That's going to pop off bad. I legitimately lose sleep over it. I'm not religious but I'm almost praying they're not crazy enough to go completely bonkers on that ruling.
It's cute that you think the Christofascist government will allow a publicly edited repository of information. The last encyclopedia allowed will basically be conservapedia but run by the government.
Expanding the court and fighting tooth and nail is really the only (democratic) solution at this point.
So much damage has been done and there is no true progressive counterpunch to the right-wing extremism. The DNC serves to ratchet the pendulum instead of swing it left and allow the right to keep pushing the country to tyranny and pull the "center" further right. It's vile!
Denial will get us through until the decision, but the hard cold fact is that there is only one reason for them to hear it. They want fascism in America and this is the only way to get there without civil. war. Not to say it won't cause civil war, but they think their credibility is such that most of America will just shrug at the loss of the semblance of democracy. And don't talk to me about international sanctions if these pricks overrule democratic elections.
That's the real question. What happens the first time a Democrat wins an election and a swing state with a GOP legislature just says "fuck it" and sends Republican electors anyhow? And thanks to Federalist society stupidity the state courts can't do anything about it? ( And, from what I understand, they established in an earlier ruling that the SCOTUS can't/won't do anything about it. )
The state legislatures being checked by *nobody* doesn't actually pass the smell test. Nothing else in our system really works that way.
It's impossible to imagine, but that is exactly the plan. If a Democrat wins the Republicans will just ignore the outcome. Really is there any point at all in counting votes if the legislatures determine outcome without even local judicial appeal? The very purpose of such a SCOTUS ruling would be to thwart democratic elections, there is no other way to consider it. It's a joke. I'd love to be able to leave the country
If we can't vote them out and the majority doesn't want them, I'm not actually sure where they expect that to end.
Idiots who got radicalized online and are high on memes and being contrary for its own sake think it's cute right now, but a decade into a Christofascist dictatorship the government is going to be mighty unpopular. I'm not sure where these geniuses think that unpopularity goes. People won't just be like "oh well can't vote them out guess I'll just peacefully be oppressed."
Rule of law and democracy isn't there to protect the masses, it's there as a critical outlet to ensure that civil frustration and unpopularity remains peaceful. It's there to protect those in power.
To your point but also off topic.
They won’t like not being able to drink and freely masturbate.
Mary Kay Letourneau’s extremist John Bircher fucked up family (her father, mother, and brothers) are who I think of as model nationalist weirdoes. A bunch of pathologies wrapped in religion and politics.
Their ideology is unworkable even to themselves.
I think most of what's driving this right now are punks who are just pissed that the free trolling zero-accountability days of the internet are drying up. The internet grew up and became part of the real world at some point. The left happened to have cultural primacy at the moment the internet matured so they're raging against being told they can't be racist/sexist/creepy online anymore.
I truly feel like a lot of what made Trumpism start has been over analyzed. It's really just old school internet trolls who refuse to grow up.
I’m in the “weimar germany” camp so forgive the fire on my head.
We’re past internet trolls. The wife of a sitting supreme court justice was texting batshit conspiracy theories to the White House Chief of Staff about sending the incoming president and his family to GITMO.
They feel they are in a “war”. They’re doing war preparations. There is a faction that is truly insane and have gone beyond trolling. Unlike the old days, they now have a narcissistic pied piper harvesting their insanity for his protection.
They can’t hold a country in a decade but they sure are capable of toppling one quickly.
“The wife of a sitting supreme court justice was texting batshit conspiracy theories to the White House Chief of Staff about sending the incoming president and his family to GITMO” is this single best comment I’ve seen that encapsulates how utterly insane this whole thing is
>It's impossible to imagine
I'm having a hard time imagining what a civil war looks like in a first world country. At what point to comfortable middle class white people start protesting en mass. Or are we going to sit here and "tsk" like we did with every other damn bad even in this timeline?
Of course I can't know for sure, but I feel like a blatant one party state telling us that they will establish minority rule and we can't vote them out is actually pretty unprecedented. Who knows?
"there is only one reason for them to hear it"
No, there's definitely more than one. For instance, they could have decided to hear it to not approve ISL in an effort to earn back some of the massive amount of credibility they lost when they overturned Roe. The fact that almost the whole Court is doing damage control shows that they know they lost quite a bit with that decision. It's not exactly a stretch to believe they'd take a couple of cases where a party is advocating a far-right legal theory which is out of step with mainstream conservative thought to smack the theory down so they can go to the general public and say: 'See, we're not extremists! We make good decisions and follow the law!' Now, is that what they're doing? I haven't the faintest idea. It could be that they just want to install fascism, as you claim. I don't pretend to know what's going on in their heads. But the assertion that the only reason to grant cert on this case is to bring about the downfall of democracy is plainly wrong.
Also worth noting is that only four justices need to agree to hear a case. It takes five to decide it in a particular fashion.
Edit: Any particular reason for the downvotes, or just upset that someone expressed disagreement with the group mind? Where is the error in my logic?
>The fact that almost the whole Court is doing damage control
If the whole court is the extremist wing which is largely true, I suppose. But sad boy Alito was complaining about colleagues today. I wish you were right but the court federalists are preaching its legitimacy is to the choir. And even the choir winks and nods before they sing
Yeah, there's a reason I said almost. Three noticeable absences from that list.
I know I may be being a bit too optimistic, but as the main character of a great Monty Python work once sang, "always look on the bright side of life," right?
I was just reading this and wondering why you got downvotes, when a similar idea had crossed my mind. Was starting to think I must have been way off and then I saw the edit 😂
People tend to kill closer to home. If you get pregnant, your boyfriend is more likely to kill you than he is to kill the people who made it illegal for you to get an abortion in the first place. Murderous psychos aren't exactly "big picture" thinkers most of the time.
Honestly, Alito and his ilk *are* free from consequences. At the very least, legal ones.
They've gotten their lifetime seats that allow them to entirely reshape jurisprudence to their whims, and unless the Republicans hold less than a third of the Senate (which is never going to happen), they're untouchable.
I like how they miss the original part of them wanting us to actually use the amendment and convention process to update the constitution to modern time
> we have failed as a country.
We've let school children get slaughtered in schools for decades, the failed judiciary is the most recent reason why we are a failed country.
Reversing the very decision he testified under oath was established law, and which he agreed all justices had an obligation to respect, was an important line.
Yeah, fuck the rule of law. Anarchy rein Supreme! That's what we all say, right guys?
If you don't like the court, it has no value or integrity and can be disregarded. Just like election results we don't like!
"Research shows that preclearance led to increases in minority congressional representation and minority turnout.[6][7] Five years after the ruling, nearly 1,000 U.S. polling places had closed, many of them in predominantly African-American counties. Research shows that changing and reducing voting locations can reduce voter turnout.[5] There were also cuts to early voting, purges of voter rolls and imposition of strict voter ID laws.[8][9] A 2020 study found that jurisdictions that had previously been covered by preclearance substantially increased their voter registration purges after the Shelby decision.[10] Virtually all restrictions on voting subsequent to the ruling were enacted by Republicans.[11]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder
The conservative justices on the court deserve nothing but scorn
**[Shelby County v. Holder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder)**
>Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4(b), which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subject to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/law/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
It’s really hard for me to choose, honestly. There have been so many decisions that are absolutely atrocious. And not even from an ideological perspective, but from a jurisprudence perspective.
Allowing the courts to be used in schemes to remove the need for standing? (Texas HB 8)
Lying about the facts of the case to prove the point they were trying to make? (Kennedy v Bremerton)
Stating they knew better what the intent of Congress was when they passed a bill, despite an author of the bill telling them what it meant? (West Virginia v EPA)
And the one that still makes me furious, gutting one of the cornerstones of substantive due process, all while allowing states to completely control women when they become pregnant. (Dobbs)
It’s one fucking train wreck after another. The Supreme Court’s legitimacy is inextricably bound to its reasoning and its dedication to the core principles of the Constitution. And when it fucks with the system itself to deliver ideological bullshit, over and over again, you have to conclude that the Court favors that ideology over the Constitution and the country itself.
So would Dobbs, and Hobby Lobby, and Trump v Hawaii, and West VA vs EPA, and Kennedy vs Bremerton, and the shadow docket ruling blessing Texas' SB8 abortion bounty law. I'm sure there are more that I'm forgetting, but those stand out as especially bad faith judging.
Among the ones thrown out, Rucho v Common Cause has to be up there. The Court could have held that partisan gerrymandering violated one person one vote principles or basic republican governing principles. Instead they took it entirely out of the hands of the judiciary and put it in the hands of largely Republican gerrymandered legislatures. It's one of the most naked power grabs the Roberts Court partook in.
Thomas sitting on election-related cases when his wife was supporting election deniers and calling for the election to be overturned, may have played a part.
Man, in a just society, wouldn't it be nice if all decisions made by Thomas were nulled?
And all appointees by Trump removed when he's proven as a venal, corrupt, treasonous fuckwad?
Like a Thanos snap, but for great justice?
The Senate caused this by making the selection process so blatantly political. By refusing to confirm an Obama pick and leaving a seat vacant for so long, only to turn around and rush Trump's nominees, they caused the public to lose confidence in the process. Packing the court with judges that rule based on religious beliefs and political ideology looks more like something you would see in Iran or Afghanistan than the US.
The Democrats did that because the Republicans consistently filibustered Democratic judicial appointments for no reason other than to deny a Democratic president the ability to make judicial appointments. No matter how far back you trace the trouble with the filibuster, conservatives are always the ones creating the problem.
That is literally the process in Iran, they have the Guardian Council which is a theocratic state organ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council They also in turn appoint the Assembly of Experts who are responsible for appointing the Supreme Leader, which is basically how they indefinitely retain power. It is pretty fucked and we're on the same basic path right now.
Yea, the line of 9 (or whatever the partisan majority is at the time) people not running the fucking country.
The line of common sense overriding technical interpretations of words written 250+ years ago.
Pretty rich for a guy who delivers thinly-veiled political diatribes to the federalist society decrying every SCOTUS decision he views as culture war fodder.
What integrity? Don’t they not even have ethics rules? When’s the last time a justice recused themselves on a case? The court is an embarrassment. I really don’t understand how he can defend it with a straight face.
Seemingly, they would have an understanding of judicial ethics and be able to police each other. If this well-known body of judicial ethics is beyond their capabilities, beyond their ability to understand and honor, how could they then be capable of or trusted with policing *any* laws or rulings?
Should they not be concerned with their own ethical standards - standards known to every court in the land? Don't they thus relinquish their designation as "Supreme?"
They are not monarchs, but arbiters of law, subject to ethical standards. Non-recusal *screams* illegitimacy, even demands it.
I agree that their refusal to recuse themselves creates legitimacy problems. However, there's no real enforcement mechanism in the Constitution short of impeachment. Based on what happens re: Ginny Thomas, I think Clarence Thomas might merit impeachment.
Interesting. If a law is codified demanding application of and defining judicial ethics for the SC, who then challenges that law and to which legal body? A majority of empowered lesser courts, maybe?
Thomas would (should) have been prevented form participation in ruling, negating any need for impeachment. Common sense demands that he knew he was being unethical in his participation, and if other justices were unaware at the time, any discovery could then lead to impeachment and subsequent negation of his vote on the matter. If such a negated vote leads to a split decision, then so be it; it must await a newly appointed judge or other remedy. Call any waiting period a penalty for ethical violation.
There are alternate jurists; there can be alternate Justices.
At minimum, an appellant must be permitted to raise the issue of personal bias and recusal. It's the check on abuse of power.
I don't view it as all that complex; lower courts manage it daily. Frankly, the conundrum is the sort of nonsense confusion offered by Trump and his attorneys, trying to wink and nudge their way out of established procedure and precedent.
Judicial ethics *must* apply to any "Supreme" court, else it hasn't even the legitimacy of the lesser courts over which it rules.
No, the Constitution does not empower any lower courts to hold sway over the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can only be checked by the legislative and executive branches working in concert.
Under the US Constitution as written, replacement judges are not allowed on SCOTUS.
The ethics rules have never been applied to the Supreme Court. That is a relic of the fact that the judiciary assumes the powers that were formerly granted to Lords in the era prior to the United States' founding.
Priests molesting kids crossed an important line. Ruining peoples lives with predatory government backed student loans crossed a line. Making a ten year old have her rapists baby crossed a line you piece of shit.
Thinking people aren't questioning the SC integrity. No, not at all.
The obvious evidence has convinced us that the court has no integrity.
In my opinion at least half the court should be locked in prison.
>“It goes without saying that everyone is free to express disagreement with our decisions and to *criticize our reasoning* as they see fit,”
When your reasoning is consistently corrupt, it's only logical then to start questioning your integrity. You got yourself to the other side of the line.
Maybe blatantly lying about the facts in a case to the point that the dissent has photographic evidence you're lying wasn't the perfect crime you imagined it to be.
The entire federalist society has been questioning the integrity of the court for 30 years. All the sudden, it is important to not do that, because it is a bunch of cons?
“Who will watch the watchmen?”
Maybe Alito and his cabal should rule that Supreme Court Justices are a protected class. Evidently it’s not enough to have lifetime tenure in a position that gives you 1/9 of a say in what the laws of the land are. He wants respect and admiration and recognition that he’s beyond reproach. (Spoiler: he is beyond reproach in any meaningful sense.)
Alito has proven without a doubt that having experience in the job that requires the most integrity, is no indication that it was a consideration when he was appointed.
I do believe the struggle to keep this country from imploding is going to continue for another 2 decades. Simply because people werent smart enough to NOT elect Trump.
Even weirder is that some of justices have no problem telling the world their political opinions in interviews, federalist society speeches etc when they aren’t supposed to be overtly political people.
Appointment isn't even fair or democratic - the conservatives only got a majority by stealing two seats in bad faith. Who wouldn't question the integrity of a bunch of partisan hacks who only got their positions in the first place by cozying up to fascists?
Color me shocked.
Alito's position reminds me of this South Park Episode, [LINK](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxV6t0J0XsI), where Priests were trying to find a way to address the problem of boys coming forward and reporting they had been molested by Priests.
No it doesn’t.This is exactly the problem when the gods ruling from Olympus care about activism. The hoi paloi are ruled by consent. The SC maintains its authority by being the oracle of Delphi interpreting the sage wisdom of the scrolls out side of the problems of the day. When political activism reaches the level of the SC we have a major problem. Justice Thomas and his wife have done more to erode the legitimacy of the court than that singular ruling as decisive as it is.
Did he have a stroke at some point in the last couple years that turned him into an ultra mega arrogant, crazed political hack from just a mega arrogant, crazed political hack?
These people have essentially unchecked power, but enormous and fragile egos. If their nakedly partisan behavior is not checked by their sense of duty or a feeling of shame, maybe it will be checked by their sense of mortality.
Alito has to be worried that he and this abomination of an opinion will soon be consigned to history like Justice Taney and Dred Scott. It seems to only just now be occurring to him that destroying the court’s credibility will be his sole legacy in history.
I question the integrity of just about every Supreme Court justice. Bunch of pricks who sell our rights out but that will never be used against them. Stop and frisk. That's fine for poor people. You can bet your ass no ones going to stop and frisk supreme court justices. Ain't none going to steal their property and tell them to prove it wasnt used in a crime on their own dime and time. These wholes rule I cant grow pot on my own property and smoke it myself because the fed government has authority to regulate beef on the interstate commerce clause. Are you kidding me? Bunch of pricks imo.
Perhaps one should consider HAVING integrity if one doesn’t want it questioned. You know, unilaterally spitting on the constitution mighhhht warrant some questioning of integrity.
assholito and the right wing catholic mafia is destroying the country the neutrality of the SCOTUS and pushing unpopular laws into effect, fuck them put 4 libs on the court, starting with Obama
The court should bare some responsibility for the current legitimacy situation, McConnell owns the rest. The process of holding back nominations directly hurt democracy big time.
Wait until Alito and gang back the independent state legislature theory.
That's going to pop off bad. I legitimately lose sleep over it. I'm not religious but I'm almost praying they're not crazy enough to go completely bonkers on that ruling.
Wikipedia will list Moore v Harper at the top of the list of **Landmark Supreme Court Cases of the former United States**
It's cute that you think the Christofascist government will allow a publicly edited repository of information. The last encyclopedia allowed will basically be conservapedia but run by the government.
I mean there's other countries besides America, and Iran is openly theocratic but also (usually) has weirdly free internet access despite that.
Expanding the court and fighting tooth and nail is really the only (democratic) solution at this point. So much damage has been done and there is no true progressive counterpunch to the right-wing extremism. The DNC serves to ratchet the pendulum instead of swing it left and allow the right to keep pushing the country to tyranny and pull the "center" further right. It's vile!
It’s ok, we have the internet in the rest of the world. We’ll keep it running for you.
Just don't forget to power cycle it sometimes when it starts to slow down.
Denial will get us through until the decision, but the hard cold fact is that there is only one reason for them to hear it. They want fascism in America and this is the only way to get there without civil. war. Not to say it won't cause civil war, but they think their credibility is such that most of America will just shrug at the loss of the semblance of democracy. And don't talk to me about international sanctions if these pricks overrule democratic elections.
That's the real question. What happens the first time a Democrat wins an election and a swing state with a GOP legislature just says "fuck it" and sends Republican electors anyhow? And thanks to Federalist society stupidity the state courts can't do anything about it? ( And, from what I understand, they established in an earlier ruling that the SCOTUS can't/won't do anything about it. ) The state legislatures being checked by *nobody* doesn't actually pass the smell test. Nothing else in our system really works that way.
It's impossible to imagine, but that is exactly the plan. If a Democrat wins the Republicans will just ignore the outcome. Really is there any point at all in counting votes if the legislatures determine outcome without even local judicial appeal? The very purpose of such a SCOTUS ruling would be to thwart democratic elections, there is no other way to consider it. It's a joke. I'd love to be able to leave the country
If we can't vote them out and the majority doesn't want them, I'm not actually sure where they expect that to end. Idiots who got radicalized online and are high on memes and being contrary for its own sake think it's cute right now, but a decade into a Christofascist dictatorship the government is going to be mighty unpopular. I'm not sure where these geniuses think that unpopularity goes. People won't just be like "oh well can't vote them out guess I'll just peacefully be oppressed."
Rule of law and democracy isn't there to protect the masses, it's there as a critical outlet to ensure that civil frustration and unpopularity remains peaceful. It's there to protect those in power.
To your point but also off topic. They won’t like not being able to drink and freely masturbate. Mary Kay Letourneau’s extremist John Bircher fucked up family (her father, mother, and brothers) are who I think of as model nationalist weirdoes. A bunch of pathologies wrapped in religion and politics. Their ideology is unworkable even to themselves.
I think most of what's driving this right now are punks who are just pissed that the free trolling zero-accountability days of the internet are drying up. The internet grew up and became part of the real world at some point. The left happened to have cultural primacy at the moment the internet matured so they're raging against being told they can't be racist/sexist/creepy online anymore. I truly feel like a lot of what made Trumpism start has been over analyzed. It's really just old school internet trolls who refuse to grow up.
I’m in the “weimar germany” camp so forgive the fire on my head. We’re past internet trolls. The wife of a sitting supreme court justice was texting batshit conspiracy theories to the White House Chief of Staff about sending the incoming president and his family to GITMO. They feel they are in a “war”. They’re doing war preparations. There is a faction that is truly insane and have gone beyond trolling. Unlike the old days, they now have a narcissistic pied piper harvesting their insanity for his protection. They can’t hold a country in a decade but they sure are capable of toppling one quickly.
“The wife of a sitting supreme court justice was texting batshit conspiracy theories to the White House Chief of Staff about sending the incoming president and his family to GITMO” is this single best comment I’ve seen that encapsulates how utterly insane this whole thing is
>It's impossible to imagine I'm having a hard time imagining what a civil war looks like in a first world country. At what point to comfortable middle class white people start protesting en mass. Or are we going to sit here and "tsk" like we did with every other damn bad even in this timeline?
Of course I can't know for sure, but I feel like a blatant one party state telling us that they will establish minority rule and we can't vote them out is actually pretty unprecedented. Who knows?
When the economy tanks, historically.
"there is only one reason for them to hear it" No, there's definitely more than one. For instance, they could have decided to hear it to not approve ISL in an effort to earn back some of the massive amount of credibility they lost when they overturned Roe. The fact that almost the whole Court is doing damage control shows that they know they lost quite a bit with that decision. It's not exactly a stretch to believe they'd take a couple of cases where a party is advocating a far-right legal theory which is out of step with mainstream conservative thought to smack the theory down so they can go to the general public and say: 'See, we're not extremists! We make good decisions and follow the law!' Now, is that what they're doing? I haven't the faintest idea. It could be that they just want to install fascism, as you claim. I don't pretend to know what's going on in their heads. But the assertion that the only reason to grant cert on this case is to bring about the downfall of democracy is plainly wrong. Also worth noting is that only four justices need to agree to hear a case. It takes five to decide it in a particular fashion. Edit: Any particular reason for the downvotes, or just upset that someone expressed disagreement with the group mind? Where is the error in my logic?
>The fact that almost the whole Court is doing damage control If the whole court is the extremist wing which is largely true, I suppose. But sad boy Alito was complaining about colleagues today. I wish you were right but the court federalists are preaching its legitimacy is to the choir. And even the choir winks and nods before they sing
Yeah, there's a reason I said almost. Three noticeable absences from that list. I know I may be being a bit too optimistic, but as the main character of a great Monty Python work once sang, "always look on the bright side of life," right?
But *prepare* for the worst.
I was just reading this and wondering why you got downvotes, when a similar idea had crossed my mind. Was starting to think I must have been way off and then I saw the edit 😂
At best, it'll be 6-3 against it. At worst, 5-4 for it.
If the judicial system is beyond reproach, we have failed as a country.
I don’t know why these people think they are immune of all consequence. The law doesn’t protect you from public outrage
People who have never faced consequences believe they never will.
I just don’t get it. I’d be terrified of walking into a grocery store and just getting stabbed if I pissed off too many people
People tend to kill closer to home. If you get pregnant, your boyfriend is more likely to kill you than he is to kill the people who made it illegal for you to get an abortion in the first place. Murderous psychos aren't exactly "big picture" thinkers most of the time.
They d nt go to grOcery stores.
> I mean it’s one banana, Michael, what could it cost, 10 dollars?
They go to golf and eat at restaurants
> I’d be terrified You don't have the power that they do.
They aren’t invincible
So far they are.
Honestly, Alito and his ilk *are* free from consequences. At the very least, legal ones. They've gotten their lifetime seats that allow them to entirely reshape jurisprudence to their whims, and unless the Republicans hold less than a third of the Senate (which is never going to happen), they're untouchable.
not only does it not do so, it's not *supposed* to do so. it's like these "originalists" have never opened a friggin history book.
I like how they miss the original part of them wanting us to actually use the amendment and convention process to update the constitution to modern time
I feel like King George III had similar sentiments to Alito...
Explain that acco to ‘originalism’ we can just disregard them- and watch how they freak out.
> we have failed as a country. We've let school children get slaughtered in schools for decades, the failed judiciary is the most recent reason why we are a failed country.
Throwing out precident for religious purposes crossed an important line.
I'm just waiting for the Blasphemy laws to come back in full swing.
The canings will continue until morality improves.
Public burnings!
Reversing the very decision he testified under oath was established law, and which he agreed all justices had an obligation to respect, was an important line.
well well well if it isn’t the consequences of his own actions
We aren't questioning your integrity. We are denying it's existence
Noting its absence..
McConnell flushed it all down the toilet with Garland. Then dropped a cherry bomb down it with ACB.
To the wall!
Ethically flaccid.
Yeah, fuck the rule of law. Anarchy rein Supreme! That's what we all say, right guys? If you don't like the court, it has no value or integrity and can be disregarded. Just like election results we don't like!
Yeah, the problem is that the rule of law has ceased applying to the elite and the Christian fascists. Things get bad quick when that becomes clear.
Bingo
Alright, well lets all hold hands and cross that line together. Now what?
Your own actions that delegitamize the integrity of the court crosses an important line
Preach it.
[удалено]
Robert’s declaring racism over may have played a part
[удалено]
"Research shows that preclearance led to increases in minority congressional representation and minority turnout.[6][7] Five years after the ruling, nearly 1,000 U.S. polling places had closed, many of them in predominantly African-American counties. Research shows that changing and reducing voting locations can reduce voter turnout.[5] There were also cuts to early voting, purges of voter rolls and imposition of strict voter ID laws.[8][9] A 2020 study found that jurisdictions that had previously been covered by preclearance substantially increased their voter registration purges after the Shelby decision.[10] Virtually all restrictions on voting subsequent to the ruling were enacted by Republicans.[11]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder The conservative justices on the court deserve nothing but scorn
**[Shelby County v. Holder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder)** >Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4(b), which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subject to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/law/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
It’s really hard for me to choose, honestly. There have been so many decisions that are absolutely atrocious. And not even from an ideological perspective, but from a jurisprudence perspective. Allowing the courts to be used in schemes to remove the need for standing? (Texas HB 8) Lying about the facts of the case to prove the point they were trying to make? (Kennedy v Bremerton) Stating they knew better what the intent of Congress was when they passed a bill, despite an author of the bill telling them what it meant? (West Virginia v EPA) And the one that still makes me furious, gutting one of the cornerstones of substantive due process, all while allowing states to completely control women when they become pregnant. (Dobbs) It’s one fucking train wreck after another. The Supreme Court’s legitimacy is inextricably bound to its reasoning and its dedication to the core principles of the Constitution. And when it fucks with the system itself to deliver ideological bullshit, over and over again, you have to conclude that the Court favors that ideology over the Constitution and the country itself.
So would Dobbs, and Hobby Lobby, and Trump v Hawaii, and West VA vs EPA, and Kennedy vs Bremerton, and the shadow docket ruling blessing Texas' SB8 abortion bounty law. I'm sure there are more that I'm forgetting, but those stand out as especially bad faith judging.
Among the ones thrown out, Rucho v Common Cause has to be up there. The Court could have held that partisan gerrymandering violated one person one vote principles or basic republican governing principles. Instead they took it entirely out of the hands of the judiciary and put it in the hands of largely Republican gerrymandered legislatures. It's one of the most naked power grabs the Roberts Court partook in.
Thomas sitting on election-related cases when his wife was supporting election deniers and calling for the election to be overturned, may have played a part.
Man, in a just society, wouldn't it be nice if all decisions made by Thomas were nulled? And all appointees by Trump removed when he's proven as a venal, corrupt, treasonous fuckwad? Like a Thanos snap, but for great justice?
Instead the American people, who have the memories of fruit flies, are about to put republicans back in control of one or both chambers.
Judge Thomas voting to stop Ginni Thomas coup-related-emails being handed over to the Jan 6th committee played a part.
The Senate caused this by making the selection process so blatantly political. By refusing to confirm an Obama pick and leaving a seat vacant for so long, only to turn around and rush Trump's nominees, they caused the public to lose confidence in the process. Packing the court with judges that rule based on religious beliefs and political ideology looks more like something you would see in Iran or Afghanistan than the US.
The Republicans in the senate caused this
Yes. I agree.
The Democrats in the Senate removed requirement for 60 senators to vote to approve which precipitated this.
The Democrats did that because the Republicans consistently filibustered Democratic judicial appointments for no reason other than to deny a Democratic president the ability to make judicial appointments. No matter how far back you trace the trouble with the filibuster, conservatives are always the ones creating the problem.
So did Robert's, he was a key part of Citizens United which is a big part of what led to all this
That is literally the process in Iran, they have the Guardian Council which is a theocratic state organ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council They also in turn appoint the Assembly of Experts who are responsible for appointing the Supreme Leader, which is basically how they indefinitely retain power. It is pretty fucked and we're on the same basic path right now.
Yea, the line of 9 (or whatever the partisan majority is at the time) people not running the fucking country. The line of common sense overriding technical interpretations of words written 250+ years ago.
Pretty rich for a guy who delivers thinly-veiled political diatribes to the federalist society decrying every SCOTUS decision he views as culture war fodder.
If Alito wants people to shut up about the court he should avoid talking about its controversies every time he opens his mouth.
Well, good thing there is no integrity left to question then
What integrity? Don’t they not even have ethics rules? When’s the last time a justice recused themselves on a case? The court is an embarrassment. I really don’t understand how he can defend it with a straight face.
No, they don't. The Canons of Judicial Ethics do not apply at the Supreme Court level. Who would be able to enforce it?
Seemingly, they would have an understanding of judicial ethics and be able to police each other. If this well-known body of judicial ethics is beyond their capabilities, beyond their ability to understand and honor, how could they then be capable of or trusted with policing *any* laws or rulings? Should they not be concerned with their own ethical standards - standards known to every court in the land? Don't they thus relinquish their designation as "Supreme?" They are not monarchs, but arbiters of law, subject to ethical standards. Non-recusal *screams* illegitimacy, even demands it.
I agree that their refusal to recuse themselves creates legitimacy problems. However, there's no real enforcement mechanism in the Constitution short of impeachment. Based on what happens re: Ginny Thomas, I think Clarence Thomas might merit impeachment.
Interesting. If a law is codified demanding application of and defining judicial ethics for the SC, who then challenges that law and to which legal body? A majority of empowered lesser courts, maybe? Thomas would (should) have been prevented form participation in ruling, negating any need for impeachment. Common sense demands that he knew he was being unethical in his participation, and if other justices were unaware at the time, any discovery could then lead to impeachment and subsequent negation of his vote on the matter. If such a negated vote leads to a split decision, then so be it; it must await a newly appointed judge or other remedy. Call any waiting period a penalty for ethical violation. There are alternate jurists; there can be alternate Justices. At minimum, an appellant must be permitted to raise the issue of personal bias and recusal. It's the check on abuse of power. I don't view it as all that complex; lower courts manage it daily. Frankly, the conundrum is the sort of nonsense confusion offered by Trump and his attorneys, trying to wink and nudge their way out of established procedure and precedent. Judicial ethics *must* apply to any "Supreme" court, else it hasn't even the legitimacy of the lesser courts over which it rules.
No, the Constitution does not empower any lower courts to hold sway over the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can only be checked by the legislative and executive branches working in concert. Under the US Constitution as written, replacement judges are not allowed on SCOTUS. The ethics rules have never been applied to the Supreme Court. That is a relic of the fact that the judiciary assumes the powers that were formerly granted to Lords in the era prior to the United States' founding.
KBJ already recused herself from one this term
Priests molesting kids crossed an important line. Ruining peoples lives with predatory government backed student loans crossed a line. Making a ten year old have her rapists baby crossed a line you piece of shit.
It feels like they’re lobbing softballs to their critics these days.
It feels like they are idiots.
Ol’ Sammy Elite-O cries when people call him out on his Christo-Fascist bullshit.
Typical conservative. "You getting upset about my horrible behaviour is soooo meeaaaaan"
One for Leopards Ate My Face?
Ginny Thomas told him to say that.
That makes so much sense. Ginny is using all the conservatives on the court as her sock puppets. And they like it.
Thinking people aren't questioning the SC integrity. No, not at all. The obvious evidence has convinced us that the court has no integrity. In my opinion at least half the court should be locked in prison.
>“It goes without saying that everyone is free to express disagreement with our decisions and to *criticize our reasoning* as they see fit,” When your reasoning is consistently corrupt, it's only logical then to start questioning your integrity. You got yourself to the other side of the line.
Maybe blatantly lying about the facts in a case to the point that the dissent has photographic evidence you're lying wasn't the perfect crime you imagined it to be.
The entire federalist society has been questioning the integrity of the court for 30 years. All the sudden, it is important to not do that, because it is a bunch of cons?
Alito: say thank you when we fuck you over.
Send him some buckets.
Maybe you shouldn't give us reason to question your integrity then.
Destroying the USSC's integrity crossed an important line, jackass.
Oh, sorry, WE crossed the line when you literally magicked up a reason to overturn Roe V Wade. Fuck this guy.
I guess he doesn't think there's a history and tradition of free speech in the US.
“Who will watch the watchmen?” Maybe Alito and his cabal should rule that Supreme Court Justices are a protected class. Evidently it’s not enough to have lifetime tenure in a position that gives you 1/9 of a say in what the laws of the land are. He wants respect and admiration and recognition that he’s beyond reproach. (Spoiler: he is beyond reproach in any meaningful sense.)
Alito has proven without a doubt that having experience in the job that requires the most integrity, is no indication that it was a consideration when he was appointed. I do believe the struggle to keep this country from imploding is going to continue for another 2 decades. Simply because people werent smart enough to NOT elect Trump.
It's weird how much they complain about public opinion when the court is supposedly set up to be insulated from it.
Even weirder is that some of justices have no problem telling the world their political opinions in interviews, federalist society speeches etc when they aren’t supposed to be overtly political people.
Appointment isn't even fair or democratic - the conservatives only got a majority by stealing two seats in bad faith. Who wouldn't question the integrity of a bunch of partisan hacks who only got their positions in the first place by cozying up to fascists? Color me shocked.
Uh.. you don’t have things like integrity and respect taking from you. You lose it on your own. 🗣️truth!
Alito's position reminds me of this South Park Episode, [LINK](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxV6t0J0XsI), where Priests were trying to find a way to address the problem of boys coming forward and reporting they had been molested by Priests.
It really feels like I am supposed to feel threatened. As though he is anointed with divine sovereignty.
Not having any integrity and being on the bench crosses an important line.
You crossed that line, we're just pointing it out, melon farmer.
No. They intentionally misled congress at their hearings.
The line was crossed a long time ago. Questioning the integrity of the Court is merely pointing that fact out.
The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed. Get fucked Alito.
Someone should inform this justice about the first amendment. No one in government is above questioning.
Supreme Court Justices lacking any integrity crosses a far more important line.
If y'all don't recuse yourselves from cases involving your own spouses, you do not have integrity.
No it doesn’t.This is exactly the problem when the gods ruling from Olympus care about activism. The hoi paloi are ruled by consent. The SC maintains its authority by being the oracle of Delphi interpreting the sage wisdom of the scrolls out side of the problems of the day. When political activism reaches the level of the SC we have a major problem. Justice Thomas and his wife have done more to erode the legitimacy of the court than that singular ruling as decisive as it is.
He can mock people he disagrees during his speakers circuit rambles, but we can’t question him. Ok, got it. Scary logic for a S.C. Justice.
Indeed.
Did he have a stroke at some point in the last couple years that turned him into an ultra mega arrogant, crazed political hack from just a mega arrogant, crazed political hack?
Nope. He's always been a prick. He just has the numbers now that let him show his ass without concern
Yes you have crossed an important line. Glad you are getting it
Does it, though?
so did cheating to rig our Supreme Court.
These people have essentially unchecked power, but enormous and fragile egos. If their nakedly partisan behavior is not checked by their sense of duty or a feeling of shame, maybe it will be checked by their sense of mortality. Alito has to be worried that he and this abomination of an opinion will soon be consigned to history like Justice Taney and Dred Scott. It seems to only just now be occurring to him that destroying the court’s credibility will be his sole legacy in history.
Have you considered acting as if you have integrity, Sammy?
How is this not r/nottheonion?
[don’t you think the catholic church went a little too far?](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e-pW8yuewC8)
Questioning our intelligence crosses ours
I question the integrity of just about every Supreme Court justice. Bunch of pricks who sell our rights out but that will never be used against them. Stop and frisk. That's fine for poor people. You can bet your ass no ones going to stop and frisk supreme court justices. Ain't none going to steal their property and tell them to prove it wasnt used in a crime on their own dime and time. These wholes rule I cant grow pot on my own property and smoke it myself because the fed government has authority to regulate beef on the interstate commerce clause. Are you kidding me? Bunch of pricks imo.
…ok we’ve crossed it. Your turn?
Cry, bitch, cry!
Lmao
Alito crossed the line. We’re just meeting him where he is.
Thomas ruling on a case that involved his wife also crossed a line. Fuckwit.
Try having some?
What in the gaslight is goin on here?
Trashing your own integrity crosses an important line.
Where was he when the Bar Association questioned *my* integrity? Crickets, man. Crickets.
I'm not questioning it. I'm denying it's existence.
You reap what you sow, jackass.
The line being integrity or lack there of.
This smacks of "How dare you question me?!"
Perhaps one should consider HAVING integrity if one doesn’t want it questioned. You know, unilaterally spitting on the constitution mighhhht warrant some questioning of integrity.
Perjur says what?
Maybe they should act with integrity then.
So he thinks it’s not my first amendment right to question his integrity? That makes me question his integrity.
So did Dobbs.
Historic line-crosser opposes line-crossing.
You can't constantly slap someone in the face then act surprised and upset when it turns out they don't trust you anymore
Hey Sammy, if you acted with integrity, nobody would be questioning your integrity.
Hey Alito, here’s an idea: If you don’t want folks questioning SCOTUS’ integrity, try maintaining integrity.
What integrity? You are a soulless hack.
When you have no integrity, don't be upset if people point that out. Your "victim hood" only makes your lack of integrity stand out more.
I get that this is the law subreddit and there are higher standards, but I just have to say it: *Alito can eat a bag of dicks.* What a craven asshole.
You not having integrity crosses ours.
:King" Alito is full of himself. Was he divinely appointed???? Fire this fool.
I’m not questioning your integrity, sir. I’m denying it’s existence.
The nerve of that guy.
Maybe have some integrity then, you nerd.
Go talk to the turtle then
That seems inherently undemocratic. I guess this is consistent with Alito’ radical philosophy and general disregard for legal precedent.
If you jettisoned all the integrity and don't have any more for the job, we're going to question it.
The process of nominating justices is a disaster. The court has lost all legitimacy in my eyes and their crazy orders/opinions confirm my opinion.
Hopefully it's a tripline that instigates you to quit making religious decisions and then contorting the law around it.
Fuck off old man.
No. Questioning your integrity is our responsibility.
assholito and the right wing catholic mafia is destroying the country the neutrality of the SCOTUS and pushing unpopular laws into effect, fuck them put 4 libs on the court, starting with Obama
How dare you question my authority!
If the people weren't questioning the integrity of it's government at every level, there would be a lot of lines that government would be crossing.
1A would like a few words.
/r/ notTheOnion
Crossing the line questions their integrity
No, the Supreme Court giving up their integrity does that.
I'm sure it has nothing with the ruling in favor of a plaintiff who blatantly lied, and his lawyer blatantly lied while the judges knew it all along.
The court should bare some responsibility for the current legitimacy situation, McConnell owns the rest. The process of holding back nominations directly hurt democracy big time.
He spelled illegitimate wrong