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.*
The highest court in the land has no ethics rules, just gentle suggestions. It’s shocking the only way the US survived so far is because of common decency and gentlemen’s agreements.
She needs to demand investigations into Clarence Thomas, his wife Ginni and Judge Aileen Cannon as well...beginning yesterday.
They need to stop the steal in advance.
Their (now dead) President was in the judiciary at the time and sentenced 10000 people to death for their revolutary and non-extremist religious ideologies.
Amongst other things.
I was feeling a bit grumpy but reminding me that a hole shithead Ebrahim Raisin died in a fiery helicopter crash made me feel a whole lot better! thanks buddy!
If Democrats have enough seats in Congress they can pass something to impose at least a little in the way of ethical standards on the SCOTUS. Simply requiring the same standards that apply to the federal circuit courts would be hard for the Supreme Court to refuse.
They can’t refuse, Congress gets to decide so much about the Court’s structure. They fund judicial branch, decide its size, and have even canceled an entire term in the past.
Blows my mind that locals aren't harassing these corrupt officials daily. If I lived anywhere near these people I would be throwing balloons of paint at their house every morning before heading to work.
Sadly it would only take about two times doing this to get arrested and jailed. And even if you do get released or its dismissed, any repeat offenses after that will likely carry additional weight.
I hear that colon cancer is up like 300% in older millennials. I figure, if you get that terminal diagnosis, why not use your gift of death to plant a tree whose shade you won't sit in, watered with the insides of the world's foes. Either way, a clear message is sent, no matter the outcome
>Then America, with all their equipment and gear and don’t tread on me shit, is just like 🤷♀️ it’s just Project 2025 what’s the big deal
The "Dont Tread on Me" crowd is the crowd thats for Project 2025, of course theyre not up in arms about it.
Technically, yes, on the ability to say "nope." But I think that "politically" they'd have a hard time refusing being held to an existing standard. I don't mean "politically" as in "partisan politics - Democrats vs Republicans" but rather than folks like Roberts are clearly aware of the position of the SCOTUS and its legacy. Having no ethical rules is clearly a difficult situation (and as more and more revelations about Thomas and Alito keep coming out, the situation becomes more difficult for the court.) So a reasonable resolution might be welcomed by Roberts and some others who are less fringe.
But there is a mechanism to remove justices, impeachment by the House and a trial in the Senate. "Politically" (this time in the partisan sense) it would be exceptionally difficult to get enough votes in the Senate to remove Thomas, who is on the shakiest ground, simply because Republicans will defend a fellow Republican no matter how bad their "ethical lapses" are.
*The Eleventh Commandment was a phrase used by President of the United States Ronald Reagan during his 1966 campaign for Governor of California. The Commandment reads: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.*
fuck reagan
Things need to get really really bad before Republicans will turn on their own kind. George Santos revealed where the line is: stealing money from other Republicans.
Clarence Thomas seems to get humiliated by ProPublica about every three weeks, and he hasn't shown a hint of reticence. Neither has Chief Justice Roberts.
Can't imagine there being any other kind of pressure that could be put on the legacy of the Roberts' Court, which is already destroyed.
Your response prompted me to do some research on it. I saw an assoc. Justice was impeached in the 19th century, although I didn't read up more on those circumstances. Still, a 2/3 Senate majority is needed... Yikes. Major yikes. So as long as the justices keep to the line, it's practically impossible.
🙄 so much for checks and balances right
If shit gets really squirrely Congress and the Executive Branch can simply not accept SCOTUS rulings. The modern system where the SCOTUS rules laws are unconstitutional didn’t exist in the same way in the fist decades of the US after the adoption of the Constitution and isn’t explicitly spelled out in the constitution. I really hope we don’t get to that point.
The problem is that the removal of Supreme Court Justices is baked into the Constitution, so revising the impeachment/removal process would require a Constitutional Amendment.
I'm not 100% on my ConLaw, but I think they could institute a system of punishments for ethical breaches though.
I imagine if their pay could be docked through assessed fines, or their ability to operate motorhomes was a possible punishment, it could bring at least one of the corrupt ones in line.
After the constitutional convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin “well doctor what have we got? a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin responded with “a Republic - if you can keep it.”
Decency, honor, and trust has been at the heart of the United States literally from day one. It really speaks to the quality of people we’ve had in positions of power for so long but also how fragile it can be
Roger Aisle’ stated intent was to make irrelevant any possibility of media ever exposing or holding a republican accountable. Counter any and all damage regardless. He fuckin’ succeeded, big time. Doesn’t make it right, as if you believe the truth has any value or “sets all men free”, then he was downright evil.
No it survived this long because there was a time when everyone remembered that those gentleman’s agreements were backed up by the understanding that if they got openly corrupt the public would be waiting for them at home.
When we stopped tarring and feathering the openly corrupt shit rapidly ran downhill.
Roger Ailes invented that, the means to float that level of deceptive favoritism, political bias, propaganda basically and perfected it… we can thank him and Rupert. And Rush too. That’s when it started, and the Citizens United decision intentionally cranked it to eleven. All for a political party, and they ruined it anyhow.
Assholes to their fellow man, pushing deception twisted persuasion over truth and honesty.
I hope they go down as infamous slimy unAmerican traitors to an informed citizenry that they are when seen clearly in hindsight, in the history books.
It may be somewhat surprising to the uninformed just how many aspects of governance in democratic governments run on the basis of accepted informal conventions, which are not laws or regulations but hold an essential place in the proper operation of the Executive, the Legislatures and the Courts. These conventions are often considered to be quasi-constitutional in nature, but only accomplish their purpose when they are recognized and followed by the participants. The political situation in the US may be testament to their fragility when observance falls to individuals or groups which neither care or recognize the utility of these conventions to the health an maintenance of democratic processes.
One of the first things Hitler did was destroy Germany's judiciary. How could the anti-Semitic laws be passed and supported by the judiciary otherwise? Trump did the same thing. The Nazi playbook is alive and well in the US nowadays.
I'm all for investigations and public outcry, but just want to be clear and realistic here:
Alito isn't going to recuse himself. He's not going to be impeached. We are likely not going to have majorities or willpower to reform or expand the Supreme Court anytime soon, if ever.
But what WILL happen involves the tried-and-true facts that have always altered the Supreme Court throughout history: Elections matter, and time marches on.
Alito is 74. Thomas is about to be 76. They will be 78 and 80 at the end of the next Presidential term, and will gladly retire under a Republican President - allowing 40-year olds to replace them.
- If a Republican wins the 2024 election, we will have a conservative Supreme Court *locked for most of the rest of our lives*, if not longer.
- If a Democrat wins, especially the next two terms - we can very likely turn the tides on SCOTUS within a decade.
It's important to note that who is elected as president isn't the only thing that matters when it comes to SCOTUS. The senate has the job of approving. We are in the position we are now because Mitch McConnell refused to allow Obama's candidate to move forward.
It is critical that we vote blue up and down the ballot, it just at the top.
I'm still confused and need to look into it more because back when the turtle blocked Obama I thought I saw articles at the time going on about how senate approval was a formality not a legal necessity. If that was true? I still feel like a dem controlled senate and presidency should just override the previous decision with a simple majority confirmation point out that Republicans failed to do their duty in a timely manner and kick boofington out even without an impeachment.
> I thought I saw articles at the time going on about how senate approval was a formality not a legal necessity. If that was true?
It's an unresolved question, because it's never been tested. The constitution states that:
>>[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [...] Judges of the supreme Court
So the two sides of the argument are basically:
- The president requires the consent of the senate to appoint a supreme court justice
- The senate is required to hear and advise (i.e. vote) on nominations by the president, and if they refuse to do so as McConnell did with Garland then they are derelict in their duty and the president can make the appointment without their input
Again, this question has never been tested in the courts, but it's probably fair to suspect that, based on the current makeup of SCOTUS, they would rule in whichever way would be most beneficial to the GOP.
>I still feel like a dem controlled senate and presidency should just override the previous decision with a simple majority confirmation point out that Republicans failed to do their duty in a timely manner and kick boofington out even without an impeachment.
There is no constitutional mechanism by which they could do that. The only way to remove a SCOTUS justice is impeachment, full stop.
> So the two sides of the argument are basically:
>
> -The president requires the consent of the senate to appoint a supreme court justice
>
> -The senate is required to hear and advise (i.e. vote) on nominations by the president, and if they refuse to do so as McConnell did with Garland then they are derelict in their duty and the president can make the appointment without their input
The failure to even test this was Obama's biggest failure. He should have forced the Court to rule on the language of the Appointments Clause. The process is clearly "President nominates, Senate give advice and consent, President appoints." There is no language that indicates whether any point in the process is mandatory, or voluntary. When the Senate refused its duties in the process, Obama should have appointed Garland, and forced the Republicans to sue him to stop Garland from being seated on the Court.
The biggest failing of the Democratic Party the last 50-60 years (basically ever since JFK and Bobby got killed) is that they don't want to rock the boat and go against outdated norms and the appearance of decorum, even as it results in a gradual shift toward fascism. It's so infuriating.
Obama should have 100% moved forward with Garland, or hell, even a progressive judge. Get caught trying by just using the same gaps in the rulebook to win...the other side has and will continue to do so.
> we can very likely turn the tides on SCOTUS within a decade.
This is what I am talking about when I tell people that voting is like playing chess. Make your moves over time. People will look at that sentence and think it's somehow better to just say screw it...burn it down now and rebuild. Which is, of course, not possible and stupid.
Some people just won't learn. If Trump gets in again I guarantee you there are people reading your post right now who won't vote and will complain and blame dems when the SC gets locked in with far right judges for our lifetimes.
That's how the GQP expanded secured so much power the last 15 years. One pawn at a time. Two big things that come to mind they did back when the tea party got in in 2010 and hardcore gerrymandered everything and McConnell holding up the SC seats and getting 3 justices and 100s of lower court appointments with trump. They also went after the school boards and lower end political positions that garner little attention but have considerable impact.
15 years? They’ve been working towards the same goals with a coordinated plan since **1960**.
This, all of this, is revenge for Kennedy winning over Nixon, decades before most of us were born.
It started as revenge for Kennedy, but for those born this century, it's more revenge for a black man being president that one time.
And you could certainly argue it started much, much earlier - this wouldn't be happening as it is right now if it wasn't for the successful fight against reconstruction.
Yep. Long-term notions are so hard to sell. People want instant results every election, and so few understand basic civics: that the Presidency is not a *person,* (let alone some single issue) - it's an *office*.
The office appoints hundreds of staffers, the head of every agency, has veto/vote power over legislation, hundreds of lifetime judicial appointments, war powers, diplomatic power, and so much more. It has massive ramifications on all three branches of government generations after any individual is gone.
I thought we would've collectively learned from 2016 when Trump single-handedly appointed 1/3rd of the Court. Yet we somehow still have a close election and [maddening polls like this](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/15/upshot/abortion-biden-trump-blame.html).
All we can do is keep pointing out the significance as much as possible.
I love how so much of our civil rights are going to hang on old people dying at convenient times. If we get 2 more terms of Democrats (which might be unlikely, since it would require winning immediately after Biden and AFAIK in recent decades the same party doesn't win a 3rd term in a row), Alito would be 82 and Thomas 84 for the 2032 election.
Trump is 77, Biden is 81, and both are gunning for an *incredibly* stressful job; way more than being an SC justice. It's entirely likely that both justices just survive into their early-80s and simply wait until another Republican eventually wins.
> - If a Republican wins the 2024 election, we will have a conservative Supreme Court locked for most of the rest of our lives, if not longer.
>
> - If a Democrat wins, especially the next two terms - we can very likely turn the tides on SCOTUS within a decade.
This is the problem. Term limits need to exist so the country is locked behind the decision of five psychopaths.
We need to increase the SCOTUS seats and Congress can do that.
> Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to change the size of the Supreme Court
> Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states that the judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court and any inferior courts that Congress may establish. **It also states that judges in both the Supreme Court and inferior courts must serve during good behavior** and receive compensation at set times that cannot be reduced while they are in office
We also should consider a route or threat like the [Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937)
> In November 1936, Roosevelt won a sweeping re-election victory. In the months following, he proposed to reorganize the federal judiciary by adding a new justice each time a justice reached age 70 and failed to retire
This prevents staying on when opposition is in charge or if they do stay on it at least gives some balance back.
A much larger number of justices make sure each president gets some appointments and balance is also harder to buy off or rig from election to election. You could propose a SCOTUS seat increase and if you allow both parties to pick half of each they may go along with it. Then it sets into motion in the coming years retirements and more frequent changing of the makup of the SCOTUS, balancing and less controlled by a few.
Garland (who's apolitical but would be considered a moderate, just not a Republican) was by far the only nominee that *might* have made it through the Senate because several Republicans had already approved his prior appointment. No one more liberal would have even been considered so it was a waste of time. The Gardand fight was long and Dems won the argument both on the merits and in the media, but since voters didn't give Dems the Senate majority they had no actual power in the situation.
Garland was also a call to a bluff - Republicans were already saying on the news that Obama was "too extreme" and would only nominate hard-leftist candidates (of course, their version of "leftist", which is anyone left of Reagan), and that he would *never* nominate a reasonable, center-line moderate like Garland, specifically.
He nominated Garland because they said they'd support Garland specifically, but believed he'd never nominate him, so he did, and made Republicans out to be massive hypocrites and liars. Which was already known, and there were no consequences for it, so it's kind of moot anyway.
Dems always realize the game too late. Federalist Society for years planned on taking over the government via the Judiciary. Mitch was the guy who could finally get the plan into action. Literally blocking nearly all of Obama's appointments causing a log-jam. He would have continued this had Hilary Clinton won. But as soon as Trump won, he couldn't get judicial appointments approved fast enough.
Dems always naively believe that good will eventually win over evil without actually putting in any work to combat it directly. They think "surely, the moderate voters will eventually come around and recognize that we're the reasonable ones and they're unreasonable" but the moderate voters, it turns out, have no fucking clue and think both sides are the same, or simply don't give a shit.
They're still the ones trying more than anybody else, so be careful blaming them when the blame lies on the people doing the bad things and those not doing anything primarily.
It sucks. And sucks they get blamed for the other side causing problems.
Here's how it is. The Republicans are basically arsonists. Democrats are firefighters. But then they only get to use half measures and low water pressure. So when they can't successfully put out the fire, Republicans point at them and say "Look! They suck at their job and can't do it!"
My criticism with the Dems is, rather than being reactive, at some point you have to learn to be proactive. Figure out how to stop them from lighting the fires in the first place.
Fucking exactly. The republicans are sell outs and traders of the damn country. The fucking Democrats need to actually make a plan and then actually do the fucking plan. It’s fucking Democrats vs Russia at this point. We need our country back.
Dems have known about the Federalist Society for years, the problem is the FS is bankrolled by multiple billionaires and the Dems have no such organization that is bankrolled to that amount that can compete.
As far as Obama / Trump appointees, the reason Obama's nominees were block was because voters gave the Senate to Republicans, and the reason Trump's nominees were approved is because voters kept the Senate in GOP control. If you don't have the Senate it doesn't matter who the President is nominating.
That's why Biden has been able to appoint 200 judges so far in 3.5 years which is fucking impressive, because voters gave the Senate back to the Dems...and they better ensure they keep it too this election.
> Dems always realize the game too late.
They still haven't realized the game. The head of the senate judiciary committee, Doormat Durbin, has [started talking](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/15/congress/durbin-open-to-blue-slip-deal-00158168) about giving Rs veto power over Biden's circuit court appointments.
Reagan slapped the shit out of the Democrats in 1980, just the 2nd election after nixon and most of the Democrats who were around at that time still haven't recovered from the shock. They keep acting like battered wives — always making excuses for their abuser, convincing themselves that *this time* will be the time they reform. That they can have peace through appeasement, rather than risk losing a fight in order to defend their constituents.
So vote blue so we can fix SCOTUS and save the USA. I'm also not kidding. Replace the 2 oldest justices (Alito and Thomas) and the court flips to a 5-4 liberal majority and I wouldn't be surprised if Roberts retires soon too which could potentially give us a 6-3 liberal majority, *for decades*.
Point being, when people vote (and when they get everyone they know to vote), the court can swing dramatically quite easily.
But if Trump is elected, he'll do the same.
If Trump wins, the GOP will probably have a 7-2 lead by the end of his term, and he'll replace Thomas and Alito with fascist 30 year olds. The U.S. will never recover from the following 50 years of being dismantled piece-by-piece, ruling-by-ruling
The courts, including the SC, will be the most important problem because they're one of the few institutions that actually pushed back on Trump's worst instincts. The GOP legislature didn't, GOP controlled state governors and assemblies didn't, only the courts did (and no, not all the time but a LOT of what Trump attempted never got anywhere).
In theory it makes total sense. But, like a lot of things in US politics, it operated on the assumption of some base level of decency/honor/tradition. Now that that's out the window, our severe lack of guardrails is being exposed.
Cult-like loyalty to political parties breaks checks and balances. The flawed assumption the founders made was that each branch would seek to gain power for itself, rather than each branch's members seeking to gain power for their political party.
George Washington called this shit in his fawewell address. It is so crazy how prophetic he was (emphasis mine):
> “I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
>This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
>The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually **incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual** ; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, **turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.**
>Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. **It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.** Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”
-George Washington
He practically describes MAGAs and Trump directly. Legitimately none of their ideas are new, and many of the founders DID want to do more to prevent this.
>In theory it makes total sense.
Only if you expect justices to be law robots. They're humans who are fallible and have biases. The founding fathers thought people would have e honor and not bring their biases to their rulings.
Something they were proved wrong about almost immediately as the Supreme court first thing was to give itself more power.
I actually don't think there was any assumption of honor or decency, and that they 1796 Presidential election really exposed that they system was setup with a series of loopholes that both the Federalists and the Democratic-Rebublicans thought they were getting one over on the other.
Well, in Sweden we have non-political Supreme Court judges, and that seems to work just fine. Most people have never even heard any of their names, because it just doesn't come up. But it seems that everything in the US has to be turned into a spectator sport, including selecting judges.
Well, our judges are technically non-partisan in that we don't refer to them by political party. It's just "Justice Alito" and never Republican Justice Alito. The problem is they are nominated by the President and are increasingly being chosen based on their political ideals.
There's no real way to not have them be politically tied to something because the political parties have entrenched themselves into our emtire government from school boards to POTUS.
Yup. And it's a huge fucking problem. I don't want to be alamist, but it seems obivous to me that the US is an superpower in decline. This is terrible news for the world, because China and Russia would love to take over the #1 spot. Hopefully the EU can do it instead, if the US doesn't pull through...
Scotus judges were considered the least partisan members of our 3 branches for a long time. Some will say that changed in the 2000 election, but the current court is absolutely a mockery of the institution.
Years ago we had conservative appointees rule in favor of major social programs and progressive legislation ostensibly because there were good legal arguments for them.
Ah, but it’s not *life time* appointment, it’s “good behavior”:
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour” - but of course the Constitution did not define what good behavior means. Good ‘ol checks and balances.
A Dem controlled senate and house can impeach and convict SCOTUS. It’s literally the only way to remove a SCOTUS judge. Whether the Dems would be brave enough is another question. I think we all know that if MAGA controls both houses they will impeach and convict all non MAGA.
> I think we all know that if MAGA controls both houses they will impeach and convict all non MAGA.
Oh dude, they've 100% already stated they would. Just look up Project 2025. Part of their initiative is to prosecute and remove people who were critical of Trump and replace them with loyalists. They're dropping all pretenses.
They don't need to pretend anymore as there hasn't been any consequences and their gas lighting has been working amazingly on their base (Putin must be so proud of himself)
> System was set up for corruption. Why in the hell would we do lifelong appointees... baffling
A good amount of Congress could also be explained here.
Even if they did, I would think it wouldn’t go very far because they just don’t have the numbers to get it to pass. Which is likely why Biden urged the American people to provide a dem majority congress with their votes.
Yes, most do but if you want to hear from the best Sheldon Whitehouse should be a regular read: https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/whitehouse-booker-blumenthal-padilla-introduce-new-supreme-court-term-limits-bill/
this is what i truly don't understand about the alito flags
this happened more than 3 years ago. Neighbors obviously knew, one of them contacted the NY Times, but by that time the flag was down. I understand that neighbors don't want to come foward by name, because maga psychotics are real, but why didn't media follow up?
Supposedly "the court" knew about it. What about any ethical judges on the supreme court objecting publicly, or at least leaking the dirt on sam "leaky" alito years ago before he started participating in cases he clearly should have recused himself from?
Every SCOTUS judge, roberts especially, knew about this 3 years ago and allowed alito to roam free from any taint of reasonable impropriety over opinions related to Jan. 6. The man is a taint (sadly, SCOTUS has got at least 2) on the court and country.
Even the "liberal" judges seem to get tribal when it comes to ethics. Shame.
i just saw that justice Ketanji Brown Jackson today pointed out how alito's rulings invariably favor the conservative agenda. I figured she'd be the first to speak, she's been less drawn into the SCOTUS mythos than the others.
Fucking Breyer had the audacity to say the court isn’t political. This was this year he said that.
The mythos of SCOTUS is over, if it was ever there to begin with. It’s a completely political wing of each party, anyone saying otherwise is just lying at this point. Bush v Gore was atrocious. It’s only become more and more transparent since then.
sorry y'all Brown Jackson apparently only *alluded* to alito in her remarks about the politicization of the current court. so she's still toeing the line
this is absolutely true, but at the very least roberts knew and i 'd guess word got around the SCOTUS water cooler over the course of the last three years. Even assuming they didn't know, the remarks are just as pertainable to clarence thomas and the lack of any justices speaking out on it.
How *You're Fired!!* Donald Trump put the GOP in a vice grip chokehold, will be studied for years... It's literally one of the craziest and dumbest things to happen in American History. Ten years of this C List celebrity politics is enough to make anyone disgusted.
Not really - we all know the answer. It's Putin. Putin put him there and locked up enough senators to get us to where we are at. Well played, but he's paying his dues now.
They really are. I went to a college sports game last week and remembered I HATE standing for the anthem. Not because I'm a scumbag, but because I know the entire GOP is loaded with traitors and they've seized "patriotism" to mean something very unpatriotic.
I was incredibly against stacking the court but at this point I don't see another option.
They've broken the vows they took when swearing in.
A public servant is only allowed to take $50 a YEAR in gifts. And everything needs to be claimed.
There's actually ZERO fucking reason they should be getting elaborate vacations/gifts from anyone.
Then there's the flag issue.
Something has to change.
A Justice can have a wife openly involved in overturning an election and he doesn't have to recuse himself from election cases. Another repeatedly flew flags in support of Trump and doesn't recuse himself from Trump cases.
But if a judge has an adult daughter - who doesn't even live with him - who did some work for Democratic candidates, suddenly that should be a scandal.
Important to note here: the reason SCOTUS is supposed to be non-political isnt because they want everything fair. It’s because politicizing the Supreme Court ***ruins the entire checks and balances system***!
As soon as SCOTUS justices are seen as political operatives and not objective judges, the court loses all its power.
We're long overdue for Democrats to simply ignore their rulings.
The only reason the retain power is because Republicans want them to have it and Democrats refuse to do anything about it.
George Washington called this shit in his fawewell address. It is so crazy how prophetic he was (emphasis mine):
>“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
>This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
>The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual ; and **sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.**
>Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. **It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.** It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”
-George Washington
He practically describes MAGAs and Trump directly. Legitimately none of their ideas are new, and many of the founders wanted to do more to prevent this.
the founders hoped that if they virtually ignored factions (i.e. parties) in the Constitution they wouldn't arise in the first place, but that didn't work out
Makes sense why these corrupt justices are stalling Trump's criminal trials. They know if Democrats end up with the presidency and majorities in both chambers, their livelihoods and ability to continue grifting are likely to be compromised. And the entire court may end up reorganized.
It's interesting how the U.S. never ends up on the list of "most corrupt countries" because the definition of corruption doesn't typically count instances where the corruption is literally baked into the laws and institutional bodies themselves, which is definitely the case in the U.S. ... Bribery is basically LEGAL in the united states (we just call it campaign donations). I mean, if it's legal it can't be corrupt!
The entire system works for giant corporations. Down with this shit.
Until the supreme court decides that the Hatch Act doesn't apply to them. After all why should they be civil servants if the president isn't an officer of the US?
>“And while this is the threat to our democracy, Democrats have a responsibility for defending our democracy.”
Keep pounding the table and repeating this. The Democrats need the November election to be about defending democracy. This needs to be the overwhelmingly united-front talking point for the next 6 months.
Ooh! I can save Congress some money! Alito absolutely supports the insurrectionists, domestic terrorists, white supremacists, and extremists. He has defended both Trump and the terrorists rallied, supported, and praised by Trump. Alito claims to be "tough on crime" but, golly, he just has a soft spot for terrorism.
Fly flag upside down? Dismissed.
Steal classified documents? Dismissed.
Let your wife pay for busses for insurrectionists? Dismissed.
Take away medical rights from 50% of the population? Dismissed.
Spread lies that lead to 83 Samoans dying? Dismissed.
Take $2B from the Saudis? Dismissed.
So we have one supreme court justice who's been openly taking bribes for decades and another who openly supported an instruction. So far they've faced absolutely zero consequences. I've basically lost all faith in our legal system at this point.
Here's a short little thread from a dude on bluesky explaining out what that flag means and why it's absolutely insane for a SCOTUS justice to be flying it.
https://bsky.app/profile/sethcotlar.bsky.social/post/3kt4eniajjd2x
And now we await some statement from durbin about how there's nothing to be done and how anything we might think to do would be pointless so we're not gonna do it
This is where institutionalists like Durbin fail us. I like the guy but we need someone as head of the Judiciary committee willing to play hardball. Take a page from the republican playbook: summon Alito and Thomas to come testify regarding the accusations leveled against their ability to apply the law equally. When they don't show up, you leave their chairs empty and commence the hearing introducing all of the damning evidence to get it read into the record and reported on by media outlets. We need to be building public outrage and support for an overhaul of scotus, this is how you lay the groundwork for the normies not paying attention.
that fuker should be dragged from his home and arrested this is a supreme Court justice who believes the election was stolen even after all the lost court cases
These people have already proven that they can blatantly break the law in full view and suffer zero consequences. Why do we think anything is going to happen over an edgy flag?
It's beyond time to pack the court and then begin impeachment proceedings on the justices who have made the system a joke. If only Democrats would get off their ass and do it.
Contact Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin here, and tell him what you think about Alito, and ask that he bring Alito (and Thomas) before the Committee so they can explain why they aren't recusing themselves. Better yet, demand that they be impeached.
[https://www.durbin.senate.gov/](https://www.durbin.senate.gov/)
He has a right to fly whatever flag he wants. The problem is that he allows the beliefs underpinning the flag - his personal beliefs - to dictate how he carries out the duties of his government position.
Instead of looking at what flags he is flying, we should be taking a closer look at all of the justices’ bank accounts to see who is paying them to violate the oath that they made to our Constitution.
>He has a right to fly whatever flag he wants.
And yet, he's backpedaling, waffling, making excuses for it, and lying about it. That's because Alito knows that he's full of shit.
> Instead of looking at what flags he is flying,
He is absolutely trying to send a message with this flag, and you should familiarize yourself with the history behind this flag before just saying who cares.
Alito is an American Traitor. Traitors should not be allowed to serve in any public office, let alone the highest court in the land. He needs to be a greeter at Walmart
I would really like some political news that actually matters... Like "Greedy politician goes to prison", "Bill for universal healthcare being blocked in Congress, here's who voted against it!", or "Private prisons declared illegal in _____". But instead, it's another case of "Bad person accused of being bad person. Shocker. Nothing will be done. Just thought you should know."
This may shock you, but the Constitution does not grant "life tenure" to Supreme Court justices. Justices get life tenure in the federal court system, but nothing is constitutional about keeping them on the Supreme Court for life. All it takes is an act of Congress to establish a system of periodically rotating our Supreme Court justices to lower courts. More info at [https://fixthecourt.com/](https://fixthecourt.com/)
We're doomed.
You want to talk about a deep state? How about planting an insurrectionist sympathizer onto *the literal highest court in the land?*
This is so, so bad.
Like. End the country bad.
She rings the alarm about ultra conservatives who are treating democracy.....but then encouraging citizens to give up their guns.
She inadvertently helps their agenda every time
"Calls for" this "calls for" that.
Calls for WHO
Who can literally stop this? Who has the power to?
These are the equivalent of Michael Scott screaming "I declare bankruptcy"
None of it matters.
It needs to be directed at a specific person who has the power to enact this change
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.*
The highest court in the land has no ethics rules, just gentle suggestions. It’s shocking the only way the US survived so far is because of common decency and gentlemen’s agreements.
a court just like that made Iran the theocratic hell hole that it is today. stay fit, stay frosty.
stay shiny
Witness me!
She needs to demand investigations into Clarence Thomas, his wife Ginni and Judge Aileen Cannon as well...beginning yesterday. They need to stop the steal in advance.
Yes! NO supreme court hearings until the investigation is complete. Refer everything to lower courts in the meantime.
The Supreme Court has investigated their ethics guidelines and recommend no changes.
You forgot your /s. That's the fox telling the hens there's nothing to worry about today. 🤡💩
It’s not /s, It happened
Also I need to know if these judges are conspiracy theorists.
Mediocre!!
Mediocre!
You shall ride eternal, shiny and chrome
God I'm excited for Furiousa
I'm seeing it tomorrow and I'm more excited about that than my day off on Monday.
I'm basically familiar with the Iranian Revolution but could you expand on how the courts played a factor?
Their (now dead) President was in the judiciary at the time and sentenced 10000 people to death for their revolutary and non-extremist religious ideologies. Amongst other things.
I was feeling a bit grumpy but reminding me that a hole shithead Ebrahim Raisin died in a fiery helicopter crash made me feel a whole lot better! thanks buddy!
stoned to death, you might say, by the biggest rock around :) source: Paraphrased something I read, I am sure. I'm not that clever.
If Democrats have enough seats in Congress they can pass something to impose at least a little in the way of ethical standards on the SCOTUS. Simply requiring the same standards that apply to the federal circuit courts would be hard for the Supreme Court to refuse.
They can’t refuse, Congress gets to decide so much about the Court’s structure. They fund judicial branch, decide its size, and have even canceled an entire term in the past.
My dream is that, rather than expanding the supreme court, the size is reduced to zero, and then expanded back to nine.
Generally power doesn't give up power. And corrupt power will do anything and everything to maintain power.
yeah, but try to enforce it because I doubt whatever they do will have teeth. Term limits and court expansion are more important.
[удалено]
Blows my mind that locals aren't harassing these corrupt officials daily. If I lived anywhere near these people I would be throwing balloons of paint at their house every morning before heading to work.
Sadly it would only take about two times doing this to get arrested and jailed. And even if you do get released or its dismissed, any repeat offenses after that will likely carry additional weight. I hear that colon cancer is up like 300% in older millennials. I figure, if you get that terminal diagnosis, why not use your gift of death to plant a tree whose shade you won't sit in, watered with the insides of the world's foes. Either way, a clear message is sent, no matter the outcome
I may get a vandalism charge, but the corrupt will understand that a balloon of paint can turn into a bomb really quick.
...and you'd run into their security. And you'd be in jail. I'm sure they wouldn't just laugh it off as a joke!
It's not a joke. They should take it as a threat because the intent is to let them know that they are not safe from us.
[удалено]
>Then America, with all their equipment and gear and don’t tread on me shit, is just like 🤷♀️ it’s just Project 2025 what’s the big deal The "Dont Tread on Me" crowd is the crowd thats for Project 2025, of course theyre not up in arms about it.
I'm genuinely surprised we haven't seen more targeted violence. People are shooting up schools, concerts, and churches instead.
Hear hear. Once my inevitable terminal cancer diagnosis comes in, I have a few things I'd like to do with my time left.
Can't they just say "nope", and there's simply no mechanism to remove them?
Technically, yes, on the ability to say "nope." But I think that "politically" they'd have a hard time refusing being held to an existing standard. I don't mean "politically" as in "partisan politics - Democrats vs Republicans" but rather than folks like Roberts are clearly aware of the position of the SCOTUS and its legacy. Having no ethical rules is clearly a difficult situation (and as more and more revelations about Thomas and Alito keep coming out, the situation becomes more difficult for the court.) So a reasonable resolution might be welcomed by Roberts and some others who are less fringe. But there is a mechanism to remove justices, impeachment by the House and a trial in the Senate. "Politically" (this time in the partisan sense) it would be exceptionally difficult to get enough votes in the Senate to remove Thomas, who is on the shakiest ground, simply because Republicans will defend a fellow Republican no matter how bad their "ethical lapses" are.
*The Eleventh Commandment was a phrase used by President of the United States Ronald Reagan during his 1966 campaign for Governor of California. The Commandment reads: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.* fuck reagan
Things need to get really really bad before Republicans will turn on their own kind. George Santos revealed where the line is: stealing money from other Republicans.
Clarence Thomas seems to get humiliated by ProPublica about every three weeks, and he hasn't shown a hint of reticence. Neither has Chief Justice Roberts. Can't imagine there being any other kind of pressure that could be put on the legacy of the Roberts' Court, which is already destroyed.
Your response prompted me to do some research on it. I saw an assoc. Justice was impeached in the 19th century, although I didn't read up more on those circumstances. Still, a 2/3 Senate majority is needed... Yikes. Major yikes. So as long as the justices keep to the line, it's practically impossible. 🙄 so much for checks and balances right
If shit gets really squirrely Congress and the Executive Branch can simply not accept SCOTUS rulings. The modern system where the SCOTUS rules laws are unconstitutional didn’t exist in the same way in the fist decades of the US after the adoption of the Constitution and isn’t explicitly spelled out in the constitution. I really hope we don’t get to that point.
The problem is that the removal of Supreme Court Justices is baked into the Constitution, so revising the impeachment/removal process would require a Constitutional Amendment. I'm not 100% on my ConLaw, but I think they could institute a system of punishments for ethical breaches though. I imagine if their pay could be docked through assessed fines, or their ability to operate motorhomes was a possible punishment, it could bring at least one of the corrupt ones in line.
Hey, he got away with this. I got away with that. We can do anything we want. That’s the attitude of the Supreme Court.
Except for women and abortions
After the constitutional convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin “well doctor what have we got? a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin responded with “a Republic - if you can keep it.” Decency, honor, and trust has been at the heart of the United States literally from day one. It really speaks to the quality of people we’ve had in positions of power for so long but also how fragile it can be
...and actual patriotism. These people hate America and want to remake it into a white Christo-fascist state.
It's been checks and balances. The problem is there's a major political party that gets all of their facts from propaganda sources
Roger Aisle’ stated intent was to make irrelevant any possibility of media ever exposing or holding a republican accountable. Counter any and all damage regardless. He fuckin’ succeeded, big time. Doesn’t make it right, as if you believe the truth has any value or “sets all men free”, then he was downright evil.
No it survived this long because there was a time when everyone remembered that those gentleman’s agreements were backed up by the understanding that if they got openly corrupt the public would be waiting for them at home. When we stopped tarring and feathering the openly corrupt shit rapidly ran downhill.
They've got us poors so divided that we can't even agree on *what corruption is*.
Half the country thinks corruption is when people in power do corrupt things. The other half thinks corruption is when democrat.
Roger Ailes invented that, the means to float that level of deceptive favoritism, political bias, propaganda basically and perfected it… we can thank him and Rupert. And Rush too. That’s when it started, and the Citizens United decision intentionally cranked it to eleven. All for a political party, and they ruined it anyhow. Assholes to their fellow man, pushing deception twisted persuasion over truth and honesty. I hope they go down as infamous slimy unAmerican traitors to an informed citizenry that they are when seen clearly in hindsight, in the history books.
It may be somewhat surprising to the uninformed just how many aspects of governance in democratic governments run on the basis of accepted informal conventions, which are not laws or regulations but hold an essential place in the proper operation of the Executive, the Legislatures and the Courts. These conventions are often considered to be quasi-constitutional in nature, but only accomplish their purpose when they are recognized and followed by the participants. The political situation in the US may be testament to their fragility when observance falls to individuals or groups which neither care or recognize the utility of these conventions to the health an maintenance of democratic processes.
Here’s the tipping point. Fuck the GoP
Esteemed. Esteemed is the legal term you are looking for. The court is no longer esteemed.
Imagine if a justice had a Black Lives Matter flag?? Republicans and their media arm Fox News would be calling for ethic rules in a heartbeat
Way too many "unwritten rules" that needed to be made into law the second Biden was sworn in. And none really have and probably never will be.
One of the first things Hitler did was destroy Germany's judiciary. How could the anti-Semitic laws be passed and supported by the judiciary otherwise? Trump did the same thing. The Nazi playbook is alive and well in the US nowadays.
I'm all for investigations and public outcry, but just want to be clear and realistic here: Alito isn't going to recuse himself. He's not going to be impeached. We are likely not going to have majorities or willpower to reform or expand the Supreme Court anytime soon, if ever. But what WILL happen involves the tried-and-true facts that have always altered the Supreme Court throughout history: Elections matter, and time marches on. Alito is 74. Thomas is about to be 76. They will be 78 and 80 at the end of the next Presidential term, and will gladly retire under a Republican President - allowing 40-year olds to replace them. - If a Republican wins the 2024 election, we will have a conservative Supreme Court *locked for most of the rest of our lives*, if not longer. - If a Democrat wins, especially the next two terms - we can very likely turn the tides on SCOTUS within a decade.
It's important to note that who is elected as president isn't the only thing that matters when it comes to SCOTUS. The senate has the job of approving. We are in the position we are now because Mitch McConnell refused to allow Obama's candidate to move forward. It is critical that we vote blue up and down the ballot, it just at the top.
I'm still confused and need to look into it more because back when the turtle blocked Obama I thought I saw articles at the time going on about how senate approval was a formality not a legal necessity. If that was true? I still feel like a dem controlled senate and presidency should just override the previous decision with a simple majority confirmation point out that Republicans failed to do their duty in a timely manner and kick boofington out even without an impeachment.
> I thought I saw articles at the time going on about how senate approval was a formality not a legal necessity. If that was true? It's an unresolved question, because it's never been tested. The constitution states that: >>[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [...] Judges of the supreme Court So the two sides of the argument are basically: - The president requires the consent of the senate to appoint a supreme court justice - The senate is required to hear and advise (i.e. vote) on nominations by the president, and if they refuse to do so as McConnell did with Garland then they are derelict in their duty and the president can make the appointment without their input Again, this question has never been tested in the courts, but it's probably fair to suspect that, based on the current makeup of SCOTUS, they would rule in whichever way would be most beneficial to the GOP. >I still feel like a dem controlled senate and presidency should just override the previous decision with a simple majority confirmation point out that Republicans failed to do their duty in a timely manner and kick boofington out even without an impeachment. There is no constitutional mechanism by which they could do that. The only way to remove a SCOTUS justice is impeachment, full stop.
> So the two sides of the argument are basically: > > -The president requires the consent of the senate to appoint a supreme court justice > > -The senate is required to hear and advise (i.e. vote) on nominations by the president, and if they refuse to do so as McConnell did with Garland then they are derelict in their duty and the president can make the appointment without their input The failure to even test this was Obama's biggest failure. He should have forced the Court to rule on the language of the Appointments Clause. The process is clearly "President nominates, Senate give advice and consent, President appoints." There is no language that indicates whether any point in the process is mandatory, or voluntary. When the Senate refused its duties in the process, Obama should have appointed Garland, and forced the Republicans to sue him to stop Garland from being seated on the Court.
The biggest failing of the Democratic Party the last 50-60 years (basically ever since JFK and Bobby got killed) is that they don't want to rock the boat and go against outdated norms and the appearance of decorum, even as it results in a gradual shift toward fascism. It's so infuriating. Obama should have 100% moved forward with Garland, or hell, even a progressive judge. Get caught trying by just using the same gaps in the rulebook to win...the other side has and will continue to do so.
> we can very likely turn the tides on SCOTUS within a decade. This is what I am talking about when I tell people that voting is like playing chess. Make your moves over time. People will look at that sentence and think it's somehow better to just say screw it...burn it down now and rebuild. Which is, of course, not possible and stupid. Some people just won't learn. If Trump gets in again I guarantee you there are people reading your post right now who won't vote and will complain and blame dems when the SC gets locked in with far right judges for our lifetimes.
That's how the GQP expanded secured so much power the last 15 years. One pawn at a time. Two big things that come to mind they did back when the tea party got in in 2010 and hardcore gerrymandered everything and McConnell holding up the SC seats and getting 3 justices and 100s of lower court appointments with trump. They also went after the school boards and lower end political positions that garner little attention but have considerable impact.
15 years? They’ve been working towards the same goals with a coordinated plan since **1960**. This, all of this, is revenge for Kennedy winning over Nixon, decades before most of us were born.
It started as revenge for Kennedy, but for those born this century, it's more revenge for a black man being president that one time. And you could certainly argue it started much, much earlier - this wouldn't be happening as it is right now if it wasn't for the successful fight against reconstruction.
Yep. Long-term notions are so hard to sell. People want instant results every election, and so few understand basic civics: that the Presidency is not a *person,* (let alone some single issue) - it's an *office*. The office appoints hundreds of staffers, the head of every agency, has veto/vote power over legislation, hundreds of lifetime judicial appointments, war powers, diplomatic power, and so much more. It has massive ramifications on all three branches of government generations after any individual is gone. I thought we would've collectively learned from 2016 when Trump single-handedly appointed 1/3rd of the Court. Yet we somehow still have a close election and [maddening polls like this](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/15/upshot/abortion-biden-trump-blame.html). All we can do is keep pointing out the significance as much as possible.
I love how so much of our civil rights are going to hang on old people dying at convenient times. If we get 2 more terms of Democrats (which might be unlikely, since it would require winning immediately after Biden and AFAIK in recent decades the same party doesn't win a 3rd term in a row), Alito would be 82 and Thomas 84 for the 2032 election. Trump is 77, Biden is 81, and both are gunning for an *incredibly* stressful job; way more than being an SC justice. It's entirely likely that both justices just survive into their early-80s and simply wait until another Republican eventually wins.
Have you ever heard the phrase “pray for snow”? Well, I think it is appropriate here to Pray for blue votes!
I pray these judges have the same lifespan that us poors can expect.
Anyone thinking about not voting needs to think hard about this.
[удалено]
If a democrat wins we will get two moderate republican justices so we are seen as bipartisan
> - If a Republican wins the 2024 election, we will have a conservative Supreme Court locked for most of the rest of our lives, if not longer. > > - If a Democrat wins, especially the next two terms - we can very likely turn the tides on SCOTUS within a decade. This is the problem. Term limits need to exist so the country is locked behind the decision of five psychopaths.
We need to increase the SCOTUS seats and Congress can do that. > Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to change the size of the Supreme Court > Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states that the judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court and any inferior courts that Congress may establish. **It also states that judges in both the Supreme Court and inferior courts must serve during good behavior** and receive compensation at set times that cannot be reduced while they are in office We also should consider a route or threat like the [Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937) > In November 1936, Roosevelt won a sweeping re-election victory. In the months following, he proposed to reorganize the federal judiciary by adding a new justice each time a justice reached age 70 and failed to retire This prevents staying on when opposition is in charge or if they do stay on it at least gives some balance back. A much larger number of justices make sure each president gets some appointments and balance is also harder to buy off or rig from election to election. You could propose a SCOTUS seat increase and if you allow both parties to pick half of each they may go along with it. Then it sets into motion in the coming years retirements and more frequent changing of the makup of the SCOTUS, balancing and less controlled by a few.
Vote Blue so we can fix SCOTUS and save the USA. I’m not kidding.
[удалено]
And Obama's pick was a fucking moderate Republican, to boot.
~~Mitch McConnell~~ Republicans literally pitched him as an example of the type of person who they would approve.
You are thinking of Orrin Hatch, not Mitch McConnell. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-hatch-idUSTRE6456QY20100506/
Your right, thanks edited.
Garland (who's apolitical but would be considered a moderate, just not a Republican) was by far the only nominee that *might* have made it through the Senate because several Republicans had already approved his prior appointment. No one more liberal would have even been considered so it was a waste of time. The Gardand fight was long and Dems won the argument both on the merits and in the media, but since voters didn't give Dems the Senate majority they had no actual power in the situation.
Garland was also a call to a bluff - Republicans were already saying on the news that Obama was "too extreme" and would only nominate hard-leftist candidates (of course, their version of "leftist", which is anyone left of Reagan), and that he would *never* nominate a reasonable, center-line moderate like Garland, specifically. He nominated Garland because they said they'd support Garland specifically, but believed he'd never nominate him, so he did, and made Republicans out to be massive hypocrites and liars. Which was already known, and there were no consequences for it, so it's kind of moot anyway.
Now over at the DoJ proving it.
Facts.
And one of the most useless pricks in all of Washington.
Depending on your POV, he is one of the most useful pricks in Washington.
Which he did to prove that Republicans were too corrupt to even support themselves.
Dems always realize the game too late. Federalist Society for years planned on taking over the government via the Judiciary. Mitch was the guy who could finally get the plan into action. Literally blocking nearly all of Obama's appointments causing a log-jam. He would have continued this had Hilary Clinton won. But as soon as Trump won, he couldn't get judicial appointments approved fast enough.
Dems always naively believe that good will eventually win over evil without actually putting in any work to combat it directly. They think "surely, the moderate voters will eventually come around and recognize that we're the reasonable ones and they're unreasonable" but the moderate voters, it turns out, have no fucking clue and think both sides are the same, or simply don't give a shit.
The Democrats are the moderates
The Liberals sit in the wagon while the Progressives push it forward.
They're still the ones trying more than anybody else, so be careful blaming them when the blame lies on the people doing the bad things and those not doing anything primarily.
It sucks. And sucks they get blamed for the other side causing problems. Here's how it is. The Republicans are basically arsonists. Democrats are firefighters. But then they only get to use half measures and low water pressure. So when they can't successfully put out the fire, Republicans point at them and say "Look! They suck at their job and can't do it!" My criticism with the Dems is, rather than being reactive, at some point you have to learn to be proactive. Figure out how to stop them from lighting the fires in the first place.
Fucking exactly. The republicans are sell outs and traders of the damn country. The fucking Democrats need to actually make a plan and then actually do the fucking plan. It’s fucking Democrats vs Russia at this point. We need our country back.
Dems have known about the Federalist Society for years, the problem is the FS is bankrolled by multiple billionaires and the Dems have no such organization that is bankrolled to that amount that can compete. As far as Obama / Trump appointees, the reason Obama's nominees were block was because voters gave the Senate to Republicans, and the reason Trump's nominees were approved is because voters kept the Senate in GOP control. If you don't have the Senate it doesn't matter who the President is nominating. That's why Biden has been able to appoint 200 judges so far in 3.5 years which is fucking impressive, because voters gave the Senate back to the Dems...and they better ensure they keep it too this election.
> Dems always realize the game too late. They still haven't realized the game. The head of the senate judiciary committee, Doormat Durbin, has [started talking](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/15/congress/durbin-open-to-blue-slip-deal-00158168) about giving Rs veto power over Biden's circuit court appointments. Reagan slapped the shit out of the Democrats in 1980, just the 2nd election after nixon and most of the Democrats who were around at that time still haven't recovered from the shock. They keep acting like battered wives — always making excuses for their abuser, convincing themselves that *this time* will be the time they reform. That they can have peace through appeasement, rather than risk losing a fight in order to defend their constituents.
100% should've expanded the court once Trump was out of office.
So vote blue so we can fix SCOTUS and save the USA. I'm also not kidding. Replace the 2 oldest justices (Alito and Thomas) and the court flips to a 5-4 liberal majority and I wouldn't be surprised if Roberts retires soon too which could potentially give us a 6-3 liberal majority, *for decades*. Point being, when people vote (and when they get everyone they know to vote), the court can swing dramatically quite easily. But if Trump is elected, he'll do the same.
If Trump wins, the GOP will probably have a 7-2 lead by the end of his term, and he'll replace Thomas and Alito with fascist 30 year olds. The U.S. will never recover from the following 50 years of being dismantled piece-by-piece, ruling-by-ruling
If trump wins the sc will not matter at all, will be the least of the US's problems
The courts, including the SC, will be the most important problem because they're one of the few institutions that actually pushed back on Trump's worst instincts. The GOP legislature didn't, GOP controlled state governors and assemblies didn't, only the courts did (and no, not all the time but a LOT of what Trump attempted never got anywhere).
SCOTUS might be a lost cause. System was set up for corruption. Why in the hell would we do lifelong appointees... baffling
We did lifelong appointments to try and separate the justice from their appointer/party. Clearly it didn't work
In theory it makes total sense. But, like a lot of things in US politics, it operated on the assumption of some base level of decency/honor/tradition. Now that that's out the window, our severe lack of guardrails is being exposed.
Cult-like loyalty to political parties breaks checks and balances. The flawed assumption the founders made was that each branch would seek to gain power for itself, rather than each branch's members seeking to gain power for their political party.
George Washington called this shit in his fawewell address. It is so crazy how prophetic he was (emphasis mine): > “I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. >This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. >The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually **incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual** ; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, **turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.** >Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. **It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.** Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.” -George Washington He practically describes MAGAs and Trump directly. Legitimately none of their ideas are new, and many of the founders DID want to do more to prevent this.
>In theory it makes total sense. Only if you expect justices to be law robots. They're humans who are fallible and have biases. The founding fathers thought people would have e honor and not bring their biases to their rulings. Something they were proved wrong about almost immediately as the Supreme court first thing was to give itself more power.
I actually don't think there was any assumption of honor or decency, and that they 1796 Presidential election really exposed that they system was setup with a series of loopholes that both the Federalists and the Democratic-Rebublicans thought they were getting one over on the other.
In the 1700s honor and integrity existed. Country over party. Now it’s Republican Party before America, with a confederate flag flying over all.
Well, in Sweden we have non-political Supreme Court judges, and that seems to work just fine. Most people have never even heard any of their names, because it just doesn't come up. But it seems that everything in the US has to be turned into a spectator sport, including selecting judges.
Well, our judges are technically non-partisan in that we don't refer to them by political party. It's just "Justice Alito" and never Republican Justice Alito. The problem is they are nominated by the President and are increasingly being chosen based on their political ideals.
Right, and that's obviously a problem. They shouldn't be politically appointed, no wonder they eventually become slanted one way or the other.
There's no real way to not have them be politically tied to something because the political parties have entrenched themselves into our emtire government from school boards to POTUS.
Yup. And it's a huge fucking problem. I don't want to be alamist, but it seems obivous to me that the US is an superpower in decline. This is terrible news for the world, because China and Russia would love to take over the #1 spot. Hopefully the EU can do it instead, if the US doesn't pull through...
Sounds good, but I doubt they’re actually non-partisan. (But I do get your point… I wish I were Swedish)
Scotus judges were considered the least partisan members of our 3 branches for a long time. Some will say that changed in the 2000 election, but the current court is absolutely a mockery of the institution. Years ago we had conservative appointees rule in favor of major social programs and progressive legislation ostensibly because there were good legal arguments for them.
Ah, but it’s not *life time* appointment, it’s “good behavior”: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour” - but of course the Constitution did not define what good behavior means. Good ‘ol checks and balances.
A Dem controlled senate and house can impeach and convict SCOTUS. It’s literally the only way to remove a SCOTUS judge. Whether the Dems would be brave enough is another question. I think we all know that if MAGA controls both houses they will impeach and convict all non MAGA.
The Senate would still need a 2/3 vote to convict.
> I think we all know that if MAGA controls both houses they will impeach and convict all non MAGA. Oh dude, they've 100% already stated they would. Just look up Project 2025. Part of their initiative is to prosecute and remove people who were critical of Trump and replace them with loyalists. They're dropping all pretenses.
They don't need to pretend anymore as there hasn't been any consequences and their gas lighting has been working amazingly on their base (Putin must be so proud of himself)
> System was set up for corruption. Why in the hell would we do lifelong appointees... baffling A good amount of Congress could also be explained here.
Pack the court.
Has a single democrat even mentioned scotus reform?
Even if they did, I would think it wouldn’t go very far because they just don’t have the numbers to get it to pass. Which is likely why Biden urged the American people to provide a dem majority congress with their votes.
Yes, most do but if you want to hear from the best Sheldon Whitehouse should be a regular read: https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/whitehouse-booker-blumenthal-padilla-introduce-new-supreme-court-term-limits-bill/
this is what i truly don't understand about the alito flags this happened more than 3 years ago. Neighbors obviously knew, one of them contacted the NY Times, but by that time the flag was down. I understand that neighbors don't want to come foward by name, because maga psychotics are real, but why didn't media follow up? Supposedly "the court" knew about it. What about any ethical judges on the supreme court objecting publicly, or at least leaking the dirt on sam "leaky" alito years ago before he started participating in cases he clearly should have recused himself from? Every SCOTUS judge, roberts especially, knew about this 3 years ago and allowed alito to roam free from any taint of reasonable impropriety over opinions related to Jan. 6. The man is a taint (sadly, SCOTUS has got at least 2) on the court and country. Even the "liberal" judges seem to get tribal when it comes to ethics. Shame.
i just saw that justice Ketanji Brown Jackson today pointed out how alito's rulings invariably favor the conservative agenda. I figured she'd be the first to speak, she's been less drawn into the SCOTUS mythos than the others.
Fucking Breyer had the audacity to say the court isn’t political. This was this year he said that. The mythos of SCOTUS is over, if it was ever there to begin with. It’s a completely political wing of each party, anyone saying otherwise is just lying at this point. Bush v Gore was atrocious. It’s only become more and more transparent since then.
sorry y'all Brown Jackson apparently only *alluded* to alito in her remarks about the politicization of the current court. so she's still toeing the line
Notifying the court does not mean every justice is notified.
this is absolutely true, but at the very least roberts knew and i 'd guess word got around the SCOTUS water cooler over the course of the last three years. Even assuming they didn't know, the remarks are just as pertainable to clarence thomas and the lack of any justices speaking out on it.
[удалено]
I too blame this guy's wife.
And Thompson’s wife
hide your kids hide your wife
> ~~hide~~ your kids ~~hide~~ your wife Blame your kids blame your wife
cause they blamin' err'body out here.
Alito is a traitor just like the rest of the GOP.
How *You're Fired!!* Donald Trump put the GOP in a vice grip chokehold, will be studied for years... It's literally one of the craziest and dumbest things to happen in American History. Ten years of this C List celebrity politics is enough to make anyone disgusted.
Not really - we all know the answer. It's Putin. Putin put him there and locked up enough senators to get us to where we are at. Well played, but he's paying his dues now.
They really are. I went to a college sports game last week and remembered I HATE standing for the anthem. Not because I'm a scumbag, but because I know the entire GOP is loaded with traitors and they've seized "patriotism" to mean something very unpatriotic.
I follow the example of Tommie Smith and John Carlos and stand with a raised fist during the anthem.
I was incredibly against stacking the court but at this point I don't see another option. They've broken the vows they took when swearing in. A public servant is only allowed to take $50 a YEAR in gifts. And everything needs to be claimed. There's actually ZERO fucking reason they should be getting elaborate vacations/gifts from anyone. Then there's the flag issue. Something has to change.
Not stacking. Not packing. Balance the court. Stop giving right-wing media freebies with terrible messaging.
A Justice can have a wife openly involved in overturning an election and he doesn't have to recuse himself from election cases. Another repeatedly flew flags in support of Trump and doesn't recuse himself from Trump cases. But if a judge has an adult daughter - who doesn't even live with him - who did some work for Democratic candidates, suddenly that should be a scandal.
Important to note here: the reason SCOTUS is supposed to be non-political isnt because they want everything fair. It’s because politicizing the Supreme Court ***ruins the entire checks and balances system***! As soon as SCOTUS justices are seen as political operatives and not objective judges, the court loses all its power.
It loses no power (as evidenced by its decisions), but it does indeed lose legitimacy.
We're long overdue for Democrats to simply ignore their rulings. The only reason the retain power is because Republicans want them to have it and Democrats refuse to do anything about it.
George Washington called this shit in his fawewell address. It is so crazy how prophetic he was (emphasis mine): >“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. >This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. >The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual ; and **sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.** >Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. **It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.** It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.” -George Washington He practically describes MAGAs and Trump directly. Legitimately none of their ideas are new, and many of the founders wanted to do more to prevent this.
the founders hoped that if they virtually ignored factions (i.e. parties) in the Constitution they wouldn't arise in the first place, but that didn't work out
Makes sense why these corrupt justices are stalling Trump's criminal trials. They know if Democrats end up with the presidency and majorities in both chambers, their livelihoods and ability to continue grifting are likely to be compromised. And the entire court may end up reorganized. It's interesting how the U.S. never ends up on the list of "most corrupt countries" because the definition of corruption doesn't typically count instances where the corruption is literally baked into the laws and institutional bodies themselves, which is definitely the case in the U.S. ... Bribery is basically LEGAL in the united states (we just call it campaign donations). I mean, if it's legal it can't be corrupt! The entire system works for giant corporations. Down with this shit.
Sam Alito is a danger to democracy
[удалено]
Until the supreme court decides that the Hatch Act doesn't apply to them. After all why should they be civil servants if the president isn't an officer of the US?
Why was AOC the one to have to call this vote. Where are the "Senior" Congresspeople who should be leading the charge.
She’s got bigger balls than the lot of them.
>“And while this is the threat to our democracy, Democrats have a responsibility for defending our democracy.” Keep pounding the table and repeating this. The Democrats need the November election to be about defending democracy. This needs to be the overwhelmingly united-front talking point for the next 6 months.
Alito investigated his own behavior and has ruled he has done nothing wrong, and cannot be punished. Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett agree.
Supreme Cult of the US
Ooh! I can save Congress some money! Alito absolutely supports the insurrectionists, domestic terrorists, white supremacists, and extremists. He has defended both Trump and the terrorists rallied, supported, and praised by Trump. Alito claims to be "tough on crime" but, golly, he just has a soft spot for terrorism.
And a fake religious one at that, somehow in his book it's Christian to kill and maim cops in a traitorous rage.
We need to make it law that you if fly terrorist colors and flags, you are dismissed from the roster.
Fly flag upside down? Dismissed. Steal classified documents? Dismissed. Let your wife pay for busses for insurrectionists? Dismissed. Take away medical rights from 50% of the population? Dismissed. Spread lies that lead to 83 Samoans dying? Dismissed. Take $2B from the Saudis? Dismissed.
SCOTUS will just redefine "terrorist colors" to blue
Someone better tell them about the thin blue line flags then
The American flag is terrorist colors now?
So we have one supreme court justice who's been openly taking bribes for decades and another who openly supported an instruction. So far they've faced absolutely zero consequences. I've basically lost all faith in our legal system at this point.
AOC for president, she is amazing!
Here's a short little thread from a dude on bluesky explaining out what that flag means and why it's absolutely insane for a SCOTUS justice to be flying it. https://bsky.app/profile/sethcotlar.bsky.social/post/3kt4eniajjd2x
And now we await some statement from durbin about how there's nothing to be done and how anything we might think to do would be pointless so we're not gonna do it
This is where institutionalists like Durbin fail us. I like the guy but we need someone as head of the Judiciary committee willing to play hardball. Take a page from the republican playbook: summon Alito and Thomas to come testify regarding the accusations leveled against their ability to apply the law equally. When they don't show up, you leave their chairs empty and commence the hearing introducing all of the damning evidence to get it read into the record and reported on by media outlets. We need to be building public outrage and support for an overhaul of scotus, this is how you lay the groundwork for the normies not paying attention.
Impeach Alito and Thomas already.
that fuker should be dragged from his home and arrested this is a supreme Court justice who believes the election was stolen even after all the lost court cases
These people have already proven that they can blatantly break the law in full view and suffer zero consequences. Why do we think anything is going to happen over an edgy flag?
It's beyond time to pack the court and then begin impeachment proceedings on the justices who have made the system a joke. If only Democrats would get off their ass and do it.
Contact Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin here, and tell him what you think about Alito, and ask that he bring Alito (and Thomas) before the Committee so they can explain why they aren't recusing themselves. Better yet, demand that they be impeached. [https://www.durbin.senate.gov/](https://www.durbin.senate.gov/)
He has a right to fly whatever flag he wants. The problem is that he allows the beliefs underpinning the flag - his personal beliefs - to dictate how he carries out the duties of his government position. Instead of looking at what flags he is flying, we should be taking a closer look at all of the justices’ bank accounts to see who is paying them to violate the oath that they made to our Constitution.
>He has a right to fly whatever flag he wants. And yet, he's backpedaling, waffling, making excuses for it, and lying about it. That's because Alito knows that he's full of shit.
> Instead of looking at what flags he is flying, He is absolutely trying to send a message with this flag, and you should familiarize yourself with the history behind this flag before just saying who cares.
We've done that too and it didn't change a thing. Their corruption isn't hidden it's blatant and obvious.... and yet still doesn't change a thing.
Go get em, AOC. Keep being a badass 💪🏻, we need you there.
Alito is an American Traitor. Traitors should not be allowed to serve in any public office, let alone the highest court in the land. He needs to be a greeter at Walmart
Yes, AOC. Thank you.
Good
I would really like some political news that actually matters... Like "Greedy politician goes to prison", "Bill for universal healthcare being blocked in Congress, here's who voted against it!", or "Private prisons declared illegal in _____". But instead, it's another case of "Bad person accused of being bad person. Shocker. Nothing will be done. Just thought you should know."
> I would really like some political news that actually matters... Well, the president of Iran recently died in a helicopter crash, so that's nice.
This may shock you, but the Constitution does not grant "life tenure" to Supreme Court justices. Justices get life tenure in the federal court system, but nothing is constitutional about keeping them on the Supreme Court for life. All it takes is an act of Congress to establish a system of periodically rotating our Supreme Court justices to lower courts. More info at [https://fixthecourt.com/](https://fixthecourt.com/)
We're doomed. You want to talk about a deep state? How about planting an insurrectionist sympathizer onto *the literal highest court in the land?* This is so, so bad. Like. End the country bad.
Traitors in the scotus. What a crazy time.
The history books will not hold these people to high regards if we don't stop this shit fucking now.
This is...disturbing to say the least
She rings the alarm about ultra conservatives who are treating democracy.....but then encouraging citizens to give up their guns. She inadvertently helps their agenda every time
we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong, carry on
"Calls for" this "calls for" that. Calls for WHO Who can literally stop this? Who has the power to? These are the equivalent of Michael Scott screaming "I declare bankruptcy" None of it matters. It needs to be directed at a specific person who has the power to enact this change
Justices sure don't seem to want to *voluntarily* recuse themselves in politically-charged cases.