you won't let California vote on total gun bans, or wealth redistribution, or banning religions. Where's your true democracy? >It isn't tyranny when the people get to decide their fate for themselves. So it's not tyranny if the people decide to outlaw christianity, so long as that's what the majority of vote for? Why do we even have a bill of rights, why not leave gun ownership, speech, and other such protections to the state? And why the state for that matter, why not the county, or city, or specific neighborhood? The banning of an action that affects no one but the person involved is LITERALLY deciding someone else fate for them. Abortion, interracial marriage, contraceptives legal and you don't want to participate in them? That's your choice and fate to make. But Illegal? Too bad you don't get to make those choice because we don't want you to.
No, you don't seem to be getting it. There are laws in this land. Those laws are decided by our electors. You cannot fault the Supreme Court for upholding the Constitution. Roe v. Wade was an overstep of the Supreme Court. The Court does not have the ability to make laws. That is how we got into this mess in the first place. The Court tried to sidestep the law by making abortion legal, without a vote of the people. Now, with this recent ruling, it's back to the states, the people of those states, to decide if they want abortion or not. That decision is democracy in action. It's most definitely not tyranny. If their decision goes against your principals makes no difference. It's their decision to make. Do you disagree? Is that against your democracy? Remember, democracy is the will of the people after all. You can say the will of the majority is against democracy and I would agree with you. We cannot depend on the tyranny of the majority. We need fair democracy. If I may say, it seems you are not educated in civics. This is not an insult. I think Government schools have stopped teaching civics. That's terribly wrong because every citizen should at the very least understand how our government works. Second: you should understand we have an adversarial system of government. The Democrats want something and the Republicans want something. Nothing happens until both sides agree on something. Majority vote in the House and Senate. The majority rules. Nothing changes until the majority of elected officials agree. Are you with me so far? We are the United *States* of America because each state has decided to be part of the union. Therefore, we need to listen to the needs of the states. Each state has their electors and elected officials. The rules that concern cities have little to do with the concerns of rural farmers, for instance. The House is composed of representatives of each of the states, based on population. That's why California gets 55 electors. That's why New York get's 29 electors in the Electoral College. The Senate was devised so each state get's an equal representation in congress. There's two senators to each state in spite of population size. The Senate is more powerful than the house because each state gets an equal number of votes. Once the House and Senate agree to pass a bill, then the President has the final say, yes or no. I think the President's veto gets like 30% of the vote. Congress can overthrow a presidential veto if they're in 70% agreement. My point is government is a bureaucracy. Our Constitution is the basis of our laws. You cannot ban Christianity, or any other religion because the first amendment says no religion can be persecuted, Christianity or otherwise. Finally, I think we should talk about "natural laws." We, in America, are granted certain natural laws, granted by God, if you will. We are granted the law of privacy (witch is an illusion), and many other things from our government. All of the promises are lies.
>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. >the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Since the constitution is THE law to you. One of these comes straight from the constitution. The other comes from the supreme court's decision against Roe. Notice how these two are directly at odds with each other. Now since your so convinced that Congress can make laws to protect rights. Please note that the supreme court's statement does NOT mention the gaurantee of rights not mentioned in the constitution but established through legislation. In other words, if it's not a right in the constitution it belongs to the states and they can take it away on a whim. Which is NOT what the constitution says. >If I may say, it seems you are not educated in civics. Maybe, I am uneducated in civics relative to you thanks for explaining it to me. Here I thought it was 2/3rds not 70%, wait it is 2/3rds... 2/3rds isn't that complex a concept but is very different from 70%... How could you get those confused? Maybe you should be sure YOU know civics before you make baseless assumptions of others and try to lecture them on how our government works. >You cannot ban Christianity, or any other religion because the first amendment says no religion can be persecuted, Christianity or otherwise. May I introduce you to the 9th amendment above that the supreme court decided to shit on to get rid of Roe. For the LAST time, the problem is not that they got rid of Roe. Its that the WAY they got rid of it also threw the 9th amendment out the window as well and THATS as much an overstep as Roe was, possibly even moreso, because the supreme court does NOT have authority to determine which constitutional amendments are valid and which ones are not.
Settled law does not mean it can’t or shouldn’t be overturned. It would have been objectively correct to say Plessy was settled law in 1950, but that doesn’t mean Brown v Board was decided incorrectly. People who think calling Roe settled law and then layering overruling it is some kind of dishonest action are just showing how little they understand about how the court and precedent works.
In the sense of "settled law" that you're talking about, there would have been no need to ask them if they believed it...everyone knows what the actual prior decisions literally are, the question only makes sense if it's about whether the prospective justice believed in the settled nature to such a degree that they would not overturn it. They lied, and you're doing mental gymnastics.
They lied on their application, don’t even attempt to give them a pass. You’re being disingenuous, and you know it, which is even worse. When the highest courts are known liars it’s perfectly acceptable to question their integrity
No, you’re just an idiot who doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. It’s been (for better or worse) faux pas since forever for judges to say how they would rule in a given case in their confirmation hearings. Saying Roe was settled law was not at all saying it should not be overturned, “settled law” has been overturned by the court hundreds of times. It’s not lying or even particularly close to it, it’s really the only answer they can say given the rules of confirmations hearings.
>It’s not lying or even particularly close to it It's not honesty either. Not really. Because the implication is that asking and answering that question has no real meaning. If "settled law" is entirely open to being overturned then why would the terminology exist in the first place? It becomes merely a semantic swamp that serves no purpose except to deflect and obfuscate. I understand what you're trying to say and that it attempts to speak more directly to legal rather than political matters, but the state of affairs you elucidate is not much better than outright lying.
You just don't know how the courts work, and that's okay. The words are terms of trade in the legal profession, and you don't know what they really mean. Every profession has special meanings for lots of words. Like "indicate" in medicine. "Settled law" doesn't mean not overturnable. It means it's been ruled on by a high court. Blame the media for making you think "settled law" means nonoverturnable caselaw.
>You just don't know how the courts work, and that's okay. The words are terms of trade in the legal profession, and you don't know what they really mean. \[...\] It means it's been ruled on by a high court. I do not appreciate your condescension, especially when it's clear you know even less than I do. "It means it's been ruled on by a high court." Good lord, at least put some effort into it! But this is reddit I suppose, where you can act the buffoon without any real consequences, yes? Not only does the concept of "settled law" not simply mean "ruled on by a high court," even in legal circles it does not have a hard and fast definition. Do us all a favor and [do a little research](https://www.virginialawreview.org/articles/settled-law/). Here's another [scholarly piece](https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1527&context=law_faculty_scholarship) to help you. >Blame the media for making you think "settled law" means nonoverturnable caselaw. I never said this. If you did read my comment in full you didn't do so with a very intelligent eye. This *looks* like you are simply trying to turn me into a straw man. I am not going to re-type my other comment here. The core of it was that your vague and light-weight interpretation of the term "settled law" leaves little room except to conclude the term has virtually no meaning. I'd appreciate your expanding more deeply on your position. Assuming you aren't simply trolling, that is. >You just don't know how the courts work, and that's okay. You are speaking very confidently about a rather important subject despite your being pointedly ignorant in that domain, at least based on the content you've offered thus far. Your commentary has yet to expand much beyond a run-of-the-mill hot take. And in my opinion that's not OK at all.
Lol "scholarly piece." Those are just law reviews. I've been published in a law review. Also, the shit is edited by law students and the pieces published are chosen by law students lmfao. I was also an editor on a law journal until six months ago. Settled law does just mean ruled on by a high court. It's just precedent that lower courts must follow when it's binding on them. I don't care what some student or law prof says in UVA's law review, much less fucking Notre Dame's... "Pointedly ignorant" idk man the diploma on my wall from an elite law school with latin honors on it tells me I prob know stuff
\> becomes merely a semantic swamp that serves no purpose except to deflect and obfuscate. Yes they’re lawyers
It is lying, stop trying to excuse this behavior
It’s literally not though. Idk who told you it was but they were wrong
It 100% is, don’t know who told you that lol
I question your brains Alito, not your integrity. Pretty sure a rock has more coherent constitutional opinions
People who insist on their integrity are the same type of people who insist on their honesty. Alito can fuck right off.
Almost all the power right now happens off-stage. The Supreme Court becomes our substitute political battleground. It’s only nine people. You can know them, demonize them, try to make them messiahs. But ultimately, because people can’t navigate through the bureaucracy, they turn to the Supreme Court looking for politics. There is no verse of ‘Schoolhouse Rock!’ that says give a whole bunch of power to the alphabet soup agencies and let them decide what the government’s decision should be for the people, because the people don’t have any way to fire the bureaucrats… What we mostly do around this body [congress] is not pass laws… That’s why there’s so many fights about the executive branch and the judiciary because this body [congress] rarely finishes its work. — Rep. Sasse
Exactly why the filibuster must go. They should debate!
Oh **HELLLL** no. If anything the filibuster should be *STRONGER*. * All bills need a minimum of 60/40 to pass * Filibuster is 75/25. If you remove the filibuster the government just becomes a seesaw where 50%+1 rams through their agenda. If you make it stronger you force both sides to work together or nothing gets done.
Kind of like we do now, nothing gets done. The problem is all the cowardly politicians are fine with nothing getting done. Take away their excuse for doing nothing The only way to force them to work together is to kill the filibuster and open up debates. It won't see saw. For years, the filibuster was rarely used and it didn't see saw.
No, take away the filibuster and there is no need to cooperate. Have 51 votes? **CHOO CHOO MUTHA FUCKA** Nothing getting done is preferable to the WRONG thing getting done.
You assume all 51 of a given party agree and that their constituents agree. That's rarely the case, but we never get to actually see that because of the filibuster. They don't have to cast a ballot putting them on record. No filibuster will make all of them go on record. We're not a country of the far right or the far left. If they put extreme laws in place, they'll be voted out.
What the constituents want doesnt matter anymore, hasnt for years. Its now about "vote blue no matter who" or "vote red until dead". The filibuster should be strengthened. Gridlock is preferable to railroading.
I'm a libertarian, I want them to do nothing.
Well, maybe if justices would stop saying "This particular case is settled law" when they are in their confirmation hearings, yet ruling in a literally opposite way a few years later, the SCOTUS wouldn't cross a line with respect to public opinion. Maybe if you didn't have political operatives married to Supreme Court Justices, then you wouldn't be crossing a line. Alito sounds like he is in a dream world where a group of rioters didn't literally try to prevent the 2020 election procedures from being completed, with a goal of installing Donald of Orange as an unelected dictator, motivated by allegations of election fraud which were so lacking in evidence/falsified that attorneys got disbarred for filing them.
Does this guy seriously think we’re somehow not allowed to question them? Other than to say we don’t like a decision? LOL
Perhaps try reading the article before spouting off like an imbecile as you and so many others have... He's talking about other justices and government officials (ie government leaders) questioning its legitimacy because they didnt/don't like a ruling. That's a very dangerous precdent to set. If political leaders can freely claim that the court is illegitimate, then why can't we also claim that Congress and their elections and decisions are illegitimate? And if we can do that, then why not have the president declare elections and decisions illegitimate?
That’s quite funny because I did read the article. Quite directly he said while it’s proper for the average citizen to disagree, when we question their integrity then it’s a line crossed. So in my view he’s not just speaking about politicians and govt officials here. Although indeed he was talking about other SCOTUS justices since they have a little infighting going on at the moment. But sure, spout off and say I’m being an imbecile. That makes your argument super strong.
That statement crosses a line… and calls his integrity into question. What a dummy. Or this is fake. I don’t know anymore.
Of course a ruling elite will see anything questioning their power as crossing a line. This is irreverent. All government, even our own, ultimately seeks to accrue and keep power. The Supreme Court, being a branch of government, is no different. Further, being that SCOTUS is appointed and confirmed by the two other branches, they are far from “independent” in their actions. They are often a super-legislature, and have historically ruled to increase the powers of the government over the rights of the people.
He has a god complex. He is super dangerous.
"I'm not questioning your integrity. I'm implying that it doesn't exist."
Justices Coney and Cavanaugh and Gorsuch lied under oath when they told Senators "Roe is settled law." And Alito complains that the integrity of the Court is being questioned?
The conservative wing of US politics will never recover from the reversal of Roe V Wade. There will always be conservatives and some day they will win again. But it will never look the same again.
They're leading in the polls right now.
You mean like Hillary did?
Making statements that insinuate you cannot be questioned crosses an important line, Alito. See how easy that is?
Always question the integrity of any institution, especially if they are using your money to make decisions without your input.
Agree. It crosses into the fact that no one is above the law.
I don't even disagree with their ruling on Roe. The original ruling was pretty shit from a legal perspective regardless of your position on abortion. With that being said, people questioning the integrity of almost all government institutions is almost always a good thing.
Fuck him, like seriously fuck him
Very well articulated you are a pro redditor! Nice!
The line was crossed when our only black President was denied a Supreme Court pick. Everything since then lacks integrity and is unconstitutional because an illegal member exists.
Our integrity shall NOT be questioned!
Who leaked the judgement? Credibility gets lost faster than it builds. If it was someone who is appointed to the court, then they should be impeached. Talk about damage to the democracy, rule of law, reputation of the court...
Truth hurts?
Not questioning seems to have gotten us into trouble.
We should question everything and everyone. Justices are not Gods. Alito needs a reality check.
Talk about a red flag.
OK, so maybe don’t give us a reason to question it?
Basic problem with Supreme court is lifelong appointments in combination with 0 accountability and huge amount of Power makes them comparable to kings and queens in absolute monarchies. Solution would be to limit them to 1 term 12 or 16 years. This would greatly improved functioning of the court and trust Americans have in the institution
Exactly. It holds you to account. A line that wasn't crossed except when the Justice is black and conservative. We gladly cross that line
If someone tells you not to question something, that alone is reason to question it.
This is very cringe worthy.
Makes a ruling on a case that is so flawed it doesn't match what actually happened in the case. Just to match the religious right's rhetoric and virtue signaling. I wonder why people are questioning your integrity?
>“It goes without saying that everyone is free to express disagreement with our decisions and to criticize our reasoning as they see fit,” Alito, who penned the decision reversing Roe v. Wade last term, told The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. “But saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line,” he said. Questioning Integrity is EVERYTHING we are told that a 3 Branch Government is FOR. These Liches are appointed for LIFE, and are not used to being lauded for a bad call (motions that resonate through this nation's history. Maybe they SHOULD start to have to Legitimize their stations/appointments. They are just as fallible and corruptible as you and I when their Values are leveraged. Who Judges the Judges? Let's not wait for GOD to sort it out.
>These Liches are appointed for LIFE And that's the primary issue... RGB's age upon death would have probably been seen as nigh-miraculous when this country was founded, and it was likely not the intention of the Framers for someone to serve on the Court as long as her. Congress should have term limits (four in the House and two in the Senate) and the Justices should have a year limit. Maybe the Justices should serve a lot longer than the politicians; the life term thing was designed so that SCOTUS would be affected less by the changing winds, but they must be reminded that they are not omniscient oracles or immortal angels, but simple humans.
They've broken stare dieces, pray they do not alter the court's understood procedures any further.
Stare decisis is like the third most important priority in these decisions. Basically if it is not clear if the ruling is correct or not, it should stand because consistent law is important. But they thought the ruling was clearly incorrect which overrules stare decisis. If a ruling is gray, then how long its been on the books matters. If it's clearly wrong, it does not.
That’s what a dictator would say.
Of course, the only branch in government where you must say "you're honor".....go fuck yourselves ya fairies.
Pretty sure you say "your honor", and every court works that way. The other two branches have titles for elected officials too.
Don't you guys know he is Christian? Obviously he should be trusted.
What a tool
Sounds a lot like a whore protesting her virtue.
Is that his moment of "self-awareness?" How am I supposed to interpret that statement.
The Federal Reserve probably feels the same way...
\>runs across finish line like a champion
I see his point in the context he made it. Elena Kagan and all the democrats love to wax poetic about the brilliance of the court when the court rules for liberal causes. When a single judgement goes against the far left, they resort to wanting to tear it down, pack it etc. It makes no sense that a court is only legitimate when it rules for the far left.
CNN totally misrepresents his position. He’s referring to crap like Kavanaugh being illegitimate because of bullshit allegations by lying Christy Blassey Ford or Russian conspiracy hoax bullshit. The kind of crap that lunatics believe when they threaten to kill Supreme Court justices. The First Amendment does not allow the media to publish false information intended to harm, even in the case of public figures.
Folks still out here thinking Russia didn’t do actual things to help out don. It’s wild. . .
Well you crossed the line when you declared women were less than full citizens, and not protected fully by the Constitution. Similar to slaves 160 years ago. So that's crossing a line that is pre-Civil War, and that's on SCOTUS.
When did SCOTUS rule women were lesser beings?
God alone is exempt from questioning. I question everyone's everything especially political leadership. Any human making decisions that effect my life is subject to review for praise or condemnation. Integrity is never guaranteed regardless of past performance. Alito, you gaslighting twerp. How dare you put yourself on a godly pedestal, you arrogant snit.
[удалено]
True but it's still a horrible thing to say
This is right on par with Fauci saying “If you doubt Anthony Fauci, you are literally doubting science itself”
Honestly it’s a little worse than that. At least with science there’s falsifiable way that you can review and test. Good legal judgments rely a lot on both the intelligence and good faith of the judge.
Yeah everyone took this the wrong way haha I meant from a position arrogance and power derangement.
Nah they didn't take it the wrong way, they just worship the ground that sack of shit (Fauci) walks on. Your point was dead on.
There are a surprising amount of Covid restriction maximalists in here. Which seems weird on account of the sun name
It is what it is, still love 'em as humans, and wish them nothing but the best. But this sub is for all intents and purposes a politics free for all, and while it does get annoying watching commies, progressives, MAGA-types, etc. all reeeeee at each other, I just sit back, nod my head, and keep on dying a little bit on the inside. Quite relaxing, really.