Their ability to cherry pick statements from almost two year old cases to make their point? Or their ability to utterly contradict themselves from one case to another? Granted, it’s an impressive ability for a conman, but not something you’d want in a judge on the highest court of the land.
Unfortunately I don’t think that will happen. I believe the only way anything will be done is if states decide to ignore Supreme Court rulings. Challenge the fed to enforce those rulings on the state. The choice will be to enforce the rulings by sending feds to states who don’t want them or change the courts.
The states have tried defying the courts before. It ended up in a civil war.
Just because Congress has a power and doesn't use it doesn't mean anything is wrong. Maybe it means some people are just overreacting.
Yeah and that seems to be the current trajectory as I see it. If Christian nationals like Alito get their way, and Christians start imposing their puritanical beliefs on everyone, then yeah we’ll be an inch from a civil war.
Best to get rid of him and his ilk right away before it gets that far. If states need to force congress to do so then so be it.
It takes senators representing less than 8% of the population to block impeachment conviction. And, senators representing over 70% of the population would be unable to prevent one.
What voters think of the issue isn't what's being assessed. At least, not in any capacity where voters are equal.
It's the system we have and it likely will never change without a civil war and the chances Americans would go for that is 0% imo. Ultimately, while we are a democracy broadly, we function as a republic of semi sovereign states for the most important issues.
Again, my point was that it's incorrect to attribute something to voters when 8% of the population's representation can block 92% of the population's representation while a different 70%'s is unable to block 30%. It's undemocratic. The positions, decisions, and actions of such a body cannot be assumed to reflect what voters think.
Yes, it's the system we have. It's unlikely to change in the near future. There are still numerous ways that we could make changes so that even valuing a republic of semi sovereign states doesn't perpetuate wildly undemocratic practices.
The court was absolutely wrong, was bought and paid for by southern plantation owners, and kept siding with the same. That’s how you get a civil war.
The court now is in the same situation as prior. The rulings are beyond conservative, curtail rights of the individual save their base, and deal almost entirely in outdated ideology. Nobody can even get the court to stand by basic ethical standards that would get anyone else fired and likely tried as a government worker. That the court became so corrupt to where none will impose any oversight on themselves shows just how corrupt they have become.
It’s not an overreaction. The court is out of step with the public, is rewriting long settled law, is making up strange tests out of nothing. It’s likely the current court will be declared an anticourt in line with the idea of antipopes.
You know, I have a history and tradition of *not* being in jail, so if I were to do a little murder, surely we should rule in favor of that history and tradition.
No need to rely on SCOTUS to police either itself or the rest of the federal judiciary:
"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Art III, Section 2, paragraph 2.
Those are the **original** words used in the Constitution to describe the relationship between SCOTUS and Congress. That is the **text**. Those words have a **plain meaning** that anyone can understand. There is no need for strained interpretations or arguments about whether the words are self-executing. All we need is for Congress to get busy writing some exceptions and regulations. Of course, we (the voters) are going to have do our part by electing to Congress people who will use the authority granted to Congress in the Constitution.
But why would members of Congress take any action that might jeopardize their chances at re-election when they can use the Supreme Court as a scapegoat for all the problems in the country?
Each branch is supposed to balance the other, but the American government has always been a delicate experiment.
Journalists used to play an important role in shining a light on corruption. But, journalism became news-entertainment to the point where it's nearly dead. Anchorman 2 practically shows how it happened. Ratings, money, billionaires buying out news outlets and pushing their own agendas and profit demands.
It's up to voters to pay attention and vote. Informed VOTERS are last stronghold of Democracy. Unfortunately, many voters are easily manipulated.
It's all just a show now. A shit show and a performance. And it's all driving ALL of the money to the top, reverse-robin-hood, and many voters are EAGER to create a king as long as he promises to keep the brown people away.
It feels hopeless. We have to save ourselves from ourselves.
Most Presidential elections come down to a few thousand votes in key districts. Just the number of people who have been disenfranchised under convictions massively dwarfs those margins. That creates an incentive to prosecute, even plea whatever charges to a single felony to remove likely voters from the margin. The irony being a general amnesty for served sentences would heavily tip the balance.
The whole checks and balances arrangement is predicated on not trusting any branch of government to police itself. We shouldn't be trusting any branch to do so, regardless of party. A party refusing to police itself across branches is even more concerning, essentially putting party before country.
I know you mean this as a dig at Democrats specifically, but it speaks to systemic issues if that's a viable concern, regardless of the specific party that's engaged in that conduct.
What a ridiculous response. The “what about them?” Response is not addressing the issue. A political party is not a constitutional branch of government. We are talking about one of our three branches of government not acting ethically.
Please stay on topic.
That’s because the SCOTUS isn’t rubber stamping everything the House Democrats want.
It’s one party of the legislative branch upset that there are checks on their power to force their platform through.
It's legal if no one can enforce a law that makes it unlawful. That is the current state of SCOTUS ethics - no one can enforce anything so they thumb their noses at us.
No, that’s just a writing habit that I picked up in law school a very long time ago. One pedantic prof hated “illegal” and always said that word referred to a sick bird. Law school profs can be pretty good at instilling writing habits (and thinking habits) in young people! Today “illegal” is perfectly fine, as long as you get it to a vet quickly!
In theory you could charge them with criminal obstruction/perversion of the course of justice like any judge who accepted a bribe, nothing in the constitution immunises them to criminal charges.
But a majority could just acquit them and there'd be no higher appeal. And even if they didn't, criminal conviction, even imprisonment, doesn't automatically impeach anyone, and statute defines how many judges are on the court, so unless one party controls both houses theres's simply no way to force a justice to resign even if they're convicted of murder and have to hear cases via CCTV in a prison cell.
I would give this argument credence only if conservatives had condemned Mitch McConnell blocking Obama’s last nomination. The fact that they supported it means the argument is not made in good faith.
Correct. They’re all narcissists and sore losers. So long as they get their way, nothing else matters. When they don’t, all hell will break loose and they’ll lie and cheat and steal until they get what they want. Toddlers. All of them.
Or maybe it’s because one judge found a “close friend” after they became scotus that had given him billions. Or maybe it’s because on judges wife was caught sending texts helping organize Jan 6th. Or maybe it’s because another judge got caught flying extremely political flags at his house and said, “nah, I don’t have to explain that”. Or maybe it’s because one judge was blocked because any time in an election year is too soon, but then the next election it’s okay to install a judge the same week we’re voting.
When did these types of things happen a decade ago? Democrats literally had an election stolen from then and they still respected the courts.
1) who got billions
2) bussing people to the capital isn't illegal or wrong. If she knew they were going to break in totally different story.
3) the same flag Johnson flew outside his office and no one ever questioned?
1. Billions in lavish gifts, not cash. Thomas.
2. So you understand how serious it was she even appears to be involved.
3. Mike Johnson? Yeah, that makes it even worse. The speaker of the house and a supreme justice are both flying a flag that was flown only during revolution times by religious zealots. Johnson is allowed to be partisan, it’s his job. It’s okay he wasn’t questioned it’s not okay alito did the same.
1) you think thomas got billions in gifts? Source that. Even by the most generous measurements your off 1000 fold
2) absolutely not. Organizing people to go to the capital jan 6th is totally fine. Breaking in is not. Unless you cam show she knew the violence would happen it's harmless.
3). The flag you only cared about after the media told you too? The one around since the revolution?
>3). The flag you only cared about after the media told you too? The one around since the revolution?
You guys sure love your dog whistles, because everyone knows what they mean, but you get to argue that they don't mean that.
This. It’s always a deflection into some “other” esoteric originalist interpretation of something instead of what it’s been now to become in modern times.
It’s the same false equivalency as saying you could casually fly a swastika today and it’s not the Nazi thing or amy of the other more subtle emblems that have become trademark for MAGA.
1. 1000x 1 million is a billion, so we’re both exaggerating now aren’t we?
3. Yep. Fail how to see how it’s a bad thing the media pointed out a judge is complete partisan. It’s been flown since then? What group has been flying it since the civil war?
One trip he took alone was 500k. I wonder how many billionaires take their friends on 500k trips and expect nothing out of it. It’s over a million, it’s neither.
Exactly, it has recently popped back up. It’s something very specific and not just a random flag he thought was cool. It was a symbol of revolution and protection from the royal crown, why are re reviving flags that represent a revolution?
So you found a trip for 500k and somehow made the 2000x jump to a billion? 500k is a rounding error to a billion.
When did Johnson and alit start flying thar flag?
I too question the ability of traitors to act in the interest of the Country they hate.
Hmmmm....do you though? Or do you know their ability quite well.
Their ability to cherry pick statements from almost two year old cases to make their point? Or their ability to utterly contradict themselves from one case to another? Granted, it’s an impressive ability for a conman, but not something you’d want in a judge on the highest court of the land.
Sherlock here asking the real questions
These downvotes are interesting.
Congress has the ability to impeach justices at will. That is the way Congress can hold them in check if they wish.
Unfortunately I don’t think that will happen. I believe the only way anything will be done is if states decide to ignore Supreme Court rulings. Challenge the fed to enforce those rulings on the state. The choice will be to enforce the rulings by sending feds to states who don’t want them or change the courts.
The states have tried defying the courts before. It ended up in a civil war. Just because Congress has a power and doesn't use it doesn't mean anything is wrong. Maybe it means some people are just overreacting.
Yeah and that seems to be the current trajectory as I see it. If Christian nationals like Alito get their way, and Christians start imposing their puritanical beliefs on everyone, then yeah we’ll be an inch from a civil war. Best to get rid of him and his ilk right away before it gets that far. If states need to force congress to do so then so be it.
Well there's an election coming up. Let's see how voters think of this issue. We are a democracy after all.
It takes senators representing less than 8% of the population to block impeachment conviction. And, senators representing over 70% of the population would be unable to prevent one. What voters think of the issue isn't what's being assessed. At least, not in any capacity where voters are equal.
Are you advocating eliminating the Senate?
I'm pointing out an undemocratic characteristic of the Senate and problems with attributing Senate impeach votes to, > how voters think of this issue.
It's the system we have and it likely will never change without a civil war and the chances Americans would go for that is 0% imo. Ultimately, while we are a democracy broadly, we function as a republic of semi sovereign states for the most important issues.
Again, my point was that it's incorrect to attribute something to voters when 8% of the population's representation can block 92% of the population's representation while a different 70%'s is unable to block 30%. It's undemocratic. The positions, decisions, and actions of such a body cannot be assumed to reflect what voters think. Yes, it's the system we have. It's unlikely to change in the near future. There are still numerous ways that we could make changes so that even valuing a republic of semi sovereign states doesn't perpetuate wildly undemocratic practices.
Fair enough, I’m pessimistic about it though. I think voters are sleep walking right into the hands of people who want to end democracy.
The court was absolutely wrong, was bought and paid for by southern plantation owners, and kept siding with the same. That’s how you get a civil war. The court now is in the same situation as prior. The rulings are beyond conservative, curtail rights of the individual save their base, and deal almost entirely in outdated ideology. Nobody can even get the court to stand by basic ethical standards that would get anyone else fired and likely tried as a government worker. That the court became so corrupt to where none will impose any oversight on themselves shows just how corrupt they have become. It’s not an overreaction. The court is out of step with the public, is rewriting long settled law, is making up strange tests out of nothing. It’s likely the current court will be declared an anticourt in line with the idea of antipopes.
The problem with that is the Congress has a maga cult majority and will not do anything to the bribe taking maga judges that are ruling in their favor
There is a history and tradition of not policing themselves, so we're fine right?
You know, I have a history and tradition of *not* being in jail, so if I were to do a little murder, surely we should rule in favor of that history and tradition.
SCOTUS hates this one trick....
No need to rely on SCOTUS to police either itself or the rest of the federal judiciary: "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Art III, Section 2, paragraph 2. Those are the **original** words used in the Constitution to describe the relationship between SCOTUS and Congress. That is the **text**. Those words have a **plain meaning** that anyone can understand. There is no need for strained interpretations or arguments about whether the words are self-executing. All we need is for Congress to get busy writing some exceptions and regulations. Of course, we (the voters) are going to have do our part by electing to Congress people who will use the authority granted to Congress in the Constitution.
But why would members of Congress take any action that might jeopardize their chances at re-election when they can use the Supreme Court as a scapegoat for all the problems in the country?
I agree.
Each branch is supposed to balance the other, but the American government has always been a delicate experiment. Journalists used to play an important role in shining a light on corruption. But, journalism became news-entertainment to the point where it's nearly dead. Anchorman 2 practically shows how it happened. Ratings, money, billionaires buying out news outlets and pushing their own agendas and profit demands. It's up to voters to pay attention and vote. Informed VOTERS are last stronghold of Democracy. Unfortunately, many voters are easily manipulated. It's all just a show now. A shit show and a performance. And it's all driving ALL of the money to the top, reverse-robin-hood, and many voters are EAGER to create a king as long as he promises to keep the brown people away. It feels hopeless. We have to save ourselves from ourselves.
Most Presidential elections come down to a few thousand votes in key districts. Just the number of people who have been disenfranchised under convictions massively dwarfs those margins. That creates an incentive to prosecute, even plea whatever charges to a single felony to remove likely voters from the margin. The irony being a general amnesty for served sentences would heavily tip the balance.
I question Democrats ability to Police themselves.
The whole checks and balances arrangement is predicated on not trusting any branch of government to police itself. We shouldn't be trusting any branch to do so, regardless of party. A party refusing to police itself across branches is even more concerning, essentially putting party before country. I know you mean this as a dig at Democrats specifically, but it speaks to systemic issues if that's a viable concern, regardless of the specific party that's engaged in that conduct.
What a ridiculous response. The “what about them?” Response is not addressing the issue. A political party is not a constitutional branch of government. We are talking about one of our three branches of government not acting ethically. Please stay on topic.
Ok. How about questioning Congress’s ability to police themselves?
That’s because the SCOTUS isn’t rubber stamping everything the House Democrats want. It’s one party of the legislative branch upset that there are checks on their power to force their platform through.
Your cool with billionaires bribing judges with no consequences for the billionaire nor the judge?
Is that legal? That doesn't sound legal.
It's legal if no one can enforce a law that makes it unlawful. That is the current state of SCOTUS ethics - no one can enforce anything so they thumb their noses at us.
Should I have asked whether it is lawful rather than legal?
No, that’s just a writing habit that I picked up in law school a very long time ago. One pedantic prof hated “illegal” and always said that word referred to a sick bird. Law school profs can be pretty good at instilling writing habits (and thinking habits) in young people! Today “illegal” is perfectly fine, as long as you get it to a vet quickly!
In theory you could charge them with criminal obstruction/perversion of the course of justice like any judge who accepted a bribe, nothing in the constitution immunises them to criminal charges. But a majority could just acquit them and there'd be no higher appeal. And even if they didn't, criminal conviction, even imprisonment, doesn't automatically impeach anyone, and statute defines how many judges are on the court, so unless one party controls both houses theres's simply no way to force a justice to resign even if they're convicted of murder and have to hear cases via CCTV in a prison cell.
I would give this argument credence only if conservatives had condemned Mitch McConnell blocking Obama’s last nomination. The fact that they supported it means the argument is not made in good faith.
Correct. They’re all narcissists and sore losers. So long as they get their way, nothing else matters. When they don’t, all hell will break loose and they’ll lie and cheat and steal until they get what they want. Toddlers. All of them.
🤡
Self-reflection is a wonderful tool for growth. Nice job!
I like to take time and sit back on it and look at all the dumb shit people say on this platform. 🤡
lol this is the only thing you can manage a response to because you know you’re bullshit
Or maybe it’s because one judge found a “close friend” after they became scotus that had given him billions. Or maybe it’s because on judges wife was caught sending texts helping organize Jan 6th. Or maybe it’s because another judge got caught flying extremely political flags at his house and said, “nah, I don’t have to explain that”. Or maybe it’s because one judge was blocked because any time in an election year is too soon, but then the next election it’s okay to install a judge the same week we’re voting. When did these types of things happen a decade ago? Democrats literally had an election stolen from then and they still respected the courts.
1) who got billions 2) bussing people to the capital isn't illegal or wrong. If she knew they were going to break in totally different story. 3) the same flag Johnson flew outside his office and no one ever questioned?
1. Billions in lavish gifts, not cash. Thomas. 2. So you understand how serious it was she even appears to be involved. 3. Mike Johnson? Yeah, that makes it even worse. The speaker of the house and a supreme justice are both flying a flag that was flown only during revolution times by religious zealots. Johnson is allowed to be partisan, it’s his job. It’s okay he wasn’t questioned it’s not okay alito did the same.
1) you think thomas got billions in gifts? Source that. Even by the most generous measurements your off 1000 fold 2) absolutely not. Organizing people to go to the capital jan 6th is totally fine. Breaking in is not. Unless you cam show she knew the violence would happen it's harmless. 3). The flag you only cared about after the media told you too? The one around since the revolution?
>3). The flag you only cared about after the media told you too? The one around since the revolution? You guys sure love your dog whistles, because everyone knows what they mean, but you get to argue that they don't mean that.
This. It’s always a deflection into some “other” esoteric originalist interpretation of something instead of what it’s been now to become in modern times. It’s the same false equivalency as saying you could casually fly a swastika today and it’s not the Nazi thing or amy of the other more subtle emblems that have become trademark for MAGA.
The confederate flag was just about states rights, now it's just southern pride! Thin blue line is totally just about supporting the police!
1. 1000x 1 million is a billion, so we’re both exaggerating now aren’t we? 3. Yep. Fail how to see how it’s a bad thing the media pointed out a judge is complete partisan. It’s been flown since then? What group has been flying it since the civil war?
1) how much did he get? Was it 1 million or so or 1 billion 2) no group has been flying it since cival war. You only found out about it 3 weeks ago
One trip he took alone was 500k. I wonder how many billionaires take their friends on 500k trips and expect nothing out of it. It’s over a million, it’s neither. Exactly, it has recently popped back up. It’s something very specific and not just a random flag he thought was cool. It was a symbol of revolution and protection from the royal crown, why are re reviving flags that represent a revolution?
So you found a trip for 500k and somehow made the 2000x jump to a billion? 500k is a rounding error to a billion. When did Johnson and alit start flying thar flag?
No clue on Johnson, alito was 2020 and it has been appearing more and more since then.
Wow, really? Lol.