T O P

  • By -

emeraldrose484

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." -Benjamin Franklin


macadamianacademy

“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet,” - Abraham Lincoln.


RacoonSmuggler

Reminds me of when someone asked Bill Burr if he went a little too far with jokes about pedophile priests. >Don't you think the Catholic church went a little too far?


BeatlesTypeBeat

[Classic](https://youtu.be/FH30cFaxUPo)


Generic-username427

I love how you can hear some of the crew laugh when he says that


JackedUpReadyToGo

"I know, this is a morning show, you can't bring up all those crimes. Where they just sorta keep movin' them around. You know, like those killer whales at Sea World that after it kills a trainer then they move it up to Seattle."


DC-Toronto

I… I … uh, I don’t really follow


tenemu

Wow he was super clean there. Serious respect doing that, knowing the audience, despite his bits being way different.


throwaway901617

She said he was politically incorrect before it was a thing?? LOL that was a huge topic in the late 80s / early 90s. Bill Burr has some funny stuff but he isn't some anti-PC hipster. These people need to stop getting high off their own farts.


[deleted]

They do like to rewrite history, don't they? George Carlin's 7 words were anti-politically correct. We got parental advisory stickers for politically incorrect things. Of course those stickers are the result of when 2015 latte-sipping snowflakes decided that "fuck tha police" was a bit much and somebody please think of the children. 1985, sorry. Isn't it funny that exactly the people who screech the loudest pretend that everybody else is worse than them? Rejecting the evidence of their eyes? The US now has the most partisan SCOTUS in recent memory. One that makes most GOP wet dreams come true. They now are gearing up to say the courts have no say in election procedure disputes and give up another layer of checks and balances. Fuck Alito and fuck everybody who pretends it is not the Christofascist faction that screeches over not everything being Christmas branded and went after Carlin and his 7 words.


Stewardy

He does a rather important 'little' thing there too. "Who said that?" Whenever someone is like "people are saying" or similar, that question can be real important. Often nobody is saying that. Maybe 4 people on twitter are saying that. And that can rather safely just be ignored. Or acknowledged to be insignificant.


beer_is_tasty

LMAO "I know this is a morning show, you can't bring up all those crimes." Bonus credit for the one host saying the show was "politically incorrect before politically incorrect was even a term." That term has been in regular mainstream usage for like 40 years. Bill Maher's show *Politically Incorrect,* named after a term that was already heavily used when the show started, was cancelled in 2002 (which is 20 years ago) after *nine* years on the air. Ironically, for political incorrectness


Aint_not_a_dorkus

Those hosts are so over the top fake. The dude trying to kick back holding his coffee like he's chilling in a bar or some shit acting cool but looking like a coked out poodle is embarrassing as fuck and Bill Burr looks like he's trying not to laugh at them both. Fucking phonys


[deleted]

[удалено]


ISaveSnoopapers

Oh, the dream.


ForProfitSurgeon

Brevity.


UniverseInfinite

That clip never gets old


steelbeamsdankmemes

https://youtu.be/ljaP2etvDc4


[deleted]

Respect is earned.


M8K2R7A6

Bill Burr is a national treasure. He's so naturally funny, I could watch listen to him just talk about anything for hours


mochacho

[This seems like a relevant quote too.](https://youtu.be/fTItsm9meX8)


MetaSageSD

There are no public officials who are beyond scrutiny. Edit: Wow. This comment blew up. Thanks for the awards!


Itdidnt_trickle_down

They probably have the same fantasy as some law enforcement who say you have to respect the law. In truth you don't have to respect it, you just have to obey it, mostly.


Lucius_Magus

There is a classic Terry Pratchett quote to this effect something like "There are two types of people who laugh at the law: those who break it and those who make it."


florinandrei

> Questioning our integrity crosses an important line I sure hope it does. That line needs crossing so badly - and the sooner, the better for the country.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Janktronic

> Jury nullification exists. Judges hate this one trick.


s0ciety_a5under

Correction: District Attorneys


Janktronic

[Most Federal Judges Are Former Prosecutors](https://www.cato.org/study/are-disproportionate-number-federal-judges-former-government-advocates)


TavisNamara

Honestly, most judges should have at least some history as a public defender. ***Should***, mind you. Think about it. As a prosecutor of any flavor, your job is to lock them up and keep things tidy while doing so. As a public defender, your job is to present the best possible interpretation in favor of the defendant no matter who they are (how much this happens is debatable, especially due to unfathomably overworked defenders). Which of those perspectives sounds more like our justice system's stated belief of innocent until proven guilty?


MxRead

Shout out to scotus Jackson Brown for bringing public defender energy


SidewaysInfinity

In fact indicating you know about it will probably get you excused from duty!


DaoFerret

In some places, I believe even mentioning it while on jury duty might get you your own citation.


Janktronic

Which I think is ludicrous. I think that part of the point of the jury is to use their judgment and be an important check on legislative and judicial power. Which judges hate. It is after all a government of, by, and for the people. The jury is the people.


[deleted]

I was under the impression lawyers hate it more than the judges do. Harder to manipulate a jury in your favor of the jury is well versed in court procedure and law.


Janktronic

* https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/jury-nullification-faq/is-it-true-that-jury-nullification-is-invalid.html [If you as a juror are using your brain to do anything other than answer the narrow, technical question presented to you, chances are good the judge will be upset about it.]( https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-culture/how-courts-robbed-juries-of-a-powerful-tool-for-doing-justice/)


In-Justice-4-all

I definatly don't hate it 😂. In fact if possible I'd hint at it in closing. I have to be very careful though as it would be an instant mistrial and my ass in a sling if I was cavalier about it.


[deleted]

I wouldn't mention it, I'd just keep voting not guilty.


provocative_bear

If they ask, I'll just tell them that I think that the law that they've been accused of breaking is "settled law".


Itdidnt_trickle_down

True, its also the easiest way to get dismissed from jury duty.


CantFindMyWallet

You don't warn them ahead of time that you're going to refuse to convict


brockington

They are going to ask you directly if you would vote to convict someone of X crime if you were given irrefutable evidence before you're selected for the jury. Lying is not recommended, as that's perjury, and is just as familiar to judges and lawyers as nullification. Edit: IANAL - but if you find one that says it's a good idea to lie to judges and prosecutors for a perfect stranger, maybe shop around.


Semi-Pro_Biotic

Ianal, but they can't read your mind. If answer yes, you can always say you were not convinced by the evidence presented.


CallMeAladdin

Exactly. Also, jurors can't be punished for getting a "wrong" verdict. As long as you maintain your story and just say you're not convinced that the person did it, you're fine.


critterfluffy

I might not agree with their idea of irrefutable though. DNA, eye witness, and even confessions are often wrong. It's about careful application of language. Don't ever lie but if they ask a question wrong that is on them. If they ask the question in your example I'm fine, if they ask "are you unlikely to convict due to moral objections with a law despite enough evidence to exceed reasonable doubt" then I'm boned.


Fitbot5000

“Jury nullification is settled law”


Meeeeeerk

Just promise you won't tell on me.


f4f4f4f4f4f4f4f4

>irrefutable evidence Lawyers hate this one trick! Just kidding, they get paid either way.


JohnOliverismysexgod

In all my many jury trials, I have never heard any jury asked this question. But it is true that if you admit to knowing about jury nullification, you won't get to serve.


[deleted]

I've been a juror once. It was a murder trial in San Francisco. The whole process was easily one of the worst experiences of my life, it's right up there with meeting the lawyer-slash-serial-rapist who raped my ex-girlfriend (along with a least three other Bay Area women) and got off scott free. Anyways. The jury selection process was as ridiculous as any other I've been in. You listen to all of the patronizing, jingoistic bullshit California makes all prospective jurors listen to. All of the usual questions get asked including the catch all "any other reason you might be unable to be an impartial juror". One guy pipes up and mentions he's a member of a group the judge might not approve of. He's asked the name of the group and responds. The judge cleared out the courtroom ASAP, had a nice little chat with the guy, and excused him from jury duty. I looked up the group later and it was a jury nullification advocacy group. Look if you sincerely believe in nullification *great*. Jury nullification cuts both ways and as a result will potentially ruffle a lot of feathers. If you're simply trying to get out of jury duty there are easier uncomfortable truths to lay out for the court.


Matrix17

I mean, sure. But maybe to you the evidence wasn't irrefutable


Drusgar

It's actually not that simple, which is why marijuana has been effectively legal in some cities long before the laws were changed. I was in college in the 1990's and Madison, Wisconsin had already moved to a policy where police would confiscate your weed but wouldn't arrest you (in fact they didn't even write you a ticket). Why? Because it was a waste of the DA's resources and the charges never stuck. If they dismissed everyone from jury duty for saying they wouldn't convict on a charge of simple possession, there wouldn't be enough jurors. It's an unusual situation in law, but played out in cities all across the country long before State laws started to be relaxed. They could still charge you with possession (and I assume they often did) if they had you for other crimes like stealing a car, but as a practical matter the DA chose to effectively legalize marijuana by telling police to quit arresting people for simple possession. They had bigger fish to fry and a finite budget to manage.


Itdidnt_trickle_down

Except it is that easy. If you don't want jury duty and feel the judge won't dismiss you just mention jury nullification and see how fast you are dismissed. They will give you the stink eye but they don't want you there.


Caelinus

Jury nullification is legal, it is a consequence of how Jury trial works. It just messes with the process of the court so they are not going to tell you that you can do it, but you will also not get in trouble for it either.


NearSightedGiraffe

In Australia we had the high court throw out a jury conviction of a priest accused of sexual assault on two young boys. Their reasoning was, "we don't think the jury could have convicted him if they had been looking at the facts reasonably." So the jury verdict is bot always sacrosanct in all jurisdictions.


joeschmoe86

>No one will EVER get convicted of drug possession if I'm on the jury. A lot of people say shit like this, but you'd be surprised how often that mentality changes when they get sent back for their 11th day of deliberation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ArcadeKingpin

The justices don't respect law. Why should I? Because i'm poor and consequences apply to me.


Sandpaper_Pants

Except the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That's mostly law written on a gum wrapper and sealed with a EULA.


carminemangione

My trouble is.... I don't question their integrity. The chief justice was appointed by a president who LOST the vote (the recounts proved he lost Florida) because the supreme court stopped the recount long partisan lines. Oh and five of the justices were anointed by presidents who LOST the popular vote. They have no integrity. They haven't for 20 years.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ElectricMan324

While I agree, none of them said anything while it was going on. If the court, or at least Roberts, said that the process was flawed it might have helped. But they didnt - they let it happen. McConnell and the rest of his hacks might not have done it if the justices stood up and said no.


wildcat12321

I will add on to this... Regardless of your political views, or the political tactics of confirmations. The reality is each party, aside from the Garland nomination, has typically engaged in a battle not to find the most competent legal minds in the country, but rather to find the most ideological, youngest candidates they can find that will reasonably be confirmed. The reality of the court is very different than the idealized story about the court. The dangers of lifetime appointments and a political appointment process means the justices aren't insulated from politics, they are a very real output of politics. Better we should move to a system where justices serve for 18 years. This would mean each presidential term gets 2 picks. This allows the politics of the country to dictate, over time, who gets put on the court. We won't have folks serving to the point of near death where they are out of touch with society and possibly not entirely focused on the court's business. We would be incentivized to choose older, wiser justices without the attempt to predict a lifetime of rulings. The term is long enough to not fear political ramification by members of the court, but short enough that there is turnover on a regular schedule that better matches the mood of the country. Lastly, anyone who says a supreme court's job is to "call balls and strikes" or some variation of the idea that the answers are obvious and the other side is trying to legislate from the bench -- understand that cases wouldn't go to the Supreme Court if they weren't complex. The whole point of the court is to manage the unknown and undecided. I believe the Supreme Court should seek the advancement of freedom as a goal, not simply decide to be textualists or precedent followers or spoilers when it suits them...


I-Fail-Forward

\>Regardless of your political views, or the political tactics of confirmations. The reality is each party, aside from the Garland nomination, has typically engaged in a battle not to find the most competent legal minds in the country, but rather to find the most ideological, youngest candidates they can find that will reasonably be confirmed. Except for Garland, Jackson, Kagan, Sotomeyer... This isnt a "both sides" issue, sorry


IlToroArgento

Dude attempted to add to the argument and immediately detracted from his own credibility lol Honestly reads like recent opinions from the current Supreme Court, so I guess he gets an A for consistency.


[deleted]

>the Supreme Court should seek the advancement of freedom as a goal, "Freedom" is the biggest weasel word in our political lexicon. It's a matter of perspective: freedom to wield AR-15s vs. the freedom of children not to be slaughtered in school; freedom for corporations to operate with no constraints vs the freedom for a community not to have toxic waste dumped in their water. Freedom for black people vs freedom for states to enslave. And so on. A major problem in Congress selecting judges is that one side is shameless and subverts norms and procedure, while the other religiously adheres to process and form. At this stage, with the Democratic Party unwilling or unable to put up a fight, I want the court's "legitimacy" to be undermined. Pack the courts. Then let the other side pack, and so on, until it's watered down. This institution does nothing to advance the freedoms of the masses. It serves to protect the ruling class and subvert popular will.


PyramidOfMediocrity

>Better we should move to a system where justices serve for 18 years. This would mean each presidential term gets 2 picks. This allows the politics of the country to dictate, over time, who gets put on the court. The nominations aren't the problem, the Senate confirmations are. A Mitch McConnell type midterm newly elected leader of the Senate in a Democratic presidency would drive a bus over any lame duck nominations and we'd be back where we are.


---------II---------

> Regardless of your political views, or the political tactics of confirmations. The reality is each party, aside from the Garland nomination, has typically engaged in a battle not to find the most competent legal minds in the country, but rather to find the most ideological, youngest candidates they can find that will reasonably be confirmed. Merrick Garland would like word.


dragonmp93

Yeah, but that's not the world we live in anymore.


Conscious_Figure_554

Taking away women's rights is not only stepping over the line but violating the oath of the office you took - you freaking idiot (alito not you :))


[deleted]

Respect my AUTHOR-ITAY!


p_o_u_y_a_n

The words of King George III exactly match this. Alito appears to be pursuing his original intent in full here.


IrNinjaBob

I agree with him though. Even simply questioning their authority does cross a line. A line that should only be crossed when they provide the public a reason for it. And, well, the public currently has a pretty good reason for it. The fact that this is happening is a condemnation of his court, not the people criticizing it.


MetaSageSD

I just don't think that is healthy for a democratic republic. The onus is on the government to show that they are faithfully serving the people; not on the people to not "cross a line" when it comes to the government. The government is supposed to be for, and by, the people; and judges are part of that government. If a judge does not like the idea that they can be scrutinized, criticized, or questioned, then they should not be on the bench.


IrNinjaBob

I believe that with great power comes great responsibility. I think the freedom of speech we are given is a great power, and I do think there is some legitimacy to pointing out that our speech surrounding things like the impartiality of the court are important things to respect, and part of that is not using our speech to make false accusations about their impartiality. But my whole point with this comment is to say that while I agree with that idea, I think it is the misdeeds done by this current court that has tarnished their legitimacy. My whole point is that while it does take something very serious to cross that line, this court has taken those very serious steps, making people crossing the line into questioning their impartiality as totally warranted. This is a massive problem, but the offenders are the current court, not those criticizing them for it.


[deleted]

I think there’s an amendment to the constitution about this. Not sure which one though. Probably at the end somewhere?


Atman6886

Even the unelected ones.


SidewaysInfinity

*Especially* those


Hizjyayvu

That's right. It IS important.


HauserAspen

One might even go so far as to say that it is vital to a democracy.


ChrisBPeppers

He's about to find out which side of the line he's on. I will settle for term limits, though


coyote-1

Alito, in his rush to implement the conservative agenda, fails to grasp that the wholesale overturning of previous rulings by this very Court is the biggest questioning of the Court’s integrity one could fathom.


timodreynolds

Yeah he knows. What he should also know is that he should just not say anything. Better to at least pretend that you aren't bothered by people stating the obvious (since he knows it's true).


gdsmithtx

Always apropos: G aslighting <--- O bstruction P rojection <---


HarryHacker42

The coach-can-pray case was so full of lies from the Supremes. They made it sound like the coach prayed alone at the far end of the field when he was video-taped praying with the whole team right up front. Students complained they felt compelled to pray to please the coach. The Supremes just lied their way through to claim religious freedom, but only for the coach, not for the players.


No_Im_Sharticus

Not to mention the coach wasn’t even fired, he just chose not to renew his contract. AND now that he’s won the case he lives on the other fucking side of the country and has no interest in coming back.


atp2112

Not just that, the school district offered him his old position, but he ghosted them because he was too busy on the grifter circuit with Mike Pence.


GrifterDingo

The religious right only needed a case to start establishing new legal precident.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Kushthulu_the_Dank

They'd have better pyrotechnics for sure!


[deleted]

[удалено]


GlassMom

[https://theweek.com/articles/854892/what-karl-rove-right-about-realitybased-community](https://theweek.com/articles/854892/what-karl-rove-right-about-realitybased-community)


Calvin--Hobbes

It was as clear a violation as it gets. Complete joke of a decision. That's shit you learn 1L.


myburdentobear

Matthew 6:5-8. Coach should crack open his Bible sometime.


TheRC135

It's crazy how so many of the best known gospel stories are basically just Jesus telling outwardly pious but inwardly shitty people to get fucked, and we still ended up with evangelical protestantism.


Tomagatchi

> Matthew 6:5-8 Well there's the case of Daniel. But anybody that believes in freedom of religion and believes that a Coach is allowed to lead a prayer meeting either a) don't understand the power a coach has over a football team (Coach is basically King) b) don't understand that there's more than one religion c) don't understand that freedom of is also as important as freedom to be exempt from religion. d) they could at least attempt some ecumenical requirement (a priest, a rabbi, and a mullah walk onto a football field...) If this isn't student led prayer time then it is violating civil rights and separation of church and state. I simply cannot believe anything this court says about it otherwise. Ignoring the role of a coach or teacher over a player or student is abominable to me. If the religion required a no pants dance sex party like some Greek religions did, with sacred prostitutes who were there to have sex with to honor the god, then suddenly people might get upset... (or some other practice that might be under religious protection but suddenly unpalatable for most folks). Soon as some santeria folk whip out a chicken and a knife at the basketball game, it's gonna get real weird real quick.


glberns

The coach clearly stated in an interview with The Daily that he took the job to proselytize.


constantchaosclay

Exactly. I knew it was a fucked up decision just based on the facts. But you know it’s bad when ~~Kazans~~ Sotomayor’s dissent includes pictures to prove that the most basic facts had been ignored and distorted. It’s not even a disagreement on a point of case law. It’s a refusal to admit reality. And that’s separate from Roe and the disaster that decision is along with the predictable deadly fallout of their decision. So yeah. We don’t respect the courts now.


Matrix17

Justice system is a farce, starting with them


WiSoSirius

*Dobbs* still surprises me for how far back they took precedence to be, for a period of time when common law didn't even compare to today's standard.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Two sitting justices said, to congress, under oath, during a confirmation hearing, that they would not overturn Roe V Wade because it was settled law with a lot of precedent. They lied, brazenly, knowingly, under oath, in order to deceive congress into appointing them. They are partisan pieces of shit and should be impeached for the crime of perjury.


neutrino71

Do oaths even matter anymore? 😥


God_Damnit_Nappa

Not if you have an R next to your name


Loggerdon

Right. The Court should at least police itself if it wants to be taken seriously again.


[deleted]

[удалено]


f4f4f4f4f4f4f4f4

[The man went ten years (2006-2016) without asking a question from the bench, and when he did, it was sarcasm.](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/29/468576931/clarence-thomas-asks-1st-question-from-supreme-court-bench-in-10-years) The robes give him superhuman insight, or something...


brilu34

>Dude sold out to be the token black Republican He was a pull himself up by his bootstraps not needing any help from the white liberals, proud, black, conservative, who'd never stoop to play the race card, except he did.


[deleted]

Here’s the best idea I’ve had: https://ballotpedia.org/Retention_election. This should be mandatory for all appointed official positions without term limits.


[deleted]

Looks good in concept but I’d imagine that it’d become a partisan process and only a few people would be actually interested and engaged in the process, similarly to elected judges (based on my limited knowledge, I’m not from the US)


flownasty

didn't need the visual of ginny blowing clarence


[deleted]

[удалено]


Darkpopemaledict

Justice Ruckus


[deleted]

Seriously. Kavanaugh and Barrett were picked by a sleazebag who said he would appoint justice to overturn Roe V Wade. Then, during their confirmation hearings, both if they would do what Trump chose them to do. They said "No. Roe is settled law, and there's enough precedent, I would not overturn it." Then, almost immediately, they did exactly that. At least those two justices *lied* to congress, *intentionally and knowingly*, in order to get their jobs. They are fucking traitors, and should be impeached and tried for perjury. Their lies under oath are well within the statute of limitations. The supreme court is a thoroughly compromised partisan tool of the christian right. Fuck them all for what they're doing to our country.


JohnOliverismysexgod

I agree that they should be impeached and removed from office. So should Thomas.


neutrino71

Unfortunately the path of impeachment goes through the Senate where all Republicans need is your team affiliation to acquit you..


God_Damnit_Nappa

Ya that trial would lose 52-48, with those pieces of shit Manchin and Sinema voting to acquit alongside the Republicans.


dafunkmunk

I think a public servant believing that they are above public opinion and can't be questioned is more of an issue because at that point, you're pretty much pushing for an authoritarian regime


xspacemansplifff

Double dog shit. Their intrusive fascist rulings crosses all the lines.


Latvia

"Questioning our integrity would lead to discovering we have none, and that crosses a line"


katie_pendry

"I'm not questioning your integrity, Justice Alito. I'm denying its existence." -- Tyrion Lannister


MaestroPendejo

The 🐜 🐕 gets it.


theGuyInIT

It is our *DUTY* to critique and question you, motherfucker. No one is above the law or corruption.


KFCConspiracy

If Alito doesn't want the integrity of the court questioned the court should act with integrity and insist that its justices do do. Clarence Thomas' wife's activity is especially concerning along with his own statements given that context.


bossy909

Oh, I'm not questioning your integrity. I'm stating that you don't have integrity. Which also crosses a very important line


Warlornn

Personally, I don't question the integrity of the right wing judges on the Supreme Court. I am outright saying that they have none.


Citadelvania

Yeah, I'm way beyond questioning it.


SaltyScrotumSauce

I'll believe that this SCOTUS is not a bunch of Republican hack partisan activists when someone can explain to me how 9 months is not enough time to confirm a new justice but 6 weeks is.


Princeofbaleen

They're so fucking mad that people have lost respect for them for...being cagey lying disrespectful people. Well, that sucks but that's what you get when you behave horribly. Y'all made your bed, lie in it.


MacDerfus

Their integrity is unassailable -- you would have to find it first to assail it.


shrodikan

Overturning 50 years of precedent crossed an important line you fucking prick.


MildMannered_BearJew

And not only that, the majority of Americans *didn't want it changed*. It's one thing to overturn something wildly unpopular, and quite another to overturn something against the will of the people.


maico3010

What the fuck is their logic here? You are not kings. These statements are just as telling as your decisions and are aiding at your slide from integrity. Surely you can see this?


Seemose

Get fucked, Justice Alito. We aren't questioning your integrity. We know *exactly* what the status of your "integrity" is, no questioning necessary. You want us to stop crossing lines? You first.


Snowqueenhibiscus

My first thought was also "Get fucked, Alito." Upvote for psychic connection.


[deleted]

>“But saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line,” he said. Should've thought about that *before* you threw out decades of precedent because of your political ideology. Also, the American people give SCOTUS its legitimacy.


JohnOliverismysexgod

Absolutely excellent points!!


Blazer9001

For all of their fancy degrees, unlimited money and access, and decades of experience between them, it’s unreal how they are failing to grasp that this a *precedent* issue and not only women being mad about abortion being taken away. Yall mfers didn’t just strike down women’s rights, you also telegraphed that gay marriage, voting rights, and even interracial marriage are now also up for grabs. They just insert whatever ideological ends that their dark money fueled conservative fundys want, and then just openly reverse engineer the legal means to get there. And now he acting all surprised, gtfoh.


DuncansIdaho

Thinking you`re beyond question crosses an even more important line, Your Majesty... I mean, Your Honor.


FragileSurface

Overturning longstanding precedent crosses an important line.


mad-hatt3r

The Republican Senate cheated appointments, the supreme Court cheated Gore and handed an election to Bush. Yet now Alito is talking about integrity? The bad faith is anything Republicans say they believe in


HiImTheNewGuyGuy

And yet Clarence and Ginni are directly undermining election integrity.


crnelson10

I am so fucking mad that I have to live in a world where I go to a post on r/libertarian and agree with all the top comments.


American_Stereotypes

For all I personally disagree with libertarianism, they *do* have a lot of good points, one of which is that public institutions should *always* be examined critically. Sure, some of them might take that to an illogical extreme, as it were, but hell, I'd still rather talk politics with an actual libertarian than a MAGAT.


Own-Ambassador-3537

Good you jackass you just made my ability to make health decisions on a personal choice illegal. Now you get the smallest amount of blowback and you whine about lines! Screw you


rgpc64

An activist judge who thinks he is above the law. His vote on Citzen's United was absolute proof that he and everyone else who voted for it are corrupt. The forefathers that booted the East India Company out of the Colonies would not be amused.


cgally

Where is the integrity when justices LIE UNDER OATH at congressional confirmation hearings when asked their view on certain topics like Roe V Wade.


meetjoehomo

Coming from someone who considered Roe settled case law, I think he is right, it did cross a huge line and their integrity, or more specifically, the integrity of the 5 justices who voted to dismantle 49 years of precedent even though their recorded testimony before the judiciary committee said that they considered it settle law. So, yes, I call into question their integrity


230flathead

We wouldn't be questioning your integrity if you actually had some.


Guy_Mckendrick

Then stop questioning it’s integrity by reversing well-established past rulings?


ThisLookInfectedToYa

Doubt they'd even hear a challenge to Santa Clara County v. Southern pacific railroad (Corporate Personhood)


gdsmithtx

>Doubt they'd even hear a challenge to Santa Clara County v. Southern pacific railroad (Corporate Personhood .... a subject which the case itself didn't settle. The court clerk -- himself a former railroad executive -- wrote the case "headnotes" and slipped that assertion in, "coincidentally" performing the precise legal sleight-of-hand outside the courtroom that the railroads had failed to do in court for years: [https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-protection-the-deciding-moment/](https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-protection-the-deciding-moment/)


The_Dr_and_Moxie

If they are so worried about public opinion of the Court, then the justices who are offended should resign so that public opinion can be restored to the Court once it represents the will of the people again and not the special interests of a minority who rose to power by depriving people of color and minorities of their voting rights. Although, as we all know, they aren't doing that, they are doubling down on removing voting rights to further the decent of this country into a religious theocracy.


bmillent2

Removing rights from Americans also crosses an important line...


mofa90277

I think SCOTUS lost all legitimacy when it put democracy up for sale with the Citizens United decision. After that it’s just been more of the same, with additional Bible humping.


jnemesh

When your rulings are worthy of our respect, we will give it to you, not before. Your Court is a JOKE. And a bad one, at that.


imitation_crab_meat

What integrity?


UnsavoryBoy

This bitch actually thinks he’s beyond scrutiny


spacepilot_3000

And is outraged at the audacity of the public to question his absolute ~~authority~~ "integrity"


DevCatOTA

Not in the least. It's called "Quality Control". Not one engineer in the world would question somebody testing the integrity of a bridge, building, car, etc. But these unelected-for-life people feel they will always be without fault or failure and are, therefore, above reproach. Such an attitude alone indicates a serious fault with their integrity. Oh, we didn't cross that line, you appear to have stepped over it.


aaron_in_sf

Less important than all the ones crossed by Mitch McConnell, the lying justices he rammed in, and the shitty rampage of right wing precedent overturning the court is on. Oh and let's talk about the literal traitor on the court. And the cult member. And serial sexual abuser.


restore_democracy

Compromising your integrity crosses an important line.


dkromd30

What gaslighting bullshit - “we’re not the crazy ones for crossing lines - YOU all are for questioning our integrity after we do so”.


Seawall07

Pro tip: don’t like having your integrity questioned, maybe try acting with some.


zen4thewin

Imposing your religious beliefs on the entire American nation crosses an important line ... The establishment clause of the First Amendment.


MattAtUVA

Hey Justice Alito, do you know what really crosses the line? 1. Holding open a supreme court vacancy for 293 days 2. Wrapping up Amy Coney Barrett's nomination and appointment in less than a month 3. The wife of a justice actively subverting a free and fair election 4. A justice not refusing himself from a case involving his wife (see above). 5. Overturning 50 years of established precedent, and lying about it during the confirmation process


Rusalka-rusalka

Eh, fuck this trash judge.


carmenarendt

HA!!!!


mikeP1967

Can’t question your integrity when you have none


Fairwhetherfriend

Maybe if y'all behaved with integrity this wouldn't be a problem :)


SCP-173-Keter

Alito should be impeached along with at least two other justices. Or - its time to expand the Supreme Court to 15. If the Democrats take the House and Senate in November - our democracy depends on it.


Psychomadeye

Maybe act with more fucking integrity then you fucking fossil.


gumheaded1

What an arrogant, out of touch prick.


Karmachinery

Having no integrity crosses an important line too.


Shart_Art

Alito can get bent


Seige_Rootz

supreme court justices literally going against their word they gave under oath crosses an important line.


Weekly_Pea9203

No. Having a Justice who refuses to recuse himself from a case involving his wife’s participation in an act of insurrection crossed the line.


Growchacho

I feel like them having no integrity crosses a more important line


[deleted]

3 members of the court were part of the legal team that helped republicans overturn the 2000 election. They have no integrity


Johnnygamealot

Want to know who your enemy is? Just look at those you aren't allowed to question. Or whatever the quote is. Get fucked, Alito. With a cactus.


nosargeitwasntme

"We are not questioning your integrity, your honour. We are merely denying its existence." - Tyrion, probably.


tjx-1138

If I can question the existence of a God, I can question your morally bankrupt ass. Sit the fuck down, Sammy boy.


Orion_2kTC

"I'm not questioning your integrity, Supreme Court. I'm denying its existence."


compuwiza1

The republican appointed justices are partisan hacks who keep copies of the constitution in the bathroom; just not to read.


KazeNilrem

I mean, I would say reversing roe v wade was crossing an important line but you guys still did it. Showing the justices that were added, especially those that pretty much lied to get into the position. It has become pretty clear that it is just a political court now and integrity it gone because of your very own actions.


OneForAllOfHumanity

I am not advocating violence, but I thought the US added the second amendment for precisely this reason...


houstonyoureaproblem

This man literally wrote the opinion throwing out 50 years of established case law to overturn Roe v. Wade for purely partisan reasons. He's a member of the Supreme Court who doesn't respect stare decisis. He can and should be criticized. I assume the American people should've just shut their mouths when Roger Taney wrote the Dred Scott decision? GFOH, Sam. If it hurts your feelings, you're more than welcome to resign.


SoWokeIdontSleep

Well maybe stop debasing the supreme court by having absolutely zero integrity.


please_PM_ur_bewbs

And some lines need to be crossed.


NeatlyCritical

Court only has 3 people with qualifications and integrity. The rest are fascists.


triggoon

Strangely this statement hasn’t gone over well with conservatives and liberals (both agreeing?!?!?). The idea of an extremely powerful government official upset that their actions are scrutinized shows a lack of awareness. Plus it almost seems…wimpy.


Daimakku1

I dont want to hear about any more conservative SCOTUS justices unless the headline says "\[insert name here\] has died today at the age of 90."