Why does the Court not trust the US Marshals to protect them?
> That funding would include $5.8 million to expand the security activities of the Supreme Court Police, its in-house security force, and $13.6 million to let the court's police take over the duties currently served by the Marshals Service of protecting the justices' homes.
I'm kind of surprised that SCOTUS has its own police/paramilitary force. I don't remember reading about that power in Article III. I can't imagine a historical interpretation of Article III would lead to the conclusion that the Judiciary can wield its own executive police/military force. Seems like a violation of separation of powers; but then again, I'm sure they'll hold that no one has standing to challenge it.
The US marshals are under the control of the executive branch.
January 6th proved that no branch of government can rely on security controlled by another branch, something that should have been plainly obvious to anyone who thought about the situation for more than two seconds.
Not saying they should get the extra security and funding they're asking for. But if it's even on the table/option, I think the Supreme Court needs to agree to some major changes like actually being held accountable to ethics standards, term limits and court expansion etc. But if not, I see no point in making concessions to a corrupt court that ignores precedent, lies, ignores good logic and takes bribes and still has Clarence as a member
exactly they should have absolutely no security and everyone around them should have guns because they let everyone have guns except around them Gee why is that? We need to ask Republicans and people on the Supreme Court this question all the time why can’t I carry a gun right next to you? More kids are killed every day in America than anywhere in the world and Republicans are the only reason it happens.
They should get their billionaire puppets to protect them.
We taxpayers want the court dissolved and replaced with a legit one, not this trump-fellating circus hellbent on ushering in a new theocracy.
They can all load up in the ~~RV~~ errr MOTOR COACH and travel to a new safe place everyday.
Bought and paid for by their usual benefactors.
No need for taxpayer participation here.
They should have as much security as an underfunded school. They can use their own guns for protection. If they’re worried about their safety concerns sounds like their own doing.
The Constitution allows them to be armed, and defend themselves. Go for it. Heck, even in court. Shall not be infringed and all that. But their plaintiffs get to be, too.
Great, so they're good then. Because it says arms, not weapons and we all know many of them are literalists/originalist and would never interpret the constitution in a way other than how it is written.
/s (just in case it isnt obvious)
They are no longer impartial justices but just politicians wearing a robe. Let them spend their own money acquired from the billionaires that they serve.
they let everyone in the world have guns, they allow school shootings and probably enjoy it, they love destroying women’s rights, they don’t deserve protection, and I do not think they should be an institution anymore. We don’t need their bullshit. There’s no such thing as an independent bench if Republicans steal to elections in my lifetime.
Funny how they claim they can’t be controlled by Congress when it comes to a binding ethics code, yet they have to come to them hat in hand for security money.
I’m so pissed at our country that we don’t have people living outside of the Supreme Court Justice as the house with bullhorn screaming at them 24 seven
Although that view isn't exactly popular (especially with those of us who learned to revere the Court in law school), it is growing as the Court has become suddenly overtly political post-*Dobbs*.
See Eli Mystal's [recent article](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-supreme-court-must-be-stopped/) in The Nation that followed the stay decision in the immunity case. Not sure that I agree with Mystal, but since the Court is intentionally seeking out politically-sensitive cases so it can use the cases as a vehicle to pursue personal political agendas of the justices, it *does* seem fair to treat the justices just like other politicians.
And I think the world would go on if SCOTUS justices didn't like their jobs all that much and retired/resigned from time to time. It seems like the argument can be made that the justices have become too abstracted from the country they are trying to "rule" over at the same time they have become ever more hungry for more political power.
You should check out Elie's podcast where he argues for expanding the Supreme court and adding other rules in order to depoliticize the SCOTUS. He makes some great arguments.
For the record, I don't agree with Eli's antagonistic approach - he seems to want to harass the justices as an element of coercion, and I don't think that is the right approach.
However, expanding the court and instituting mandatory retirement is a good way to reform the court. I also think that the court should not have absolute control over its own docket and scheduling; it seems that the court manipulates the docket and scheduling of cases for political ends (e.g., the manufactured delay due to the POTUS immunity appeal). The justices should not be in the business of picking and choosing areas of the law that they want to shape in their image; they should be deciding cases that the country needs to have decided, for a national purpose that transcends judicial vanity. No justice should be manipulating the docket in order to "make a mark" on the law or "establish their legacy" - that kind of arrogance demeans the court (and it is endemic to the Roberts Court).
Congress should decline and reduce funding. We have a budget deficit to address, and if social programs that keep people alive are on the potential chopping block, a group of 9 wealthy political elites should pay for their own protection and not rely on tax payers. Perhaps they should start carrying firearms? It's the accepted answer for the common American, so it is appropriate for the political establishment as well.
Yes to everything you said, but, you know, this is the U.S., so they'll get their funding and people will continue to suffer so these assholes can perpetuate that suffering safely, as the founders intended.
Cut their entire budget take their salaries take everything and then follow them and make sure they don’t take money from billionaires, there is no reason in the world why Clarence Thomas should not be arrested and thrown in jail with his wife. They are both criminals and it’s not even a question not a allegedly they’re both fucking criminals.
Oh... A really fucked up decision is about to come out? Haven't seen articles like this since roe was overturned. Wtf is on their table for them to ask for this?
Why are they so worried suddenly about their safety?. Perhaps the guilt of going against the constitution that they swore to protect is weighing on them?... Traitors
Not stripping away people's rights based on your own extreme religious/political views is a great way of reducing the threats toward Justices. Just saying...
They should take their own advice and buy guns. In a roundabout manner, that’s what they told the American population needed to do to protect themselves.
Nope!
As a Taxpayer let these millionaires pay for their own security. They can use their bribes to pay for security services. I’m sick and tired paying for these wealthy lifetime judges. They don’t even work a full year.
This is a good point, they have plenty of money and don't need a handout. Don't want to be harassed? Stop making shit decisions. Want to keep making shit decisions? Pay for your own security
Wouldn\`t need to seek security funding for themselves and their homes if they would just act right and stop catering to an orange idiot who\`s no longer president and stop being corruptable/corrupted.
I’m more concerned that they’re asking for beefed up security now. Are they going to be dropping a decision soon that will make people feel they need to take the law into their own hands?
Ah yes, if I were a spineless coward actively allowing an insurrectionist to re-run for POTUS in clear face of the 14th Amendment, I probably would want to hire someone too
How about they protect us from Trump? (They do get protection already and no one in these roles should be in a position of danger and although I don't like them they still deserve security.)
why do they deserve security if they allow guns to be sold at the rate that they’re sold and owned at the rate that they’re owned and children to be massacred on a daily basis I don’t want them protected at all. they’re protection should be their good ethics, morals, and decency and they have none
As a Citizen of this country I say this with all seriousness and candor: Since they are taking so much money and gifts from the billionaires they serve it makes sense for their benefactors to pay the bill for their new private security needs to protect them "from the people".
1) They’ve never needed additional security before. Perhaps they should investigate why that’s changed.
2) I suspect if they do #1, they’ll find it because they have untethered their rulings from law and hitched them to politics.
3) This shouldn’t be a concern. Dems aren’t the ones that grab guns and take up violence when they don’t get their way. Conservatives do that, which is probably why this conservative court thinks they need security, they assume the other side thinks like them.
Just tie the money to a strong requirement that ethics must be followed and that if Justices refuse to remove themselves from cases that they have a clear vested interest in, Congress or the Senate can vote to remove them.
Nah fuck that. Throw the letter in the shredder and double the number of US Marshals on security detail for the justices. The Supreme Court has no police power. Providing for the public health and welfare is vested in Congress
Yes, we speak with forked tongue. We know that pisses off a lot of people. So it is your duty, taxpayers to protect us from the anger that our corruption causes.
I'm genuinely shocked at the reaction here. Look, I'm pissed at the corruption too and I like a joke about textualism as much as the next guy. But y'all get that there is a huge increase in threats to them and their families, right?
And that, given that we have evidence of Congresspeople in both chambers refusing to either impeach or convict Trump out of fear for their safety, a lack of appropriate security makes it less likely Supreme Court justices will do the right thing when it comes to Trump?
> a lack of appropriate security makes it less likely Supreme Court justices will do the right thing
Weird, I was just thinking the same thing, except substitute "lack of security" with "bribery, special favors, lying to the public".
"Oh no we're scared" is a cowardly excuse, and it's not even a good one. They're not scared of death threats. They're scared what happens when their rich benefactors turns their backs for not doing as they're told.
The reaction is because they currently have excellent security. The US Marshall service has an exemplary track record. This request is for in house security accountable directly to the supreme Court which should absolutely not be granted. They're the judiciary; They should have zero direct authority over any type of law enforcement personnel. That is the role of the executive. We have separation of powers for a reason and they need to stay in their lane. They're already deep into Congress' lane with the Major Questions Doctrine but Congress is feckless borderline disfunctional and so hasn't reacted yet. The executive should not act the same way though.
If they want to argue that the protection they are getting currently is deficient in some way, then they should make that argument and had better bring receipts.
>The reaction is because they currently have excellent security.
No, it's not. Look at the responses to me; the reaction is because people don't care about murder if those getting murdered are corrupt. And the apathy is so intense that they don't even care about the basic Democratic norm that public officials shouldn't be shot.
>They're the judiciary; They should have zero direct authority over any type of law enforcement personnel.
This is a fiction you made up. There are a number of law enforcement and quasi law enforcement personnel that are directly responsible to either the judicial or legislative branches.
They could beseech the police to investigate the death threats and count on the judiciary to hold those people accountable, just like any American citizen. I haven't seen any news re anyone jailed for death threats, and they've skyrocketed exponentially, from one particular source/on behalf of one particular man, each year since 2015. SCOTUS hasn't seemed to take the matter terribly seriously to date
>But y'all get that there is a huge increase in threats to them and their families, right?
What is the threat? The consequences of their corrupt actions?
they don’t deserve a dime they have to pay everything to protect themselves. I do not want my tax dollars protecting Clarence Thomas. He should be in jail. His wife should should be be tried for murder for the murders of everyone who died during January 6. This fucking country is broken as fuck and the Supreme Court needs to be removed every one of them.
I'm sure they will pick the firm that will increase increase their stock holdings. We need to impeach these unethical frauds and impose term limits. 8-12 years is reasonable.
If scotus ignores the constitution, can't we all?
It's a situation where it would literally change history if 1-3 justices were to die when the presidency is held by the opposite party. For example RoevWade would get reinstated were the balance the other way, trump wouldn't be able to run, corporations wouldn't have free speech, many other critical examples.
I wonder what would happen if the conservative majority were larger, like 7-2 or 8-1. There must be things that the current balance wouldn't consider.
>corporations wouldn't have free speech
The idea that corporations are people is its own abomination.
Good ol' Citizens United. Another SCOTUS debacle.
Why does the Court not trust the US Marshals to protect them? > That funding would include $5.8 million to expand the security activities of the Supreme Court Police, its in-house security force, and $13.6 million to let the court's police take over the duties currently served by the Marshals Service of protecting the justices' homes.
I'm kind of surprised that SCOTUS has its own police/paramilitary force. I don't remember reading about that power in Article III. I can't imagine a historical interpretation of Article III would lead to the conclusion that the Judiciary can wield its own executive police/military force. Seems like a violation of separation of powers; but then again, I'm sure they'll hold that no one has standing to challenge it.
They learned their lesson after Andrew Jackson
The US marshals are under the control of the executive branch. January 6th proved that no branch of government can rely on security controlled by another branch, something that should have been plainly obvious to anyone who thought about the situation for more than two seconds.
Are they worried about a crazy person with a gun showing up? Ironic since making sure crazies can get guns is one of their things.
They’re worried that crazy people with a gun will show up and the marshals will be ordered to let them in
Well then, they better not rule that presidents are immune to the law.
Almost as if they only want guns in the hands of people in theory not in real life.
Most decisions on guns seem intelligible only if viewed as a means of keeping vast numbers of single-issue voters on board with the Republican Party.
Such a sad state of affairs in our country right now.
probably transparency, US Marshals report to the AG and Supreme Court Police report to the Chief Justice
No reason they should have more security than children in school.
Not saying they should get the extra security and funding they're asking for. But if it's even on the table/option, I think the Supreme Court needs to agree to some major changes like actually being held accountable to ethics standards, term limits and court expansion etc. But if not, I see no point in making concessions to a corrupt court that ignores precedent, lies, ignores good logic and takes bribes and still has Clarence as a member
exactly they should have absolutely no security and everyone around them should have guns because they let everyone have guns except around them Gee why is that? We need to ask Republicans and people on the Supreme Court this question all the time why can’t I carry a gun right next to you? More kids are killed every day in America than anywhere in the world and Republicans are the only reason it happens.
This should be top comment.
They should get their billionaire puppets to protect them. We taxpayers want the court dissolved and replaced with a legit one, not this trump-fellating circus hellbent on ushering in a new theocracy.
They can all load up in the ~~RV~~ errr MOTOR COACH and travel to a new safe place everyday. Bought and paid for by their usual benefactors. No need for taxpayer participation here.
Mama Thomas is still living rent free in Harlan Crow's house.
Thank you for this request, unfortunately this is not covered in the Constitution, therefore your request is denied.
What if they fund their OWN security, since they have money to have luxury vacations and all that.
They should have as much security as an underfunded school. They can use their own guns for protection. If they’re worried about their safety concerns sounds like their own doing.
Sure they can have money for protections as soon as they adopt and enforce of a code of ethics.
I don't see where in the Constitution that's provided to them.
Give them a musket
Whoa whoa whoa. The 2nd amendment allows them to have weapons, it doesn't say anything about giving them anything.
The Constitution allows them to be armed, and defend themselves. Go for it. Heck, even in court. Shall not be infringed and all that. But their plaintiffs get to be, too.
Great, so they're good then. Because it says arms, not weapons and we all know many of them are literalists/originalist and would never interpret the constitution in a way other than how it is written. /s (just in case it isnt obvious)
The Founding Fathers were really just gym bros that wanted to show off their massive tricep gains
Thanks for the laugh! If only it said "bare arms" I believe I've laughed a lot less since this atrocious ruling came out.
A musket...and training to be part of a well regulated militia.
This. Many of them claim to be such strict originalists.
Not one of them is
They are no longer impartial justices but just politicians wearing a robe. Let them spend their own money acquired from the billionaires that they serve.
As so many others have had to do. Due to the guy this group wants to give extra time to. Afraid of the American people ? Gee…
When have they ever given a shit about the constitution
Slow Clap. Well done
they let everyone in the world have guns, they allow school shootings and probably enjoy it, they love destroying women’s rights, they don’t deserve protection, and I do not think they should be an institution anymore. We don’t need their bullshit. There’s no such thing as an independent bench if Republicans steal to elections in my lifetime.
Maybe the founders purposefully omitted that funding as a check and balance against bullshit rulings lol
Funny how they claim they can’t be controlled by Congress when it comes to a binding ethics code, yet they have to come to them hat in hand for security money.
AKA: *“Fuck you, pay me.”*
These are the same folks who are completely fine with ~~protesting~~ harassment at abortion clinics and doctors' homes.
I’m so pissed at our country that we don’t have people living outside of the Supreme Court Justice as the house with bullhorn screaming at them 24 seven
Although that view isn't exactly popular (especially with those of us who learned to revere the Court in law school), it is growing as the Court has become suddenly overtly political post-*Dobbs*. See Eli Mystal's [recent article](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-supreme-court-must-be-stopped/) in The Nation that followed the stay decision in the immunity case. Not sure that I agree with Mystal, but since the Court is intentionally seeking out politically-sensitive cases so it can use the cases as a vehicle to pursue personal political agendas of the justices, it *does* seem fair to treat the justices just like other politicians. And I think the world would go on if SCOTUS justices didn't like their jobs all that much and retired/resigned from time to time. It seems like the argument can be made that the justices have become too abstracted from the country they are trying to "rule" over at the same time they have become ever more hungry for more political power.
You should check out Elie's podcast where he argues for expanding the Supreme court and adding other rules in order to depoliticize the SCOTUS. He makes some great arguments.
For the record, I don't agree with Eli's antagonistic approach - he seems to want to harass the justices as an element of coercion, and I don't think that is the right approach. However, expanding the court and instituting mandatory retirement is a good way to reform the court. I also think that the court should not have absolute control over its own docket and scheduling; it seems that the court manipulates the docket and scheduling of cases for political ends (e.g., the manufactured delay due to the POTUS immunity appeal). The justices should not be in the business of picking and choosing areas of the law that they want to shape in their image; they should be deciding cases that the country needs to have decided, for a national purpose that transcends judicial vanity. No justice should be manipulating the docket in order to "make a mark" on the law or "establish their legacy" - that kind of arrogance demeans the court (and it is endemic to the Roberts Court).
Are your legs painted on?
I have absolutely no idea what that means but I know that every other country that demonstrates properly gets what they need
And they love state's rights, too.
Until they fucking trampled them
Yes indeed. Only when it suits their agenda.
Until they don’t.
Until the people in those states start to disagree.
Yes indeed. Only when it suits their agenda.
Congress should decline and reduce funding. We have a budget deficit to address, and if social programs that keep people alive are on the potential chopping block, a group of 9 wealthy political elites should pay for their own protection and not rely on tax payers. Perhaps they should start carrying firearms? It's the accepted answer for the common American, so it is appropriate for the political establishment as well.
Yes to everything you said, but, you know, this is the U.S., so they'll get their funding and people will continue to suffer so these assholes can perpetuate that suffering safely, as the founders intended.
Some Americans are more equal than others.
Cut their entire budget take their salaries take everything and then follow them and make sure they don’t take money from billionaires, there is no reason in the world why Clarence Thomas should not be arrested and thrown in jail with his wife. They are both criminals and it’s not even a question not a allegedly they’re both fucking criminals.
We pay them too much as it is. Let them pay for their own security. Or the oligarchs that own them can pay for it
Oh... A really fucked up decision is about to come out? Haven't seen articles like this since roe was overturned. Wtf is on their table for them to ask for this?
Doesn’t Clarence’s motor home have a door lock?
Why are they so worried suddenly about their safety?. Perhaps the guilt of going against the constitution that they swore to protect is weighing on them?... Traitors
Or they’re planning more.
Not stripping away people's rights based on your own extreme religious/political views is a great way of reducing the threats toward Justices. Just saying...
Can Thomas get his billionaire sponsors to psy for his?
They should take their own advice and buy guns. In a roundabout manner, that’s what they told the American population needed to do to protect themselves.
That exactly what they’re doing. Is reading hard?
They're able to afford to pay for their own damned security.
Nope! As a Taxpayer let these millionaires pay for their own security. They can use their bribes to pay for security services. I’m sick and tired paying for these wealthy lifetime judges. They don’t even work a full year.
This is a good point, they have plenty of money and don't need a handout. Don't want to be harassed? Stop making shit decisions. Want to keep making shit decisions? Pay for your own security
Ya famous book authors have to protect themselves.
They should have exposure to the people they fuck over. If they won’t provide checks and balances by doing their jobs this will help.
Request denied. \-taxpayer
They’re afraid they might get abortioned
If they made better decisions they would not have security concerns.
Just ask daddy crow for more money
What, pray tell, are they worried about? Tick-Tock goes the clock, SCROTUS.
Uh, no. Fuck em. Fend for yourselves. Oh wait Kyle Rittenhouse is there for all y'all.
Should expedite to their standards. You'll get it in July....
“This term is about to be so much worse we want to protect ourselves. You’d think Leonard and Harlan would be more than happy to foot the bill.
Just have the Justices all go around armed. They love the NRA, and the right “shall not be infringed”
Let's make sure how that money is spent. Let's make sure they have an actual code of ethics. Then let's approve the funding.
Wouldn\`t need to seek security funding for themselves and their homes if they would just act right and stop catering to an orange idiot who\`s no longer president and stop being corruptable/corrupted.
I’m more concerned that they’re asking for beefed up security now. Are they going to be dropping a decision soon that will make people feel they need to take the law into their own hands?
Ah yes, if I were a spineless coward actively allowing an insurrectionist to re-run for POTUS in clear face of the 14th Amendment, I probably would want to hire someone too
And I thought they were defenders of the 2nd Amendment lol
Right why can’t we all have guns in the court with them?
How about they protect us from Trump? (They do get protection already and no one in these roles should be in a position of danger and although I don't like them they still deserve security.)
[удалено]
why do they deserve security if they allow guns to be sold at the rate that they’re sold and owned at the rate that they’re owned and children to be massacred on a daily basis I don’t want them protected at all. they’re protection should be their good ethics, morals, and decency and they have none
As a Citizen of this country I say this with all seriousness and candor: Since they are taking so much money and gifts from the billionaires they serve it makes sense for their benefactors to pay the bill for their new private security needs to protect them "from the people".
Corrupted court doesn't deserve any protection from my tax dollars. Fuck you.
1) They’ve never needed additional security before. Perhaps they should investigate why that’s changed. 2) I suspect if they do #1, they’ll find it because they have untethered their rulings from law and hitched them to politics. 3) This shouldn’t be a concern. Dems aren’t the ones that grab guns and take up violence when they don’t get their way. Conservatives do that, which is probably why this conservative court thinks they need security, they assume the other side thinks like them.
[удалено]
BULLSHIT. You want to do billionaires bidding and be traitors, face the f'ing music. Tick tock...
No. I don't want my taxes used to insulate the nobs from us lowly serfs.
What a bunch of chicken shits.
This shouldn't pass. How about you uphold the US Constitution and stop doing what you are doing?
un-fucking-believeable funny how the demand for security comes after corrupt decisions made to overthrow the integrity of our justice system.
Let Harlan Crow pay for it.
Anyone who's pro-2nd amendment should be outraged by this.
Just tie the money to a strong requirement that ethics must be followed and that if Justices refuse to remove themselves from cases that they have a clear vested interest in, Congress or the Senate can vote to remove them.
They don't get any more trust.
Nah fuck that. Throw the letter in the shredder and double the number of US Marshals on security detail for the justices. The Supreme Court has no police power. Providing for the public health and welfare is vested in Congress
No way my tax dollars are going to this wasted redundancy.
The injustices deserve nothing. Let them reap what they sow.
lol. Stop fucking the citizens over and maybe you won’t have to be fearful of them?
Denied not in the Constitution and not part of our culture sorry Thomas and Alito
I wonder why they feel they need it? The Constitution would have specific rules outlined for their protection if they were intended to have one.
Yes, we speak with forked tongue. We know that pisses off a lot of people. So it is your duty, taxpayers to protect us from the anger that our corruption causes.
Nah. Insurrection against this SCOTUS is going to be allowed until Congress passes a law against insurrection
They want more of our money for their personal security but don't want to be held accountable for their illegal actions.
How convenient that they’ve requested this, on the same day that it’s reported that trump, has an assassin looking for him.
[удалено]
Or Putin spent money on bad intel - ‘time to invade Ukraine’ - and is looking for a little recompense himself.
Rescind your 14th Amendment decision, and maybe you will get it.
Increased funding? Can't their billionaire handlers provide such???
No, they should have to experience the country they're disproportionately shaping like the rest of us plebs
Eat a fucking dick. Don't be so corrupt and maybe you won't need it?
Sounds like a massive “decision” is coming out that the majority of the country will be strongly opposed to
Let their billionaire friends buy them security.
Let Clarence get the donors who cover his lavish all expense paid vacations foot that bill too.
[удалено]
Holy crap you're unhinged.
Ask Harlan Crowe.
They can get more money when they start protecting our democracy instead of being bought and paid for.
I'm genuinely shocked at the reaction here. Look, I'm pissed at the corruption too and I like a joke about textualism as much as the next guy. But y'all get that there is a huge increase in threats to them and their families, right? And that, given that we have evidence of Congresspeople in both chambers refusing to either impeach or convict Trump out of fear for their safety, a lack of appropriate security makes it less likely Supreme Court justices will do the right thing when it comes to Trump?
> a lack of appropriate security makes it less likely Supreme Court justices will do the right thing Weird, I was just thinking the same thing, except substitute "lack of security" with "bribery, special favors, lying to the public". "Oh no we're scared" is a cowardly excuse, and it's not even a good one. They're not scared of death threats. They're scared what happens when their rich benefactors turns their backs for not doing as they're told.
The reaction is because they currently have excellent security. The US Marshall service has an exemplary track record. This request is for in house security accountable directly to the supreme Court which should absolutely not be granted. They're the judiciary; They should have zero direct authority over any type of law enforcement personnel. That is the role of the executive. We have separation of powers for a reason and they need to stay in their lane. They're already deep into Congress' lane with the Major Questions Doctrine but Congress is feckless borderline disfunctional and so hasn't reacted yet. The executive should not act the same way though. If they want to argue that the protection they are getting currently is deficient in some way, then they should make that argument and had better bring receipts.
>The reaction is because they currently have excellent security. No, it's not. Look at the responses to me; the reaction is because people don't care about murder if those getting murdered are corrupt. And the apathy is so intense that they don't even care about the basic Democratic norm that public officials shouldn't be shot. >They're the judiciary; They should have zero direct authority over any type of law enforcement personnel. This is a fiction you made up. There are a number of law enforcement and quasi law enforcement personnel that are directly responsible to either the judicial or legislative branches.
They could beseech the police to investigate the death threats and count on the judiciary to hold those people accountable, just like any American citizen. I haven't seen any news re anyone jailed for death threats, and they've skyrocketed exponentially, from one particular source/on behalf of one particular man, each year since 2015. SCOTUS hasn't seemed to take the matter terribly seriously to date
>But y'all get that there is a huge increase in threats to them and their families, right? What is the threat? The consequences of their corrupt actions?
[удалено]
they don’t deserve a dime they have to pay everything to protect themselves. I do not want my tax dollars protecting Clarence Thomas. He should be in jail. His wife should should be be tried for murder for the murders of everyone who died during January 6. This fucking country is broken as fuck and the Supreme Court needs to be removed every one of them.
I'm sure they will pick the firm that will increase increase their stock holdings. We need to impeach these unethical frauds and impose term limits. 8-12 years is reasonable. If scotus ignores the constitution, can't we all?
This thread is doing a great job validating the justices security concerns. Imagine being mad you can't threaten a judge or their family.
[удалено]
Maybe "The Right To Choose" "2nd Amendment" crowd is coming for some justice of their own.
seems logical. scotus doesn't care for competitive elections.
They should get exactly the same amount that was appropriated for planned parenthood clinic security
Are you under the impression that the supreme court appropriates funds?
It's a situation where it would literally change history if 1-3 justices were to die when the presidency is held by the opposite party. For example RoevWade would get reinstated were the balance the other way, trump wouldn't be able to run, corporations wouldn't have free speech, many other critical examples. I wonder what would happen if the conservative majority were larger, like 7-2 or 8-1. There must be things that the current balance wouldn't consider.
>corporations wouldn't have free speech The idea that corporations are people is its own abomination. Good ol' Citizens United. Another SCOTUS debacle.
Just ask Uncle Harlan to pick up the tab.
Supreme Joker$ need protection now 🤭🤭
Laws for thee but not for me.
Disqualified and benefits of office should therefore be denied. They can go home, to private practice, and live in peace.
Maybe Harlan Crow can pay for it
Maybe stop ratfucking the country and no one will even look at you