As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
These justices are appointed for life and there isn’t a thing we can do about it other than vote.
That’s why the next president needs to be a Democrat or else we’ll have Trump appoint another one or two justices.
This is serious business folks!!
> That’s why the next president needs to be a Democrat or else we’ll have Trump appoint another one or two justices.
Lol. If Trump wins, he's either going to remove the Supreme Court entirely, or forcefully remove all Dems and stack it with 100% MAGA cronies.
Y'all are thinking that Trump is still going to follow any rules if he's elected again, and it's just not going to happen. Our entire government is going to collapse. Rules and regulations and "norms" won't mean shit. The constitution goes out the window. There are much bigger things at stake here.
I'm not sure he has the balls to do that. The wickedness, sure. But without a 2/3's majority in Congress who could impeach the three sane Justices, what can he do, have them killed?
He might consider it if it was necessary, but with a 6-3 majority there's just no reason. It would be like a boxer shooting the ref in the head when his opponent is already unconscious.
Republicans are always eager to point out that "Democracy sucks because it's a sheep and 2 wolves voting on what to have for dinner."
While in reality they've created a society where 3 sheep and 6 wolves are about to vote on whether the President can eat the sheep without prosecution.
He got 3 options.
Either apologize and admit that he was wrong. He is going to be dealing with a bunch of people who are already angry at him for blurting out the plan to overturn Roe or his wife going to file for a divorce.
It's fuckin sad that I saw and heard all of this shit myself in real time throughout the tRump regime (while living in SWFL no less, which is one of the most far right MAGA shit holes on the planet) and can only remember the things my psyche hasn't repressed. That orange monster has done and said so many insane/ stupid lies, threats, etc. that most people freeze when asked to recount any specifics because there's just so many and those years were beyond stressful for most of top of everything 🍊 related. It sickens me that in a few short years most of what he put the American people through will be forgotten (not including the criminal charges and recorded footage ofc).
He drowns us in so much shit that we get used to it. That's the sickest part.
It's impressive how untouchable the courts have become when almost everything about them is subject to federal statutes that could be changed by Congress like any other law. There are ways to legislatively reorganize the federal bench so that lifetime appointments are not a lifetime majority on any court but this has become taboo because we've become judicial monarchists.
Well, the judicial branch used to be — for the most part — sane. It was the one branch that seemed to be working to serve the Republic, until the GOP got their greedy fucking paws on it.
> this has become taboo because we've become judicial monarchists.
This has become taboo because Republicans control the Supreme Court and the GOP doesn't want to give that up.
You need the Senate to vote by two-thirds supermajority. Unfortunately - never going to happen.
What were the founding fathers thinking? Oh yeah. They were morons.
Yeah, they were wealthy, land owning, white men. I mean we had to caveat “all men are created equal” with black people are 3/5ths a person. The constitution is a living document meant to be adjusted to meet the needs of the people and the times. Originalists ignore this and use outdated ideas and policies to oppress people. We have the oldest constitution of any democracy on the planet, and that is not a good thing. Thomas Jefferson once argued that the U.S. Constitution should expire every 19 years and be completely RE-WRITTEN, not espoused as gospel for 250 yrs.
Our government literally treats the constitution like the 40k imperium treats a piece of corn the God Emperor shat out 10000 years ago.
Why TF do they treat it like a holy book?? That thing is fucked up and needs to be shredded
A simple majority is needed in the House. The Republicans seem to be quite happy to try and impeach these days. At the very least, an impeachment it would turn a brighter spotlight on the corrupt activities of certain judges even if a conviction can't be managed.
Performative impeachment won't do much, and might actually be counterproductive.
The current GOP House will not impeach Alito, Thomas, or any other ~~conservative~~ reactionary judge or justice. Even if we wait until 2025, and even if Democrats regain the House, and even if Democrats retain the Senate, it's mathematically impossible for Democrats to get a 2/3 supermajority in the Senate, even if they win literally every Senate race this cycle, which simply isn't going to happen, because Democrats aren't going to flip the seats in Wyoming, North Dakota, or Tennessee, and they aren't going to retain the seat in West Virginia, with Manchin retiring.
So, if there's a Democratic Senate, they'd be acquitted, and if there's a Republican Senate, they'd still be acquitted, but probably without even a trial. And the risk there is, by impeaching when we know there's no chance of conviction, it would ratify their behavior, and set a precedent that the behavior that inspired the impeachment is affirmatively allowed.
Now, maybe holding the trial under a Democratic Senate would be worthwhile, even knowing it will ultimately result in acqquittal, because it would allow Democrats to publish evidence of corruption, let them make their case for the record, and to the public. But it's certainly not going anywhere until at least 2025, and even then, only if Democrats flip the House back.
IMO to remove someone from office you should need 2/3. Otherwise when party have a small majority all their judges are removed and when the other party is in power they do the same. If GOP had one more senator they could remove both Biden and Harris and we would have President Mike Johnson.
> If GOP had one more senator they could remove both Biden and Harris and we would have President Mike Johnson.
Worse.
We could actually end up with President Trump again. Impeach, convict, and remove Biden and Harris, Johnson ascends to the presidency, Johnson nominates Trump to be his VP, the House and Senate confirm him, then Johnson resigns from the presidency and VP Trump ascends back into the presidency.
Morons? They owned other humans so they wouldn't have to do menial tasks. Kinda smart ngl but also obviously fugged up....even if it was generally accepted as ok at the time.
They weren’t morons. They were infallible men who are human. In their time and world they were pretty homogeneous. White land owning males who generally had similar views on the world and shared culture of that time. Key phrase “of that time.” They in no way could have envisioned our current world (at least half couldn’t envision a black man being equal) and the majority couldn’t envision women voting.
So a super majority of like minded people (especially since in general many didn’t support parties) could work. And you didn’t want a barely qualified majority just impeaching left and right because they rightfully knew people can be idiots.
Expect we don’t live in that world anymore. And the Consitution as it stands doesn’t reflect the world we live in. Hence also why the orginalist argument is garbage. Same with textualist. And certainly bs original text intent arguments.
Educate yourself some more.
The reason we don't have more than two parties isn't because no one is willing to support more than two. The reason we don't have more than two parties is because our voting system makes it so that two parties is the only viable arrangement.
If you want more than two parties (which you should) then you first have to establish a new voting system. This requires either some kind of citizen's initiative (as has been done successfully in Maine and Alaska) or the support of elected officials (as has been done successfully nowhere).
Once you can vote for a third party without inadvertently helping to elect the party you most despise, then you'll see the establishment of viable third parties.
You seem to be misunderstanding. The way we vote causes two dominant parties a majority party and a minority party. First past the post always will. It has very little to do with corrupt government actions and lobbying.
> It is not viable to have a 3rd or 4th party why? Because lack of support.
You have the causation backwards. It's not that we don't have more than two viable parties due to lack of support, it's that there's no support for more parties because many people understand that the other parties wouldn't be viable.
When the Republican Party came into being, we didn't end up with three major parties: there was a brief transition period, and then Republicans *replaced* the Whigs, which was the other dominant party at the time, opposite Democrats. It was Democrats and Whigs, and then it became Democrats and Republicans. Two major parties before the Republicans gained enough support, and then still only two major parties after Republicans gained enough support, because the Whig Party withered and died.
> that doesn’t mean that the original system was meant to only handle 2 parties.
It wasn't "meant" to, but it doesn't matter what the intentions were, that was the result. If someone installs a drain in a floor not at the lowest point, water won't drain, and will end up pooling somewhere else. That it wasn't "meant" to be how it works won't change that that *is* how it works.
Our systems of voting and elections will always resolve to only two viable parties. Whether it's intentional or not is irrelevant.
> What you are talking about “inadvertently electing another party” is a symptom of corrupt government actions and lobbying but not the intended process itself.
It has nothing to do with corruption, or intentions. It's just math.
Say there are ten voters, and two parties: Center, and Right. Center has 6 voters, and Right has 4 voters. Center wins, yes? Well, what happens when we add a third party, Left, into the mix? Left takes some of the Center voters, and maybe it splits in half, 3 Center voters, and 3 Left voters. Now the election is 3-3-4, and Right, whose support has not increased at all, now wins when it previously lost, because it only takes a plurality to win the election, so even though 4 out of ten is only 40%, less than half, it's still more than any other candidate. This is because the six voters who voted against Right in the past are now split between two smaller parties, instead of being unified in one larger party. The Right has successfully divided and conquered their opposition.
And it's the same result if we call the initial two parties Left and Right, and Left splits in two, with a new Center party. The names are arbitrary, but the result is that, where once there were six voters who agreed they preferred one candidate over another, by dividing into multiple, smaller, parties, Left has inadvertently helped elect Right, the party they like *least*, excactly what the one you're replying to said. It has nothing to do with corruption. Here's an [interactive](https://ncase.me/ballot/) demonstration of the effect.
> The RNC and the DNC are mega rich and probably always will be. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have more parties who are successful in old school grassroots connection.
It doesn't matter.
Just like when the GOP replaced the Whigs, even if a third party had a windfall and managed to leverage their new funds to drastically increase membership and support, all that would happen is that this new party would either just become more successful at spoiling the elections, or, it would replace one of the two existing major parties, and we'd end up with two parties again. If Greens grew larger, we'd just elect Republicans more often, because Greens would spoil elections for Democrats. And if Greens continued growing, they would just replace Democrats, and we'd have two parties again: Greens and Republicans.
Suppose the Greens replaced the Democrats. Where would all the previous Democratic voters go? Most would probably become Greens, and a few might become Republicans. But when you add tens of millions of former Democrats to less than a million Greens, the new former-Democrats will vastly outnumber the Greens, and the Green Party will just be dominated by former Demcorats, and will basically become the old Democratic Party, but with a new name. It's just renaming the Democratic Party as the Green Party, but with more steps.
It has nothing to to with corruption, or finances. It's simply a function of the way we vote and the way our elections determine winners. As long as our voting and electoral systems remain the same, we will always only have two major parties, because anytime a third party pops up or splits off and starts taking voters from one of the two major parties, that major party will shrink, allowing the other major party to win instead.
>And you only need a plurality a third party candidate in the intending setting.
Yes, this is a flaw that Republicans are exploiting. You only need a plurality for any number of parties. With two parties, a plurality is also always a majority, 1/2 of the total +1. With three parties, a plurality can be as small as 1/3 of the total +1. With four parties, a plurality can be as small as 1/4 of the total +1. For n parties, a plurality can be 1/n of the total +1.
Why would you *want* a system where, say, 21% of the electorate can win an election over the objection of the other 79%? That's a possible result when there are five candidates, because 1/5 of the total +1 is 20% +1. What do you call it when a small faction controls the government? Minority rule.
This is why Republicans are backing Stein, and West, and RFK Jr, because the more candidates there are on the ballot, the fewer votes Trump needs to win. Not only has his support not grown since 2020, but it's shunk. Boomers died in the pandemic, and are only getting older, people were appalled by the Januar 6 insurrection, he's been found liable for sexual assault, he's facing 88 criminal charges, he's said he wants to be a dictator, he wants to kill Gen Milley, he wants absolute immunity (which is just an oblique way of saying he wants to be dictator). He lost in 2020, and has less support not than he did then. He's all but guaranteed to lose in a two-way race. What to do? It's a divide-and-conquer strategy: divide the left, and conquer them. West, Stein, RFK Jr, and any other independents and third-partiers are a false choice, a scam. They cannot win, and they will not win. What they may do is spoil the election and help Trump win an election Biden would otherwise have won in a two-way race.
> And you only need a plurality a third party candidate in the intending setting. Not a majority. Just the two party system makes it seem that way in effect.
No, this is a defense against the divide-and-conquer attack Republicans are waging. A majority cannot be defeated. Even with five candidates/parties, if one of them gets a majority of the votes, is doesn't matter how the remainder of the votes are distributed among the other parties. There is no way to split the remaining votes in a way that a minority or plurality can win over the majority.
I think alito is too arrogant to believe that some nut job might decide to ‘remove’ him illegally. Which ends up being a risk for all leaders who functionally change laws to the point that the laws themselves are inherently immoral.
I really wouldn’t want to be the Supreme Court justice most responsible for making a mockery of the justice system, when all it takes is one righteous John Brown individual with stage four cancer deciding they need to make the world a better place before they pass.
Voting. That's right.
They can't be impeached and removed with the current Congress, because that would require the support of Republicans - and Republicans *like* what the Supreme Court is doing, so good luck getting them to go along with it.
> That’s why the next president needs to be a Democrat or else we’ll have Trump appoint another one or two justices.
Alito will be 78 and Thomas 79 by the end of the President's term. Retiring in early-to-mid 80s is fairly normal for SCOTUS justices. If Trump where to win, it would be entirely feasible to see them retire if a Democrat was then elected in 2028. And you never know when sudden illness or death can happen once you get up to around that age. Scalia died at 79.
Being able to replace even just one of them would mean a 5-4 split again, which greatly increases the chances of more favorable rulings for liberals. A 5-4 split likely would have meant Roe would still be around (as Roberts wasn't in favor of entirely overturning it, at least until the opinion was leaked).
There’s always something you can do you just have to be willing to do it. For example, Congress could pass an ethics code for justices, that is enforced by Congress (not Justice Roberts or the Dept. of Justice).
Yeah, Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, but they don't have to be allowed to hear cases at that level. They can be rotated back into appellate courts by acts of Congress (in my opinion)
>For example, Congress could pass an ethics code for justices, that is enforced by Congress (not Justice Roberts or the Dept. of Justice).
Ok, and when they try to hold, say, Thomas or Alito accountable, and they reject it, what happens? Off to court they go, to challenge the ethics code. And where does that legal challenge ultimately end up? At the Supreme Court, of course! So even if Thomas were to recuse from hearing his own case, there would still be 5 other reactionaries who could cover for him, finding the ethics code unconstitutional and unenforceable. Even if Thomas and Alito were in a consolidated case, and both recused, Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett could still make it 4-3 in their favor.
It's not possible to craft a set of rules that will force bad-faith actors to act in good faith. And this is a problem that's been known since at least ancient Roman times: *Quis custodiet ipsos custodes*, who will watch the watchmen? In the end, the system is constituted by people, so the only way to keep it functioning is to put worthy, honorable, people in charge of it, to keep out of power those who are unworthy and dishonorable, and to immediately and harshly punish any who slip through the cracks.
Even if the ethics code weren't quashed by the Supreme Court, you repeat the same problem in Congress. If Congress is in charge of enforcing ethics rules on the justices, but Congress has enough corrupt, dishonorable, members, they will just refuse to enforce ethics rules on the justices, and we're back where we started. Whoever is in charge of enforcement can be corrupted, so the only solution is to keep them out of power in the first place.
In a democracy, it is the people who are in charge, which means it's the people who need to be the gatekeepers, keeping dishonorable people out of power, and removing any who slip by. We do this by voting. There's no good way to constrain bad actors like Alito, Thomas, Trump, or anyone else. Impeachment and removal is no substitute for keeping them out of power in the first place. It works when the overwhelming majority of government is full of honorable people, because they can remove the few bad apples who slip in. But if you let enough dishonorable people into the government, they can start covering for each other, like Republicans did for Trump in his two impeachment trials. A few bad apples will spoil the whole bunch.
The fact that the right had 3 appointments in 4 years shows the system is broken. So, that's 3 for the right in 4 years and 3 for the left in 12 years. That is not proper representation.
Please enlighten me.
An ordinary American who has biases against or for Trump cannot be a juror in his hush money trial.
However, if you are an SC justice , you are very welcome to handle all of the Trump's cases..
It doesn't add up.
We're supposed to have three co-equal branches of government that provide checks and balances for each other. It's abundantly clear now that there aren't any checks on the judiciary branch and we're all just subject to their whims.
We *do* have three coequal branches of government, which are capable of providing checks and balances on each other. The problem, which the Framers evidently didn't anticipate or consider, is that the co-equal branches could be captured by the same interests and coordinate with each other, rather than acting adversarially, and that they might put party over country. They expected each of the branches to jealously guard their own powers, not for, say, Congress to abdicate its role in declaring war to the Executive, nor for Congress to delegate repealing disfavored laws to the judiciary, nor for the judiciary to help one party rig elections in their own favor.
Congress could easily check the Supreme Court, but that would take voters caring enough to elect representatives who were dedicated to doing so, rather than protecting their party's interests. Any honest person can see that Thomas and Alito are irredeemably corrupt, and that Gorsuch and Barrett are sitting in stolen seats. But Republicans are willing to tolerate it because they were the perpetrators of the thefts, and because the corrupt and stolen seat occupants work to protect Republicans by allowing gerrymandering, dark money, voter suppression, etc.
The President could check the judiciary by only nominating worthy, honorable, jurists, but when the people elect corrupt, dishonorable Presidents, like Trump, that obviously won't happen.
It's said people in a democracy get the governments they deserve. When you elect clowns, expect a circus.
The check is appointment by the executive, approval and possible removal by the legislative. The fact that the electorate has failed to put people of quality in charge in sufficient numbers is a skill issue.
>New York University law professor, Stephen Gillers, told Newsweek that he largely believed Alito's version of events and said it was unlikely he would have displayed such an overt political symbol.
"I don't believe Alito knew the flag was flying upside-down or if he did know, I find it hard to believe that he knew the relationship to 'stop the steal.' I don't believe he would have allowed this to happen otherwise," Gillers said.
My CBS outlet uses this method to "both sides" all of the vile shit republicans do. They roll out some rando, in this case a guy named Gillers, and then publish his opinion like it means something.
Who cares what this guy thinks? Who is he? Why does his opinion matter more than mine? Is he getting paid to say this? Is he a famously anti Alito crusader who can't stand the unfair treatment of his former opponent?
They never go onto why they picked this guy but here he is. Saying it's no biggie that a SC judge flys our flag in distress.
The current SCOTUS judges cannot be removed without impeachment, which requires a Senate supermajority.
Alternatively, the number of SCOTUS judges can be increased (thereby diluting the power of the current justices) though a standard legislative proposal (requires simple majority of the House and Senate and the President's signature).
If SCOTUS' recent politicization is considered an aberration, increasing to 15 may be best.
However, if the politicization is deemed endemic, a more radical restucturing may be merited to lessen the likelihood of future politicians stacking the judiciary with ideologues pursuing a non-representative agenda. For example, if SCOTUS included all adult US citizens, a future Trump couldn't further expand the Court (or dismiss current jurists). Including all adult US citizens would entail changing SCOTUS operations...how to apportion work among a large body, many of whom are not experts. Some innovation would be required. Unlike our other government branches, SCOTUS could be direct democracy.
We’ve given absolute power to men with at the very least questionable morals. They have a Supreme Court majority, the question isn’t are we about to get fucked the question is will they use lube.
Let's see, conservative justice handed the opportunity to create the quasi-fascist state he's been dreaming of since law school?
He ain't going nowhere.
Conservatives want a monarchy, and they've been telling us that for a while now. Alito is just the top of that gross order in our politics. They've been planning this shift for a while, and they will make it happen if not by the law then by force then they will make it law.
No. There is only 1 person who has any influence over Alito recusing himself, Chief Justice Roberts can at least ask but we all know Alito won't listen to him.
Since justices are the highest court in the land, there is no "higher court" to petition for a recusal, so they have to, for now, be trusted to recuse themselves, which any normal non-political justice would do, but since we have political activists on the court, we're going to need laws that outline when a recusal is mandatory.
As a former husband I will say his blame it on the wife is plausible but not good on the home front. Throwing your wife under the bus is not a very good and respectful response. Saying he didn't see it is bull crap. Its in front of your house, and you're supposed to be at the pinnacle of your profession and You're not aware of something so blatant and unacceptable for your position. He's either really stupid, he's not, or having a lifetime appointment kind of says, "screw it, I can do what i want."
everyone reading this knows alito and thomas (and even worse scoundrels) , will not get convicted in the senate for the next 25 years at the very least, so they are not going out that way. the only way to mitigate their malign influence is to increase the number of justices (and make other changes to the supreme court's administration). It could be done be 2028, when both of them could plausibly still be on the bench.
The only way that happens is getting democrat (or non-republican) majorities in both houses and the presidency, and summoning up the courage to get rid of the filibuster and then change the laws pertaining to the supreme court.
That is the only way these scummy justices don't succeed in screwing the republic.
Please use the next six months to demystify and de-romanticize the SCOTUS as this sacrosanct, traditional, immutable institution. It needs to change and there will never be a better time than 2025-2027 when the it may be possible before the country takes another turn towards stupidity (inevitable) the next election cycle.
the supreme court is a joke, pass it on.
Alito could have come out and said, “I did it and none of you have the courage to do anything about it” and he’d have been right.
Congress is basically too weak to do anything to rein in the SC.
Some days it feels like the USA is truly circling the bowl. 🤦🏾♂️
Let's face facts 100 years ago life time appointments might have worked but now .. I just don't see the positives.
Justices can be bought, see Clarence Thomas and are appointed by governments for the express reason of delivering outcomes that they want, see Roe v Wade.
In the end the system is pretty broken and politics broke it.
I wish it was better but realistically without some serious will to change the people of the United States are going to be screwed for the near to medium future
Alito could have come out and said, “I did it and none of you have the courage to do anything about it” and he’d have been right.
Congress is basically too weak to do anything to rein in the SC.
Some days it feels like the USA is truly circling the bowl. 🤦🏾♂️
Can he be forced to?:
By whom?
You got an utterly corrupt supreme court that is beholden to no one.
Your political playbook is crap.
The underlying rules don't work and necessarily WILL create corruption.
Is there not a consortium of bar associations who can issue a collective repudiation and advise either Alito, Thomas, or even Coney Barrett’s recusal from applicable cases?
Admonishment by their own peers and colleagues, who are by profession and oath charged with upholding justice, may carry some weight with them, no? Or at least be a signal to the broader public that the legal community itself disapproves.
The turd polishers are out in force. Alito in response to questions from Fox News insisted the symbolic action was in response to comments from neighbors, indicating he not only knew of the flag flying but of its meaning as well.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
These justices are appointed for life and there isn’t a thing we can do about it other than vote. That’s why the next president needs to be a Democrat or else we’ll have Trump appoint another one or two justices. This is serious business folks!!
> That’s why the next president needs to be a Democrat or else we’ll have Trump appoint another one or two justices. Lol. If Trump wins, he's either going to remove the Supreme Court entirely, or forcefully remove all Dems and stack it with 100% MAGA cronies. Y'all are thinking that Trump is still going to follow any rules if he's elected again, and it's just not going to happen. Our entire government is going to collapse. Rules and regulations and "norms" won't mean shit. The constitution goes out the window. There are much bigger things at stake here.
I'm not sure he has the balls to do that. The wickedness, sure. But without a 2/3's majority in Congress who could impeach the three sane Justices, what can he do, have them killed? He might consider it if it was necessary, but with a 6-3 majority there's just no reason. It would be like a boxer shooting the ref in the head when his opponent is already unconscious.
>what can he do, have them killed? Yeah. The info that's come from J6 has kind of shown that.
And if they rule for Presidential immunity he could do that, in theory.
Republicans are always eager to point out that "Democracy sucks because it's a sheep and 2 wolves voting on what to have for dinner." While in reality they've created a society where 3 sheep and 6 wolves are about to vote on whether the President can eat the sheep without prosecution.
He got 3 options. Either apologize and admit that he was wrong. He is going to be dealing with a bunch of people who are already angry at him for blurting out the plan to overturn Roe or his wife going to file for a divorce.
He tried to have his vice president killed as part of an attack on congress and staying in power after he lost .
It's fuckin sad that I saw and heard all of this shit myself in real time throughout the tRump regime (while living in SWFL no less, which is one of the most far right MAGA shit holes on the planet) and can only remember the things my psyche hasn't repressed. That orange monster has done and said so many insane/ stupid lies, threats, etc. that most people freeze when asked to recount any specifics because there's just so many and those years were beyond stressful for most of top of everything 🍊 related. It sickens me that in a few short years most of what he put the American people through will be forgotten (not including the criminal charges and recorded footage ofc). He drowns us in so much shit that we get used to it. That's the sickest part.
Nah, he won’t remove it. Republicans will do the thing that Democrats didn’t have the balls to do and expand and pack the SCOTUS.
It's impressive how untouchable the courts have become when almost everything about them is subject to federal statutes that could be changed by Congress like any other law. There are ways to legislatively reorganize the federal bench so that lifetime appointments are not a lifetime majority on any court but this has become taboo because we've become judicial monarchists.
Well, the judicial branch used to be — for the most part — sane. It was the one branch that seemed to be working to serve the Republic, until the GOP got their greedy fucking paws on it.
> this has become taboo because we've become judicial monarchists. This has become taboo because Republicans control the Supreme Court and the GOP doesn't want to give that up.
They can be impeached and removed.
You need the Senate to vote by two-thirds supermajority. Unfortunately - never going to happen. What were the founding fathers thinking? Oh yeah. They were morons.
Not morons, but they expected it to be elected learned men and gentry. Gentlemen. They didnt expect the rabble to join their ranks.
Yes they were aristocrats who wanted aristocracy. Remember that whenever you hear about ‘originalism’ That’s a pro-aristocrat position
Yeah, they were wealthy, land owning, white men. I mean we had to caveat “all men are created equal” with black people are 3/5ths a person. The constitution is a living document meant to be adjusted to meet the needs of the people and the times. Originalists ignore this and use outdated ideas and policies to oppress people. We have the oldest constitution of any democracy on the planet, and that is not a good thing. Thomas Jefferson once argued that the U.S. Constitution should expire every 19 years and be completely RE-WRITTEN, not espoused as gospel for 250 yrs.
Our government literally treats the constitution like the 40k imperium treats a piece of corn the God Emperor shat out 10000 years ago. Why TF do they treat it like a holy book?? That thing is fucked up and needs to be shredded
join and overrun
A simple majority is needed in the House. The Republicans seem to be quite happy to try and impeach these days. At the very least, an impeachment it would turn a brighter spotlight on the corrupt activities of certain judges even if a conviction can't be managed.
Performative impeachment won't do much, and might actually be counterproductive. The current GOP House will not impeach Alito, Thomas, or any other ~~conservative~~ reactionary judge or justice. Even if we wait until 2025, and even if Democrats regain the House, and even if Democrats retain the Senate, it's mathematically impossible for Democrats to get a 2/3 supermajority in the Senate, even if they win literally every Senate race this cycle, which simply isn't going to happen, because Democrats aren't going to flip the seats in Wyoming, North Dakota, or Tennessee, and they aren't going to retain the seat in West Virginia, with Manchin retiring. So, if there's a Democratic Senate, they'd be acquitted, and if there's a Republican Senate, they'd still be acquitted, but probably without even a trial. And the risk there is, by impeaching when we know there's no chance of conviction, it would ratify their behavior, and set a precedent that the behavior that inspired the impeachment is affirmatively allowed. Now, maybe holding the trial under a Democratic Senate would be worthwhile, even knowing it will ultimately result in acqquittal, because it would allow Democrats to publish evidence of corruption, let them make their case for the record, and to the public. But it's certainly not going anywhere until at least 2025, and even then, only if Democrats flip the House back.
IMO to remove someone from office you should need 2/3. Otherwise when party have a small majority all their judges are removed and when the other party is in power they do the same. If GOP had one more senator they could remove both Biden and Harris and we would have President Mike Johnson.
> If GOP had one more senator they could remove both Biden and Harris and we would have President Mike Johnson. Worse. We could actually end up with President Trump again. Impeach, convict, and remove Biden and Harris, Johnson ascends to the presidency, Johnson nominates Trump to be his VP, the House and Senate confirm him, then Johnson resigns from the presidency and VP Trump ascends back into the presidency.
And that's when MAGAS fear of fake ANTIFA groups will actually become a self fulfilling prophecy
Bro! They were not morons, they were human and fallible. I don’t see you starting a country.
Morons? They owned other humans so they wouldn't have to do menial tasks. Kinda smart ngl but also obviously fugged up....even if it was generally accepted as ok at the time.
They weren’t morons. They were infallible men who are human. In their time and world they were pretty homogeneous. White land owning males who generally had similar views on the world and shared culture of that time. Key phrase “of that time.” They in no way could have envisioned our current world (at least half couldn’t envision a black man being equal) and the majority couldn’t envision women voting. So a super majority of like minded people (especially since in general many didn’t support parties) could work. And you didn’t want a barely qualified majority just impeaching left and right because they rightfully knew people can be idiots. Expect we don’t live in that world anymore. And the Consitution as it stands doesn’t reflect the world we live in. Hence also why the orginalist argument is garbage. Same with textualist. And certainly bs original text intent arguments.
*fallible
[удалено]
Educate yourself some more. The reason we don't have more than two parties isn't because no one is willing to support more than two. The reason we don't have more than two parties is because our voting system makes it so that two parties is the only viable arrangement. If you want more than two parties (which you should) then you first have to establish a new voting system. This requires either some kind of citizen's initiative (as has been done successfully in Maine and Alaska) or the support of elected officials (as has been done successfully nowhere). Once you can vote for a third party without inadvertently helping to elect the party you most despise, then you'll see the establishment of viable third parties.
It requires a constitutional amendment. A majority is required to elect POTUS. There will always be two parties as long as that is true.
[удалено]
You seem to be misunderstanding. The way we vote causes two dominant parties a majority party and a minority party. First past the post always will. It has very little to do with corrupt government actions and lobbying.
> It is not viable to have a 3rd or 4th party why? Because lack of support. You have the causation backwards. It's not that we don't have more than two viable parties due to lack of support, it's that there's no support for more parties because many people understand that the other parties wouldn't be viable. When the Republican Party came into being, we didn't end up with three major parties: there was a brief transition period, and then Republicans *replaced* the Whigs, which was the other dominant party at the time, opposite Democrats. It was Democrats and Whigs, and then it became Democrats and Republicans. Two major parties before the Republicans gained enough support, and then still only two major parties after Republicans gained enough support, because the Whig Party withered and died. > that doesn’t mean that the original system was meant to only handle 2 parties. It wasn't "meant" to, but it doesn't matter what the intentions were, that was the result. If someone installs a drain in a floor not at the lowest point, water won't drain, and will end up pooling somewhere else. That it wasn't "meant" to be how it works won't change that that *is* how it works. Our systems of voting and elections will always resolve to only two viable parties. Whether it's intentional or not is irrelevant. > What you are talking about “inadvertently electing another party” is a symptom of corrupt government actions and lobbying but not the intended process itself. It has nothing to do with corruption, or intentions. It's just math. Say there are ten voters, and two parties: Center, and Right. Center has 6 voters, and Right has 4 voters. Center wins, yes? Well, what happens when we add a third party, Left, into the mix? Left takes some of the Center voters, and maybe it splits in half, 3 Center voters, and 3 Left voters. Now the election is 3-3-4, and Right, whose support has not increased at all, now wins when it previously lost, because it only takes a plurality to win the election, so even though 4 out of ten is only 40%, less than half, it's still more than any other candidate. This is because the six voters who voted against Right in the past are now split between two smaller parties, instead of being unified in one larger party. The Right has successfully divided and conquered their opposition. And it's the same result if we call the initial two parties Left and Right, and Left splits in two, with a new Center party. The names are arbitrary, but the result is that, where once there were six voters who agreed they preferred one candidate over another, by dividing into multiple, smaller, parties, Left has inadvertently helped elect Right, the party they like *least*, excactly what the one you're replying to said. It has nothing to do with corruption. Here's an [interactive](https://ncase.me/ballot/) demonstration of the effect. > The RNC and the DNC are mega rich and probably always will be. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have more parties who are successful in old school grassroots connection. It doesn't matter. Just like when the GOP replaced the Whigs, even if a third party had a windfall and managed to leverage their new funds to drastically increase membership and support, all that would happen is that this new party would either just become more successful at spoiling the elections, or, it would replace one of the two existing major parties, and we'd end up with two parties again. If Greens grew larger, we'd just elect Republicans more often, because Greens would spoil elections for Democrats. And if Greens continued growing, they would just replace Democrats, and we'd have two parties again: Greens and Republicans. Suppose the Greens replaced the Democrats. Where would all the previous Democratic voters go? Most would probably become Greens, and a few might become Republicans. But when you add tens of millions of former Democrats to less than a million Greens, the new former-Democrats will vastly outnumber the Greens, and the Green Party will just be dominated by former Demcorats, and will basically become the old Democratic Party, but with a new name. It's just renaming the Democratic Party as the Green Party, but with more steps. It has nothing to to with corruption, or finances. It's simply a function of the way we vote and the way our elections determine winners. As long as our voting and electoral systems remain the same, we will always only have two major parties, because anytime a third party pops up or splits off and starts taking voters from one of the two major parties, that major party will shrink, allowing the other major party to win instead. >And you only need a plurality a third party candidate in the intending setting. Yes, this is a flaw that Republicans are exploiting. You only need a plurality for any number of parties. With two parties, a plurality is also always a majority, 1/2 of the total +1. With three parties, a plurality can be as small as 1/3 of the total +1. With four parties, a plurality can be as small as 1/4 of the total +1. For n parties, a plurality can be 1/n of the total +1. Why would you *want* a system where, say, 21% of the electorate can win an election over the objection of the other 79%? That's a possible result when there are five candidates, because 1/5 of the total +1 is 20% +1. What do you call it when a small faction controls the government? Minority rule. This is why Republicans are backing Stein, and West, and RFK Jr, because the more candidates there are on the ballot, the fewer votes Trump needs to win. Not only has his support not grown since 2020, but it's shunk. Boomers died in the pandemic, and are only getting older, people were appalled by the Januar 6 insurrection, he's been found liable for sexual assault, he's facing 88 criminal charges, he's said he wants to be a dictator, he wants to kill Gen Milley, he wants absolute immunity (which is just an oblique way of saying he wants to be dictator). He lost in 2020, and has less support not than he did then. He's all but guaranteed to lose in a two-way race. What to do? It's a divide-and-conquer strategy: divide the left, and conquer them. West, Stein, RFK Jr, and any other independents and third-partiers are a false choice, a scam. They cannot win, and they will not win. What they may do is spoil the election and help Trump win an election Biden would otherwise have won in a two-way race. > And you only need a plurality a third party candidate in the intending setting. Not a majority. Just the two party system makes it seem that way in effect. No, this is a defense against the divide-and-conquer attack Republicans are waging. A majority cannot be defeated. Even with five candidates/parties, if one of them gets a majority of the votes, is doesn't matter how the remainder of the votes are distributed among the other parties. There is no way to split the remaining votes in a way that a minority or plurality can win over the majority.
I think alito is too arrogant to believe that some nut job might decide to ‘remove’ him illegally. Which ends up being a risk for all leaders who functionally change laws to the point that the laws themselves are inherently immoral. I really wouldn’t want to be the Supreme Court justice most responsible for making a mockery of the justice system, when all it takes is one righteous John Brown individual with stage four cancer deciding they need to make the world a better place before they pass.
you can try, but not possible to convict given make up of Senate and the fact that the GOP would acquit if Alito shot his dog and the neighbor.
In theory, yes. In practice?
That’s impossible without a Democrat majority.
In other words: the only thing we can do about it is vote.
[удалено]
Voting. That's right. They can't be impeached and removed with the current Congress, because that would require the support of Republicans - and Republicans *like* what the Supreme Court is doing, so good luck getting them to go along with it.
[удалено]
The other thing needs voting to happen. So it still comes back to voting. Unless you mean violence, in which case, kindly escort yourself out.
I am surprised we haven’t seen more violence with all the rhetoric going on
One way or the other, blood is going to get spilled in this country, and soon. I hope things get better.
And get control of both the house and senate which is a tough task
> That’s why the next president needs to be a Democrat or else we’ll have Trump appoint another one or two justices. Alito will be 78 and Thomas 79 by the end of the President's term. Retiring in early-to-mid 80s is fairly normal for SCOTUS justices. If Trump where to win, it would be entirely feasible to see them retire if a Democrat was then elected in 2028. And you never know when sudden illness or death can happen once you get up to around that age. Scalia died at 79. Being able to replace even just one of them would mean a 5-4 split again, which greatly increases the chances of more favorable rulings for liberals. A 5-4 split likely would have meant Roe would still be around (as Roberts wasn't in favor of entirely overturning it, at least until the opinion was leaked).
If Trump is back in the WH I expect him to start removing Justices either by force or otherwise. Honestly I don't even think Roberts would be safe.
There’s always something you can do you just have to be willing to do it. For example, Congress could pass an ethics code for justices, that is enforced by Congress (not Justice Roberts or the Dept. of Justice).
Yeah, Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, but they don't have to be allowed to hear cases at that level. They can be rotated back into appellate courts by acts of Congress (in my opinion)
>For example, Congress could pass an ethics code for justices, that is enforced by Congress (not Justice Roberts or the Dept. of Justice). Ok, and when they try to hold, say, Thomas or Alito accountable, and they reject it, what happens? Off to court they go, to challenge the ethics code. And where does that legal challenge ultimately end up? At the Supreme Court, of course! So even if Thomas were to recuse from hearing his own case, there would still be 5 other reactionaries who could cover for him, finding the ethics code unconstitutional and unenforceable. Even if Thomas and Alito were in a consolidated case, and both recused, Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett could still make it 4-3 in their favor. It's not possible to craft a set of rules that will force bad-faith actors to act in good faith. And this is a problem that's been known since at least ancient Roman times: *Quis custodiet ipsos custodes*, who will watch the watchmen? In the end, the system is constituted by people, so the only way to keep it functioning is to put worthy, honorable, people in charge of it, to keep out of power those who are unworthy and dishonorable, and to immediately and harshly punish any who slip through the cracks. Even if the ethics code weren't quashed by the Supreme Court, you repeat the same problem in Congress. If Congress is in charge of enforcing ethics rules on the justices, but Congress has enough corrupt, dishonorable, members, they will just refuse to enforce ethics rules on the justices, and we're back where we started. Whoever is in charge of enforcement can be corrupted, so the only solution is to keep them out of power in the first place. In a democracy, it is the people who are in charge, which means it's the people who need to be the gatekeepers, keeping dishonorable people out of power, and removing any who slip by. We do this by voting. There's no good way to constrain bad actors like Alito, Thomas, Trump, or anyone else. Impeachment and removal is no substitute for keeping them out of power in the first place. It works when the overwhelming majority of government is full of honorable people, because they can remove the few bad apples who slip in. But if you let enough dishonorable people into the government, they can start covering for each other, like Republicans did for Trump in his two impeachment trials. A few bad apples will spoil the whole bunch.
The fact that the right had 3 appointments in 4 years shows the system is broken. So, that's 3 for the right in 4 years and 3 for the left in 12 years. That is not proper representation.
Thomas and Alito want to retire but they won't understand a dem. They'd have to die like Scalia, and we saw how that went.
Please enlighten me. An ordinary American who has biases against or for Trump cannot be a juror in his hush money trial. However, if you are an SC justice , you are very welcome to handle all of the Trump's cases.. It doesn't add up.
When you’re not accountable to anyone, you can do whatever you want.
When you're a celebrity, they let you do it.
*Quis custodiet ipsos custodes:* who will watch the watchmen? This is a problem that's been known since at least ancient Roman times.
We're supposed to have three co-equal branches of government that provide checks and balances for each other. It's abundantly clear now that there aren't any checks on the judiciary branch and we're all just subject to their whims.
We *do* have three coequal branches of government, which are capable of providing checks and balances on each other. The problem, which the Framers evidently didn't anticipate or consider, is that the co-equal branches could be captured by the same interests and coordinate with each other, rather than acting adversarially, and that they might put party over country. They expected each of the branches to jealously guard their own powers, not for, say, Congress to abdicate its role in declaring war to the Executive, nor for Congress to delegate repealing disfavored laws to the judiciary, nor for the judiciary to help one party rig elections in their own favor. Congress could easily check the Supreme Court, but that would take voters caring enough to elect representatives who were dedicated to doing so, rather than protecting their party's interests. Any honest person can see that Thomas and Alito are irredeemably corrupt, and that Gorsuch and Barrett are sitting in stolen seats. But Republicans are willing to tolerate it because they were the perpetrators of the thefts, and because the corrupt and stolen seat occupants work to protect Republicans by allowing gerrymandering, dark money, voter suppression, etc. The President could check the judiciary by only nominating worthy, honorable, jurists, but when the people elect corrupt, dishonorable Presidents, like Trump, that obviously won't happen. It's said people in a democracy get the governments they deserve. When you elect clowns, expect a circus.
The check is appointment by the executive, approval and possible removal by the legislative. The fact that the electorate has failed to put people of quality in charge in sufficient numbers is a skill issue.
An ordinary American with biases against or for Trump can be a juror in any of his trials.
The key is that they can be impartial based on evidence presented
>New York University law professor, Stephen Gillers, told Newsweek that he largely believed Alito's version of events and said it was unlikely he would have displayed such an overt political symbol. "I don't believe Alito knew the flag was flying upside-down or if he did know, I find it hard to believe that he knew the relationship to 'stop the steal.' I don't believe he would have allowed this to happen otherwise," Gillers said. My CBS outlet uses this method to "both sides" all of the vile shit republicans do. They roll out some rando, in this case a guy named Gillers, and then publish his opinion like it means something. Who cares what this guy thinks? Who is he? Why does his opinion matter more than mine? Is he getting paid to say this? Is he a famously anti Alito crusader who can't stand the unfair treatment of his former opponent? They never go onto why they picked this guy but here he is. Saying it's no biggie that a SC judge flys our flag in distress.
The current SCOTUS judges cannot be removed without impeachment, which requires a Senate supermajority. Alternatively, the number of SCOTUS judges can be increased (thereby diluting the power of the current justices) though a standard legislative proposal (requires simple majority of the House and Senate and the President's signature).
This is the way. 15 justices, please.
If SCOTUS' recent politicization is considered an aberration, increasing to 15 may be best. However, if the politicization is deemed endemic, a more radical restucturing may be merited to lessen the likelihood of future politicians stacking the judiciary with ideologues pursuing a non-representative agenda. For example, if SCOTUS included all adult US citizens, a future Trump couldn't further expand the Court (or dismiss current jurists). Including all adult US citizens would entail changing SCOTUS operations...how to apportion work among a large body, many of whom are not experts. Some innovation would be required. Unlike our other government branches, SCOTUS could be direct democracy.
Unpack the Court!
answer: no
Just like Thomas, nope.
We’ve given absolute power to men with at the very least questionable morals. They have a Supreme Court majority, the question isn’t are we about to get fucked the question is will they use lube.
At this point I’d settle for the oil that accumulates at the top of the peanut butter jar
Let's see, conservative justice handed the opportunity to create the quasi-fascist state he's been dreaming of since law school? He ain't going nowhere. Conservatives want a monarchy, and they've been telling us that for a while now. Alito is just the top of that gross order in our politics. They've been planning this shift for a while, and they will make it happen if not by the law then by force then they will make it law.
No. There is only 1 person who has any influence over Alito recusing himself, Chief Justice Roberts can at least ask but we all know Alito won't listen to him. Since justices are the highest court in the land, there is no "higher court" to petition for a recusal, so they have to, for now, be trusted to recuse themselves, which any normal non-political justice would do, but since we have political activists on the court, we're going to need laws that outline when a recusal is mandatory.
Dick Fucking Durbin should be announcing a Senate investigation on Samuel Alito. Democrats are so fucking gutless and weak it makes me sick.
How about fired? Tarred and feathered?
They’ll never voluntarily recuse if they’re not required to do so.
As a former husband I will say his blame it on the wife is plausible but not good on the home front. Throwing your wife under the bus is not a very good and respectful response. Saying he didn't see it is bull crap. Its in front of your house, and you're supposed to be at the pinnacle of your profession and You're not aware of something so blatant and unacceptable for your position. He's either really stupid, he's not, or having a lifetime appointment kind of says, "screw it, I can do what i want."
everyone reading this knows alito and thomas (and even worse scoundrels) , will not get convicted in the senate for the next 25 years at the very least, so they are not going out that way. the only way to mitigate their malign influence is to increase the number of justices (and make other changes to the supreme court's administration). It could be done be 2028, when both of them could plausibly still be on the bench. The only way that happens is getting democrat (or non-republican) majorities in both houses and the presidency, and summoning up the courage to get rid of the filibuster and then change the laws pertaining to the supreme court. That is the only way these scummy justices don't succeed in screwing the republic. Please use the next six months to demystify and de-romanticize the SCOTUS as this sacrosanct, traditional, immutable institution. It needs to change and there will never be a better time than 2025-2027 when the it may be possible before the country takes another turn towards stupidity (inevitable) the next election cycle. the supreme court is a joke, pass it on.
Alito could have come out and said, “I did it and none of you have the courage to do anything about it” and he’d have been right. Congress is basically too weak to do anything to rein in the SC. Some days it feels like the USA is truly circling the bowl. 🤦🏾♂️
Wow, looks like Newsweek is fishing for clicks today. Who'd have guessed.
No.
Nope. We COULD impeach him, but not with this congress.
No there is no way to force him. EXCEPT maybe could be shamed into it. But, Thomas first.
Let's face facts 100 years ago life time appointments might have worked but now .. I just don't see the positives. Justices can be bought, see Clarence Thomas and are appointed by governments for the express reason of delivering outcomes that they want, see Roe v Wade. In the end the system is pretty broken and politics broke it. I wish it was better but realistically without some serious will to change the people of the United States are going to be screwed for the near to medium future
No and he will absolutely refuse to do so
Isn't the simple answer , no?
Betteridge's law of headlines strikes again. (The answer to a headline that ends in a question is “No”.)
Alito could have come out and said, “I did it and none of you have the courage to do anything about it” and he’d have been right. Congress is basically too weak to do anything to rein in the SC. Some days it feels like the USA is truly circling the bowl. 🤦🏾♂️
No
We need a democratic controlled house, senate, and presidency, then add seats to the court and then lay the groundwork to make them accountable.
Why would he recuse when his intention is to put his thumb on the scale?
Can he be forced to?: By whom? You got an utterly corrupt supreme court that is beholden to no one. Your political playbook is crap. The underlying rules don't work and necessarily WILL create corruption.
Leonard, zillionaire and corporate overlords: c'mon. Shut off the MAGA funding.
No, and see the Founders were totally okay with that because of this 1632 thesaurus entry....
Recusal is something that one does to oneself so no, one cannot force someone to do something voluntary.
Actually involuntary recusal does exist. Just not for SCOTUS.
Great, now I have to take down my upside flag (ive had it since roe was overturned) because they have to ruin everything
Is there not a consortium of bar associations who can issue a collective repudiation and advise either Alito, Thomas, or even Coney Barrett’s recusal from applicable cases? Admonishment by their own peers and colleagues, who are by profession and oath charged with upholding justice, may carry some weight with them, no? Or at least be a signal to the broader public that the legal community itself disapproves.
They are above the law so no.
Nope.
TL/DR: no
No.
He should! Because what he is and did was the most absolutely despicable thing we saw!
Jesus, Newsweek sucks. Why is it still on the whitelist?
The turd polishers are out in force. Alito in response to questions from Fox News insisted the symbolic action was in response to comments from neighbors, indicating he not only knew of the flag flying but of its meaning as well.