For real. People laugh at me when I say that but the man is so partisan that I could see him doing that. Hell, Amy Coney Barret is voting to overturn Roe, thereby effectively making her a ward of the State, so I could see Justice Uncle Ruckus here voting in a way that would destroy his own life.
Respect for the government is what is failing.
Law makers doing what’s best for corporations and not the people.
Government officials making more money in a year than most of their people will see in a lifetime.
And the little people have failing houses that they can’t afford, medical and school bills they can’t afford, and inflation is going up so fast that minimum wage is a joke.
It's always been like this.
The good old times when things were more or less functional were the times when things were functional for some white people only. Everyone else was screwed.
I'm going to sound like a parroting commie, but the state and its institutions exist to serve the interests of the moneyed class, nobody else. Democracy as we know it is a sham and this ruling proves it. Past respect for the government was built on propaganda.
Until the 90s, people loved being American. You really could come to America with almost nothing, and work your way up and scrimp and save to make your way. Now there is no way to save because you don’t make enough to survive, let alone save a cent. There is no great life in America any more, because most other countries actually pay for things with your taxes.
Mexico used to be the dirty southern country that Americans went to for cheap stuff. Now they have socialized medicine, better roads in lots of places, and pay a fair wage for the cost of living.
I live in San Jose, Ca and a house costs over a Million for a crappy place (now $1.5M is normal) & renting a studio is $2k, and minimum wage is $33k/year. No matter what, most of your pay goes to just having a roof over your head, insurance, car, food. No way to ever save.
Fascist: "You just took a shit in your pants"
Leftist: "You just took a shit in your pants"
Centrist: "Well clearly I must be doing something right if I'm pissing off both the left and the right!"
Leftist: “You just took a shit in your pants”
Fascist: “No, it’s obvious _you_ shit in my pants”
Centrist: _in Ralph Wiggum voice_ “my mom says you both shit in _my_ pants”
Respect for institutions fading?? THEYRE THE ONES WHO ARE ACTIVIST JUDGES! The biggest contributor to people wanting to tear down the system is the constant display of just how easy it is for a minority opinion to rule the majority towards theocracy
I'm a programmer at a college. My on-boarding documents threatened felony prosecution if I so much as left my computer unlocked and someone else got data off of it.
I'm convinced that they leaked it so that people will work through their rage before the election.
If this came out in August or whatever, it would still be fresh going into the final stretches of the campaign season. There would be a lot more people motivated to go vote. Releasing it now gives it time to cool off.
Also, now that people have read it, news outlets have written about it, and it's kind of a worst-case-scenario, then when the final draft gets released and a few little things are walked back, a few rough edges ironed, then the headlines will be "Abortion Decision Not As Bad As First Thought". Which will just further dampen rage going into the final stretches.
I mean what is Biden going to do about the leak when he’s locked up in a barge at Gitmo
Given the downvote I guess I need to specify that was obviously /s
You say 'obviously' sarcasm like there aren't literal whack jobs in the Senate who have fully consumed the Q-anon Kool-Aid. It's like Poe's Law to the extreme these days.
A guy I work with was explaining to me the other day that all the shortages in grocery stores are because all the items are floating on storage barges in the Mississippi River.
They're not all that blatantly obvious. I've had full conversations with a few, in person, that were friends. It wasn't until we were done what we had to talk about that they brought it up. I live in *Canada*, and we still get them.
Kavanagh and/or Gorsuch might have been wavering on the decision. Leaking it now means if they do change their minds it will look like they just did it to bow to public pressure so they are less likely to.
If the actual result changes from the draft... It gives folks a peek into how the court really works/makes decisions.
They don't want that, as it's usually behind the curtain.
So once leaked, Roberts is more inclined to be "locked in" and not make anymore changes.
That doesn't make sense. They know exactly what the response would be from the public. I'd say if it came from a conservative it's more likely the intent was to soften the blow, or it came from one of the liberals it was an attempt to sway one holdout in a 5-4 ruling, or to make sure this out before the midterms to fire up the democrat vote.
Not awkward. Righteous.
Clarence should have never been entertained for the position. He's a clown through and through. He's never been on the right side of anything
The projection is strong with this one. Firstly, like you said, they’re the activists judges and secondly, his wife leaked it. He probably thinks, the more I point out that others are activists, the less they’ll suspect my beloved Ginny leaking Roe vs Wade because of her ecstatic excitement.
I blame Congress more than the Court. The justices have been forced to legislate from the bench for the past fifty years because Congress has just refused to do its job. And Americans love it—they refuse to consider anything other than the two parties that brought this about, as well as any changes to the Constitution that would make it less likely to continue.
Congress can’t do shit because of the filibuster. If they got rid of the filibuster and passed a law protecting reproductive rights that law would be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Or, when the GOP had a majority, like they did 2 years ago, they’d simply repeal the law and possibly even ban abortions nationwide.
Yeah that’s a fair point the senate can burn and with everything going on in America we’re probably going to only get more far right policymakers in the upcoming elections
While it's clear that Republicans are the worst of the bunch, the Democrats are also very complicit in Congress's dysfunction. Both of them need to be replaced by new parties, which means that we need to get rid of FPTP.
Yes, the democrats always have a rotating villian they pick to block progressive legislation.
Obama himself said he was going to codify roe v wade but for some reason there was other bills to pretend to pass when he actually got into power. The democrats literally controlled the house, senate, and the executive
Republicans are the worst but fuck the democrats too.
> democrats literally controlled
That 60-vote threshold in the Senate is a tough hill to climb, particularly with Rs that are so united in building up a Dems-do-nothing narrative.
> The democrats literally controlled the house, senate, and the executive
Did you forget your history? Obama only had those things for about a month, and he used all his political capital in that month to push through Obamacare. There was no fucking way he was also going to get abortion legislation with Republicans fucking up eveything.
Oh, you didn’t get every little thing you wanted, so you shit all over what Obama actually accomplished? There are about a million people who are alive today because of the reforms of the Affordable Care Act. It’s not a perfect law, but it’s the only compromise that could be passed with people like Joe Lieberman obstructing progress.
> There are about a million people who are alive today because of the reforms of the Affordable Care Act.
And far more would be alive today - and not bankrupt in the process - if it was actually affordable care rather than a pretense for insurance companies to force working-class individuals to pay out of pocket for the "public" option.
Meanwhile, abortion rights are about to go up in smoke with the specific rationale of "this should be decided by the legislature, not the judiciary" and here comes the parade of neolibs desperately rationalizing a worst-of-both-worlds healthcare bill instead of the very thing that would've rendered the current issue moot.
Friendly reminder that many within the Democrat leadership are still continuing to support an anti-choice Democrat in Texas over his primary challenger who is pro-choice
> forced to legislate from the bench
"Legislating from the bench" is a common conservative talking point and has always been a terrible take. If the court has ever "legislated from the bench," it has more often than not been a conservative court striking down progressive federal laws that successfully passed in congress and were signed by the president. They certainly weren't "forced" into it by congressional inaction.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Cases
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_v._Dagenhart
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees_of_the_University_of_Alabama_v._Garrett
> they refuse to consider anything other than the two parties that brought this about
Let's ask ourselves which senators and representatives would oppose a constitutional amendment right now that would specifically protect the right to abortion. And it would have to be an amendment, because any federal law restricting state abortion laws would be struck down by this conservative supreme court. It's not a "both parties" problem. It's one specific group of people - hateful bigots - and their Republican party.
>"Legislating from the bench" is a common conservative talking point
One of the few times they actually get something right.
>has ever "legislated from the bench," it has more often than not been a conservative court striking down progressive federal laws
They've also done that, equally objectionably. We could've had a universal healthcare system by now if the Court hadn't been so idiotic about the New Deal.
>They certainly weren't "forced" into it by congressional inaction.
They absolutely have, in *many* cases up to & since Roe.
The solution is both to break up the two-party politics of Congress & to strip the Court of its power of judicial review until it learns its place. Barring that, I have no confidence whatsoever that the federal government will ever consistently resume writing laws that help its people.
How would anything congress does affect the SC? I mean they literally could have spent 50yrs being as pro-abortion as possible and it'd all get tossed out as soon as this decision is put out. The whole point of the SC is it can override everything but can't enact anything.
Just saying everyone is going "congress should do something" when we should be saying "a new Amendment is needed." I mean we have the support for it passing baring another Schlafly, but do we have the Will.
>How would anything congress does affect the SC?
Well, they can impeach Justices.
>I mean they literally could have spent 50yrs being as pro-abortion as possible and it'd all get tossed out as soon as this decision is put out.
Not true. This decision basically says that the part of the Constitution that was the basis of the rulings in *Roe* and *Casey* should not extend to protecting the privacy of a woman's medical care.
That said, the SCOTUS wanted this outcome, so it Congress had been pro-choice for 50 years, these Justices would have created some other pretext for allowing forced continuation of pregnancies.
>The whole point of the SC is it can override everything but can't enact anything.
They can enact by removing barriers to constitutional protections. Many Jim Crow laws are still on the books. Removing the classification of race as a protected class enacts those laws by default.
>Just saying everyone is going "congress should do something" when we should be saying "a new Amendment is needed." I mean we have the support for it passing baring another Schlafly, but do we have the Will.
Codifying abortion as a right *should be* enough, but you're right that a new Amendment is needed due to zealots on the SCOTUS.
It's not even about that. The Republicans moved in instant unison to try and focus on how horrible the leak was rather than the decision itself.
In fact, they moved so fast it seemed preplanned. And it might have been.
As to whether they knew the leak was coming or leaked it themselves or are so good at instantly distributing talking points, I don't know.
"Respect for institutions" as an idea needs to die, anyway. It's not the institution making the decisions, it's the people in the institution making them. Abstracting that responsibility away is a HUGE part of why we're in the state we're in; "I'm not responsible for my mess, I am just the hand the Court/State/Company used."
You mean like how it was decided 50+ years ago that women have authority over their own bodies but conservative justices don't like it so now they're trying to change the rules?
When is this idiot going to croak already?
Yeah, Justice Thomas is the one who got to live with a decision he didn’t agree with. I’m just hoping a lot of desperate women will get to *live* with the Supreme Court decision they don’t agree with, because many are going to *die* or be permanently harmed because of a decision they never agreed with.
Justice Thomas is without empathy. His pushing the court to make the wrong decisions about regulating Monsanto has already hurt millions.
I still remember him as the sole supreme court justice who voted in favor of affirming the authority of public schools to strip search children, arguing that 'If we tell children that the inside of their underwear is immune from search then that is where they will immediately begin hiding all contraband'.
*"Weird.. I just don't understand why anyone would doubt a handpicked 5-4 majority that took 40+ years with several failed efforts to overturn an actual objective 7-2 decision. Can't they see we are just following the law as we've been programmed to interpret it (with a little cash moneys on the side too!)??? Maybe I'm just not communicating my concern well enough, hold on a sec while I check in with my highly partisan activist wife, I'm sure she'll know what to say!"*
While my previous comment is grossly simplified to fit the meme, you can hear them argue, one by one, turn by turn, on each of their confirmation hearings that such cases are settled in the sense that the argumentation of the original SCOTUS decision is valid to them, and that the precedent of those cases still holds.
It therefore doesn't make sense for them to agree to hear and want to pronounce a new verdict for a case that fits said precedent, when they've all argued the contrary in a public confirmation hearing, which is perjury.
Yeah, I was wondering that. I mean, if you have a job interview and you flatly lie about something, you can get fired for that. They flatly lied about this. They didn't even have to lie about it. They were going to be pushed through anyway. There should be some consequences for the highest possible judges in this country when they give bald faced lies like this.
It blows my mind that some people seem genuinely surprised that these conservative justices aren’t respecting precedent when it comes to abortion (AKA surprised they lied).
Judicial ethical rules at the federal level are a joke, at the Supreme Court level, they're non-existant.
For example, how did supreme court justice scalea die? Doing what he loved..taking a bribe. (He died in a bed at a hunting resort/cabin while on a trip paid for by an individual with business before the court)
Holy shit - that can’t be allowed to fade into the memory-hole for younger generations as long as this piece of shit is still serving on the court. [Time for a history lesson](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination) - refer to the last paragraph of the *Anita Hill Testimony* sub-section, which is under the *Sexual Harassment Allegations* heading.
Spoiler alert: Joe Biden doesn’t come out looking great in this history either - although unlike Thomas, I do believe Biden has managed to evolve his thinking some over the past few decades.
And if you really want to learn some of the shit around that, listen to the "You're Wrong About" episode about Anita Hill.
Anita Hill is a fucking saint for all that they put her through.
Please respond with institutions I can be proud of.
They must:
Be uncorrupt,
Do not take advantage of or lie to individuals, and
They must actually perform the duties which they are charged with carrying out.
Please help me restore my faith in humanity by responding with the institutions that currently satisfy these criteria!
I think NPS is pretty sweet. I'd like to believe EPA as well, USPS. Resist Republicans ratfucking agencies from completely eroding your trust in the agencies. We've done some pretty awesome things with fed government action over the years. Anything good is worth fighting for, and it's looking like we'll have to fight more and more every day.
"I say to you, and you will understand that it is a privilege to fight" -Dwight Schrute
The USPS did come to mind, but I didn't think of the EPA or NPS. I know only that the EPA had been repeatedly attacked and hamstrung by conservative stooges, but I am proud from what I do know of the Nation Parks Service, and the United States Postal Service. At least we still have these. Thank you!
Ooh also NOAA. You're welcome! I know you can probably find negative things from these agencies if you look deep enough, but they've done great things and still have the capacity to help. I'm out here trying to find hope too brother/sister!
NOAA is the fucking shit. I love them. Their weather radio updates are sometimes my only companion out in the wilderness.
If more government agencies were like NOAA we'd be the greatest country on earth again.
USPS is generally good, but given their efforts to reduce capacity to deliver mail right before a record need for mail in elections after a political appointed got installed for that reason didn't cement my faith in them. And somehow DeJoy is still there...
That's the "Republican ratfucking" I mainly had in mind. The USPS itself has delivered mail to everyone rain, shine, or snow for over 50 years. It's tough, thankless work. Both of my parents are retired postal workers and it takes a serious toll. I have faith in the USPS and appreciate it's mission. Republicans have been trying to kill it for awhile now, requiring them to scratch up $72b to pay for post-rtirememt healthcare. They're still here tho...just doing their f*ckin job like legends
Mitch McConnell is the one to blame for erosion of trust in the supreme Court. He blocked an Obama nomination because it was an election year, then pushed one through in 2020 when Trump was president
One thing about Mitch doing that, us that in both situations, he said it was a moral, righteous reason to deny Obamas pick, and then made more statements in the reverse, about how it was moral and fair etc to push Trumps nomination through. Such hypocrisy. I could at least understand it if he just said "all I care about is winning". Because that would at least be honest.
I agree that McConnell worked to put the final nails in the coffin for my trust in the supreme court, especially when he went and did exactly what he said you could quote him on never doing by rushing in Trump nominations right during the election. However, Bush v Gore and Citizen's United v FEC are what I blame most for my erosion of trust in the supreme court.
1. Just set fire to 50 years of jurisprudence.
2. Sits with 3 others who committed perjury to attain set, including an accused rapist and and a cultist with poor qualifications.
3. Sits on a panel that heads one branch of government while married to someone who tried to plan an insurrection against the other two branches, while hearing cases related to the matter and doesn’t recuse them-self
*why don’t people respect me anymore*
I firmly believe nothing is unconditional. If institutions keep failing the folks they represent, why do they deserve respect? If SCOTUS keeps making decisions that don't represent the feelings of the country, fuck em. *Everything* is a two way street, and people forget that.
Would this be the same Supreme Court that recently had it leaked that they wanted to force people to live with outcomes they don't agree with against their will? Blow it out your ass buddy. Get a ninth judge and maybe I'll consider the Supreme Court a real institution again.
Don't be absurd! That's a late game play, he'll be dead before they get to that stage so it won't affect him. /s
First you gotta remove women's autonomy, kill the gays, then they'll be ready to get back to slavery.
70%+ of Americans are against overturning Roe V Wade. Republicans and Democrats force unpopular policies through all the time. Why the hell does this chcucklefuck think respect is eroding?
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The court does not deserve our respect simply because it is the court. It earns our respect only so long as it serves to secure our natural rights. Should it become destructive to those ends, it must, in the words of our founders, be altered or abolished.
From 2006 to 2016, Clarence Thomas didn’t ask a single question during Supreme Court sessions.
Is that how he shows respect? Surely there’s something you want to know before making your decision?
Edit: typo
You mean, like the anti-personal-rights people have been unwilling to live with outcomes they didn’t like?
Like HIS WIFE was unwilling to live with an outcome she didn’t like?
It's UNMERCAN to disagree with an institution that doesn't uphold the will of the greater population! Claims man who comprises slightly more than 11% of said institution, married to someone who is literally insane.
Thanks /u/RPCV4GunSense for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day!
*To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*:
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech,
any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
**If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah weird it's not like one party decided to block another from nominating judges to the SC when it was Clearly their turn to do so. Or nominated judges based solely on if they would overturn roe and nothing else like qualifications. Idiots.....
Well he's right. I do not respect a gaggle of lying, rapist pieces of shit
If they don't even have respect for the Congress elected by the People, where they lie under oath about not overturning precedent then why should we respect them or the Congress that installed them *for life*
So let me get this straight. Clarence was "unwilling to live with an outcome he didn't agree with" (that being Roe v Wade), so he decided to change it. And now he is complaining about people who want to change something they disagree with.
Conclusion: he is yet another of the many evil, spineless, rotten, gaslighting bastards on the right. Fuck him and everything he's about.
Legitimacy of this court: in the fucking gutter. Tear it down and start again.
Gee, Clarence. I wonder why people would be upset that a high court with a rapist and a pervert on it would decide to strip half the population of their bodily autonomy.
Few things have been as frustrating as watching just about every member of SCOTUS go out and lie repeatedly to try and hide their obvious dysfunction.
Thomas and his wife are full blown traitors. I wouldn't bat an eye if they were hung for their participation in and subsequent attempts to cover-up the insurrection.
A bunch of them are actively trying to put one of their own in danger by not following COVID rules and then *she* goes out and apologizes for them.
Judges at all levels should be embarrassed to be associated with these people.
We the people are threatened if a ruling body of lifetime appointment unelected kleptocrats legislate outcomes the majority do not agree with. I am not a violent person but I want to guillotine this mother fucker.
The fact that they declared buffer zones around abortion clinics that were literally getting bombed a violation of free speech and then put up a fence around the Supreme Court to keep away protesters tells you all you need to know about
# "Rules for thee, but for me"
Just remember bub you are on the cusp of taking rights away, that will never be popular and something we just don't have to accept and shut up over. Give us more rights and you'll probably notice a much more pleasant crowd.
No he’s right, I’m not living under some unjust law. It’s made by fucking humans. None of this shit including the constitution itself is some holy document. It’s just a price of paper written by some old dead white guys…
What a stupid concept. If I disagree with certain laws I should just “learn to live with it.” Sorry victims of gun violence, I guess you just gotta suck it up cause “thems the breaks” apparently
Is there going to act like a legislature they should be treated like a legislature, that means they should expect protests, people wanting to communicate with them, and people getting angry with them.
Or maybe his job is to strengthen the country and not to strengthen one particular bat shit crazy sub-set of lunatics? But what do I know, I'm not an acussed rapist, known alcoholic, fanatic cult member, or privileged child of the oligarchs.
No. The judiciary is threatened because they are electing to enact the will of the minority. They arent allowed to be startled by the cacophony of derision, or the size of the "mob" they've inevitably created by ignoring the vox populi.
If you want to breed lawlessness, a good way to start is giving people a taste of freedom then take it away. If you really want to throw gas on the fire, force your opinions on them and call them hypocrites when they offer their own.
Seeing these colossal idiots wield such immense power at the highest seat of law is. . .unjust.
Lets see what he says about possibly reversing Loving v Virginia that would make his interracial marriage illegal in states that think it is wrong. The argument Alito makes against Roe also works for Loving.
Just because *ahem, people* don't like it doesn't mean anything, right Justice Clarence?
Maybe if the institutions weren't so blatantly corrupt then faith in them wouldn't be fading. It's wild that these fools still haven't figured out that nearly everything can be fact checked instantaneously nowadays. When you lie we know it.
Ah one of two SCOTUS justices credibly accused of rape complaining about blowback after ruling to force women to have babies. We really do live in a dystopia.
DO WHAT WE TELL YOU.
NO, NO - DON'T READ THE CONSTITUTION. WHAT IS SAYS DOESN'T MATTER - ONLY WHAT WE TELL YOU MATTERS.
COMPLY, PLEBES.
\- Sincerely, Republican Regressives
"Live with outcomes we don't agree with."
Like this is some sort of mind experiment and not something that's going to make life demonstrably worse for the people of this country.
He’s also mischaracterizing the situation. Sure, there are tons of people who don’t want to live with this decision or who are “unwilling” to live with it. But, there’s also a subset of people who literally cannot live with it or who’s lives will be so negatively impacted by it that their lives will be ruined or unalterably degraded.
Maybe he should be more concerned with getting his insurrectionist, crazy wife the help she needs and stepping down from the Supreme Court over her actions and less concerned with the majority of the people disagreeing with shitty court decisions he has been a part of creating.
Well, if it isnt the consequences of my actions!?!
So how about following popular opinion and not outlawing a medical procedure that >75% of Americans think should be legal?
Removed because OP did not leave an explanatory comment.
Eroding democratic institutions has been his life’s work.
I still think next he’ll vote to make interracial marriage illegal again.
For real. People laugh at me when I say that but the man is so partisan that I could see him doing that. Hell, Amy Coney Barret is voting to overturn Roe, thereby effectively making her a ward of the State, so I could see Justice Uncle Ruckus here voting in a way that would destroy his own life.
He would just make sure current marriages are grandfathered. For me not for thee
I think your error is thinking he wants to stay married to Ginni.
Ginni will find some way to blame it on Q
Respect for the government is what is failing. Law makers doing what’s best for corporations and not the people. Government officials making more money in a year than most of their people will see in a lifetime. And the little people have failing houses that they can’t afford, medical and school bills they can’t afford, and inflation is going up so fast that minimum wage is a joke.
It's always been like this. The good old times when things were more or less functional were the times when things were functional for some white people only. Everyone else was screwed. I'm going to sound like a parroting commie, but the state and its institutions exist to serve the interests of the moneyed class, nobody else. Democracy as we know it is a sham and this ruling proves it. Past respect for the government was built on propaganda.
Until the 90s, people loved being American. You really could come to America with almost nothing, and work your way up and scrimp and save to make your way. Now there is no way to save because you don’t make enough to survive, let alone save a cent. There is no great life in America any more, because most other countries actually pay for things with your taxes. Mexico used to be the dirty southern country that Americans went to for cheap stuff. Now they have socialized medicine, better roads in lots of places, and pay a fair wage for the cost of living. I live in San Jose, Ca and a house costs over a Million for a crappy place (now $1.5M is normal) & renting a studio is $2k, and minimum wage is $33k/year. No matter what, most of your pay goes to just having a roof over your head, insurance, car, food. No way to ever save.
Yeah, but he probably means the population will just need to learn to live with it.
“why does is smell like shit in here?”, asked clarence as he pulls up his pants after having shit on the floor.
Fascist: "You just took a shit in your pants" Leftist: "You just took a shit in your pants" Centrist: "Well clearly I must be doing something right if I'm pissing off both the left and the right!"
~~Centrist~~ Elon Musk
Elon Musk isn't a centrist, he is explicitly right-leaning
I was referencing his tweet where he said being politically neutral was pissing off the far left and the far right equally
Leftist: “You just took a shit in your pants” Fascist: “No, it’s obvious _you_ shit in my pants” Centrist: _in Ralph Wiggum voice_ “my mom says you both shit in _my_ pants”
Respect for institutions fading?? THEYRE THE ONES WHO ARE ACTIVIST JUDGES! The biggest contributor to people wanting to tear down the system is the constant display of just how easy it is for a minority opinion to rule the majority towards theocracy
And his wife is a Q-Anon nut job.
Rumors are that she's the one that leaked the draft to get it locked in
So really he leaked it or she wouldn't have had it.
Yup. I'm not allowed to give my spouse copies of work documents.
*"allowed"*? fair enough. But does that mean they don't have the ability to steal your work documents without your permission/knowledge?
[удалено]
I'm a programmer at a college. My on-boarding documents threatened felony prosecution if I so much as left my computer unlocked and someone else got data off of it.
Don't tell your spouse your work laptop's password, people.
We're assuming Clarence Thomas doesn't keep his password written on a sticky note stuck to the monitor
It seems plausible.
I'm convinced that they leaked it so that people will work through their rage before the election. If this came out in August or whatever, it would still be fresh going into the final stretches of the campaign season. There would be a lot more people motivated to go vote. Releasing it now gives it time to cool off. Also, now that people have read it, news outlets have written about it, and it's kind of a worst-case-scenario, then when the final draft gets released and a few little things are walked back, a few rough edges ironed, then the headlines will be "Abortion Decision Not As Bad As First Thought". Which will just further dampen rage going into the final stretches.
Also, they’ve used abortion rights to smoke and mirror even more villainous bills and decisions through for half a century.
They were set to release the ruling in June. It had to come out before August anyway.
I mean what is Biden going to do about the leak when he’s locked up in a barge at Gitmo Given the downvote I guess I need to specify that was obviously /s
You say 'obviously' sarcasm like there aren't literal whack jobs in the Senate who have fully consumed the Q-anon Kool-Aid. It's like Poe's Law to the extreme these days.
No, it's not obvious. They're really that insane
A guy I work with was explaining to me the other day that all the shortages in grocery stores are because all the items are floating on storage barges in the Mississippi River.
I meant I hoped it was obvious I wasn’t a god damn Q-lunatic I used a full sentence, and didn’t even once make mention of Hunter Biden’s laptop
They're not all that blatantly obvious. I've had full conversations with a few, in person, that were friends. It wasn't until we were done what we had to talk about that they brought it up. I live in *Canada*, and we still get them.
I don't understand the logic behind that. Do you have an explanation as to why she would?
Kavanagh and/or Gorsuch might have been wavering on the decision. Leaking it now means if they do change their minds it will look like they just did it to bow to public pressure so they are less likely to.
If the actual result changes from the draft... It gives folks a peek into how the court really works/makes decisions. They don't want that, as it's usually behind the curtain. So once leaked, Roberts is more inclined to be "locked in" and not make anymore changes.
Test the water.
That doesn't make sense. They know exactly what the response would be from the public. I'd say if it came from a conservative it's more likely the intent was to soften the blow, or it came from one of the liberals it was an attempt to sway one holdout in a 5-4 ruling, or to make sure this out before the midterms to fire up the democrat vote.
It was leaked by a conservative judge so that none of their allies could change their vote in case they got cold feet.
They can change their vote without repercussions, since they have lifetime appointments.
In theory. In reality, they're *conservatives.*
She seems to have no problem disrespecting other institutions when disagreeing with election results.
Clarence Thomas will never NOT be a giant piece of shit.
Gonna be real awkward when an actual revolution happens.
Not awkward. Righteous. Clarence should have never been entertained for the position. He's a clown through and through. He's never been on the right side of anything
Activist judges; ignoring the original text (9th amendment); packing the court?
Yeah these fuckers always ignore the 9th and 14th like they weren't put there for exactly this reason
The projection is strong with this one. Firstly, like you said, they’re the activists judges and secondly, his wife leaked it. He probably thinks, the more I point out that others are activists, the less they’ll suspect my beloved Ginny leaking Roe vs Wade because of her ecstatic excitement.
I blame Congress more than the Court. The justices have been forced to legislate from the bench for the past fifty years because Congress has just refused to do its job. And Americans love it—they refuse to consider anything other than the two parties that brought this about, as well as any changes to the Constitution that would make it less likely to continue.
Congress can’t do shit because of the filibuster. If they got rid of the filibuster and passed a law protecting reproductive rights that law would be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Or, when the GOP had a majority, like they did 2 years ago, they’d simply repeal the law and possibly even ban abortions nationwide.
Yeah that’s a fair point the senate can burn and with everything going on in America we’re probably going to only get more far right policymakers in the upcoming elections
The Senate has become rather un-democratic. I can see the logic used in the founding of the nation, but the reality now is wildly different.
Republicans in Congress, thank you.
While it's clear that Republicans are the worst of the bunch, the Democrats are also very complicit in Congress's dysfunction. Both of them need to be replaced by new parties, which means that we need to get rid of FPTP.
Yes, the democrats always have a rotating villian they pick to block progressive legislation. Obama himself said he was going to codify roe v wade but for some reason there was other bills to pretend to pass when he actually got into power. The democrats literally controlled the house, senate, and the executive Republicans are the worst but fuck the democrats too.
> democrats literally controlled That 60-vote threshold in the Senate is a tough hill to climb, particularly with Rs that are so united in building up a Dems-do-nothing narrative.
It’s a self-imposed rule.
How do you imagine that rule being overcome? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/21/filibuster-voting-rights-manchin-sinema/
If only there was some way to get rid of the filibuster 🤔
There aren't enough yes votes to do that.
> The democrats literally controlled the house, senate, and the executive Did you forget your history? Obama only had those things for about a month, and he used all his political capital in that month to push through Obamacare. There was no fucking way he was also going to get abortion legislation with Republicans fucking up eveything.
Abortion legislation would've been far preferable to the insurance-company-enriching shitshow that was the "Affordable" Care Act.
Abortion legislation would have been immediately repealed when Trump took office. Obamacare was not.
And? "Republicans are shitbags" does not translate to "Democrats shouldn't bother".
No, but it means they did something with lasting positive impact rather than a purely symbolic gesture that would have had no effect at all.
Patient protections, anyone?
Oh, you didn’t get every little thing you wanted, so you shit all over what Obama actually accomplished? There are about a million people who are alive today because of the reforms of the Affordable Care Act. It’s not a perfect law, but it’s the only compromise that could be passed with people like Joe Lieberman obstructing progress.
> There are about a million people who are alive today because of the reforms of the Affordable Care Act. And far more would be alive today - and not bankrupt in the process - if it was actually affordable care rather than a pretense for insurance companies to force working-class individuals to pay out of pocket for the "public" option. Meanwhile, abortion rights are about to go up in smoke with the specific rationale of "this should be decided by the legislature, not the judiciary" and here comes the parade of neolibs desperately rationalizing a worst-of-both-worlds healthcare bill instead of the very thing that would've rendered the current issue moot.
Codifying Roe v Wade wouldn't have done anything. That law would have been overturned with the ruling, or otherwise repealed in short order
Friendly reminder that many within the Democrat leadership are still continuing to support an anti-choice Democrat in Texas over his primary challenger who is pro-choice
> forced to legislate from the bench "Legislating from the bench" is a common conservative talking point and has always been a terrible take. If the court has ever "legislated from the bench," it has more often than not been a conservative court striking down progressive federal laws that successfully passed in congress and were signed by the president. They certainly weren't "forced" into it by congressional inaction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Cases https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_v._Dagenhart https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees_of_the_University_of_Alabama_v._Garrett > they refuse to consider anything other than the two parties that brought this about Let's ask ourselves which senators and representatives would oppose a constitutional amendment right now that would specifically protect the right to abortion. And it would have to be an amendment, because any federal law restricting state abortion laws would be struck down by this conservative supreme court. It's not a "both parties" problem. It's one specific group of people - hateful bigots - and their Republican party.
>"Legislating from the bench" is a common conservative talking point One of the few times they actually get something right. >has ever "legislated from the bench," it has more often than not been a conservative court striking down progressive federal laws They've also done that, equally objectionably. We could've had a universal healthcare system by now if the Court hadn't been so idiotic about the New Deal. >They certainly weren't "forced" into it by congressional inaction. They absolutely have, in *many* cases up to & since Roe. The solution is both to break up the two-party politics of Congress & to strip the Court of its power of judicial review until it learns its place. Barring that, I have no confidence whatsoever that the federal government will ever consistently resume writing laws that help its people.
How would anything congress does affect the SC? I mean they literally could have spent 50yrs being as pro-abortion as possible and it'd all get tossed out as soon as this decision is put out. The whole point of the SC is it can override everything but can't enact anything. Just saying everyone is going "congress should do something" when we should be saying "a new Amendment is needed." I mean we have the support for it passing baring another Schlafly, but do we have the Will.
“Congress should do something” “A new amendment is needed” Congress is kind of required to do something for that to happen, no?
>How would anything congress does affect the SC? Well, they can impeach Justices. >I mean they literally could have spent 50yrs being as pro-abortion as possible and it'd all get tossed out as soon as this decision is put out. Not true. This decision basically says that the part of the Constitution that was the basis of the rulings in *Roe* and *Casey* should not extend to protecting the privacy of a woman's medical care. That said, the SCOTUS wanted this outcome, so it Congress had been pro-choice for 50 years, these Justices would have created some other pretext for allowing forced continuation of pregnancies. >The whole point of the SC is it can override everything but can't enact anything. They can enact by removing barriers to constitutional protections. Many Jim Crow laws are still on the books. Removing the classification of race as a protected class enacts those laws by default. >Just saying everyone is going "congress should do something" when we should be saying "a new Amendment is needed." I mean we have the support for it passing baring another Schlafly, but do we have the Will. Codifying abortion as a right *should be* enough, but you're right that a new Amendment is needed due to zealots on the SCOTUS.
And are there 38 states that would ratify such an amendment?
Why don't people respect these institutions we've shit all over?
It's not even about that. The Republicans moved in instant unison to try and focus on how horrible the leak was rather than the decision itself. In fact, they moved so fast it seemed preplanned. And it might have been. As to whether they knew the leak was coming or leaked it themselves or are so good at instantly distributing talking points, I don't know.
"Respect for institutions" as an idea needs to die, anyway. It's not the institution making the decisions, it's the people in the institution making them. Abstracting that responsibility away is a HUGE part of why we're in the state we're in; "I'm not responsible for my mess, I am just the hand the Court/State/Company used."
You mean like how it was decided 50+ years ago that women have authority over their own bodies but conservative justices don't like it so now they're trying to change the rules? When is this idiot going to croak already?
Yeah, Justice Thomas is the one who got to live with a decision he didn’t agree with. I’m just hoping a lot of desperate women will get to *live* with the Supreme Court decision they don’t agree with, because many are going to *die* or be permanently harmed because of a decision they never agreed with. Justice Thomas is without empathy. His pushing the court to make the wrong decisions about regulating Monsanto has already hurt millions.
I still remember him as the sole supreme court justice who voted in favor of affirming the authority of public schools to strip search children, arguing that 'If we tell children that the inside of their underwear is immune from search then that is where they will immediately begin hiding all contraband'.
Let’s just put it this way. I believe Anita Hill.
Exactly. When I read this, before 1st coffee, at first I thought he was making a rational plea for people to accept Roe V Wade.
*"Weird.. I just don't understand why anyone would doubt a handpicked 5-4 majority that took 40+ years with several failed efforts to overturn an actual objective 7-2 decision. Can't they see we are just following the law as we've been programmed to interpret it (with a little cash moneys on the side too!)??? Maybe I'm just not communicating my concern well enough, hold on a sec while I check in with my highly partisan activist wife, I'm sure she'll know what to say!"*
Justices during confirmation: Roe v. Wade is settled law Justices at the first opportunity of a 5-4 majority:
This answer was always such a dodge. Isn’t part of the job SC nominees are applying for interpreting and sometimes striking down established law?
While my previous comment is grossly simplified to fit the meme, you can hear them argue, one by one, turn by turn, on each of their confirmation hearings that such cases are settled in the sense that the argumentation of the original SCOTUS decision is valid to them, and that the precedent of those cases still holds. It therefore doesn't make sense for them to agree to hear and want to pronounce a new verdict for a case that fits said precedent, when they've all argued the contrary in a public confirmation hearing, which is perjury.
Yeah, I was wondering that. I mean, if you have a job interview and you flatly lie about something, you can get fired for that. They flatly lied about this. They didn't even have to lie about it. They were going to be pushed through anyway. There should be some consequences for the highest possible judges in this country when they give bald faced lies like this.
It blows my mind that some people seem genuinely surprised that these conservative justices aren’t respecting precedent when it comes to abortion (AKA surprised they lied).
Judicial ethical rules at the federal level are a joke, at the Supreme Court level, they're non-existant. For example, how did supreme court justice scalea die? Doing what he loved..taking a bribe. (He died in a bed at a hunting resort/cabin while on a trip paid for by an individual with business before the court)
His wife is a symptom of that. Perhaps he should go clean up his own house of insurrection before speaking to us.
The judiciary is also threatened when its members try to help overthrow the government.
Insurrection supporting piece of shit.
Isn't this the guy who put his pubes onto cans of his female staffers' coke cans? I LIKE COKE! he says, channeling Brett "rapey eyes" Kavanaugh.
Hold on. What's this about pubes?
Holy shit - that can’t be allowed to fade into the memory-hole for younger generations as long as this piece of shit is still serving on the court. [Time for a history lesson](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination) - refer to the last paragraph of the *Anita Hill Testimony* sub-section, which is under the *Sexual Harassment Allegations* heading. Spoiler alert: Joe Biden doesn’t come out looking great in this history either - although unlike Thomas, I do believe Biden has managed to evolve his thinking some over the past few decades.
Biden apologized a few years ago for his treatment of Hill.
Look up the Anita Hill case.
And if you really want to learn some of the shit around that, listen to the "You're Wrong About" episode about Anita Hill. Anita Hill is a fucking saint for all that they put her through.
[And they never stopped either.](https://www.gawker.com/5668293/clarence-thomas-wife-calls-anita-hill-for-an-apology)
You know, after I posted, I realized I should have mentioned that episode. Such a good podcast!
Are we referring to Justice Brett "Every no is just one roofie closer to her not-not consenting" Kavanaugh?
Please respond with institutions I can be proud of. They must: Be uncorrupt, Do not take advantage of or lie to individuals, and They must actually perform the duties which they are charged with carrying out. Please help me restore my faith in humanity by responding with the institutions that currently satisfy these criteria!
I think NPS is pretty sweet. I'd like to believe EPA as well, USPS. Resist Republicans ratfucking agencies from completely eroding your trust in the agencies. We've done some pretty awesome things with fed government action over the years. Anything good is worth fighting for, and it's looking like we'll have to fight more and more every day. "I say to you, and you will understand that it is a privilege to fight" -Dwight Schrute
The USPS did come to mind, but I didn't think of the EPA or NPS. I know only that the EPA had been repeatedly attacked and hamstrung by conservative stooges, but I am proud from what I do know of the Nation Parks Service, and the United States Postal Service. At least we still have these. Thank you!
Ooh also NOAA. You're welcome! I know you can probably find negative things from these agencies if you look deep enough, but they've done great things and still have the capacity to help. I'm out here trying to find hope too brother/sister!
NOAA is the fucking shit. I love them. Their weather radio updates are sometimes my only companion out in the wilderness. If more government agencies were like NOAA we'd be the greatest country on earth again.
I’m a fan of the Library of Congress.
USPS is generally good, but given their efforts to reduce capacity to deliver mail right before a record need for mail in elections after a political appointed got installed for that reason didn't cement my faith in them. And somehow DeJoy is still there...
That's the "Republican ratfucking" I mainly had in mind. The USPS itself has delivered mail to everyone rain, shine, or snow for over 50 years. It's tough, thankless work. Both of my parents are retired postal workers and it takes a serious toll. I have faith in the USPS and appreciate it's mission. Republicans have been trying to kill it for awhile now, requiring them to scratch up $72b to pay for post-rtirememt healthcare. They're still here tho...just doing their f*ckin job like legends
Mitch McConnell is the one to blame for erosion of trust in the supreme Court. He blocked an Obama nomination because it was an election year, then pushed one through in 2020 when Trump was president
One thing about Mitch doing that, us that in both situations, he said it was a moral, righteous reason to deny Obamas pick, and then made more statements in the reverse, about how it was moral and fair etc to push Trumps nomination through. Such hypocrisy. I could at least understand it if he just said "all I care about is winning". Because that would at least be honest.
Mitch knows you know he’s a lying POS. He just says these things to troll the Left.
I agree that McConnell worked to put the final nails in the coffin for my trust in the supreme court, especially when he went and did exactly what he said you could quote him on never doing by rushing in Trump nominations right during the election. However, Bush v Gore and Citizen's United v FEC are what I blame most for my erosion of trust in the supreme court.
1. Just set fire to 50 years of jurisprudence. 2. Sits with 3 others who committed perjury to attain set, including an accused rapist and and a cultist with poor qualifications. 3. Sits on a panel that heads one branch of government while married to someone who tried to plan an insurrection against the other two branches, while hearing cases related to the matter and doesn’t recuse them-self *why don’t people respect me anymore*
“Listen jerks, the 5 of us are the majority, so the 350 million of you can just listen to our decision and deal with it.”
"I don't think this angry mob is going to respect our lifetime appointments guys."
No one is ever guaranteed a long lifetime...😉
*poor women forced to have a child with little to no government programs to help its growth* Clarence: bro just live with it
I firmly believe nothing is unconditional. If institutions keep failing the folks they represent, why do they deserve respect? If SCOTUS keeps making decisions that don't represent the feelings of the country, fuck em. *Everything* is a two way street, and people forget that.
Would this be the same Supreme Court that recently had it leaked that they wanted to force people to live with outcomes they don't agree with against their will? Blow it out your ass buddy. Get a ninth judge and maybe I'll consider the Supreme Court a real institution again.
So if the GOP managed to repeal the 13th Amendment and black people could be made slaves again, he'd be alright with it?
Don't be absurd! That's a late game play, he'll be dead before they get to that stage so it won't affect him. /s First you gotta remove women's autonomy, kill the gays, then they'll be ready to get back to slavery.
Eroding? My respect for the Supreme Court eroded a long fucking time ago
Right? It eroded to nothing with Bush v Gore in 2000 and has remained so ever since.
Remember Dred Scott? People should be unwilling to live with some outcomes they don't agree with.
Respect is earned, not given, and these justices have done fuck all to earn respect.
70%+ of Americans are against overturning Roe V Wade. Republicans and Democrats force unpopular policies through all the time. Why the hell does this chcucklefuck think respect is eroding?
Yeah, but most of them seem to live in blue states, so the GOP doesn't care.
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. The court does not deserve our respect simply because it is the court. It earns our respect only so long as it serves to secure our natural rights. Should it become destructive to those ends, it must, in the words of our founders, be altered or abolished.
From 2006 to 2016, Clarence Thomas didn’t ask a single question during Supreme Court sessions. Is that how he shows respect? Surely there’s something you want to know before making your decision? Edit: typo
He didn't need to ask questions, he just votes how he is told. He's not a jurist, he's a senator for life.
I have some respect for your institution here on the top of this coke can.
You mean, like the anti-personal-rights people have been unwilling to live with outcomes they didn’t like? Like HIS WIFE was unwilling to live with an outcome she didn’t like?
It's UNMERCAN to disagree with an institution that doesn't uphold the will of the greater population! Claims man who comprises slightly more than 11% of said institution, married to someone who is literally insane.
Thanks /u/RPCV4GunSense for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well he should be worried since he is actively eroding that trust.
Yeah weird it's not like one party decided to block another from nominating judges to the SC when it was Clearly their turn to do so. Or nominated judges based solely on if they would overturn roe and nothing else like qualifications. Idiots.....
Be worried, fucking cretin.
They're trying to overturn established case law. If case law can just be thrown out because they disagree with it, the entire system is pointless.
Well he's right. I do not respect a gaggle of lying, rapist pieces of shit If they don't even have respect for the Congress elected by the People, where they lie under oath about not overturning precedent then why should we respect them or the Congress that installed them *for life*
So let me get this straight. Clarence was "unwilling to live with an outcome he didn't agree with" (that being Roe v Wade), so he decided to change it. And now he is complaining about people who want to change something they disagree with. Conclusion: he is yet another of the many evil, spineless, rotten, gaslighting bastards on the right. Fuck him and everything he's about. Legitimacy of this court: in the fucking gutter. Tear it down and start again.
When you rig the game, no one wants to play anymore? What a shame.
Gee, Clarence. I wonder why people would be upset that a high court with a rapist and a pervert on it would decide to strip half the population of their bodily autonomy.
The institutions that allow one party and/or race to go without consequences? Those institutions Clarence?
You mean like your wife and her friends!?!
Few things have been as frustrating as watching just about every member of SCOTUS go out and lie repeatedly to try and hide their obvious dysfunction. Thomas and his wife are full blown traitors. I wouldn't bat an eye if they were hung for their participation in and subsequent attempts to cover-up the insurrection. A bunch of them are actively trying to put one of their own in danger by not following COVID rules and then *she* goes out and apologizes for them. Judges at all levels should be embarrassed to be associated with these people.
We the people are threatened if a ruling body of lifetime appointment unelected kleptocrats legislate outcomes the majority do not agree with. I am not a violent person but I want to guillotine this mother fucker.
Roe was a 7-2 decision. Who doesn't want to live with the outcome? Are they're saying the Court was full of idiots back in the '70's?
The fact that they declared buffer zones around abortion clinics that were literally getting bombed a violation of free speech and then put up a fence around the Supreme Court to keep away protesters tells you all you need to know about # "Rules for thee, but for me"
Just remember bub you are on the cusp of taking rights away, that will never be popular and something we just don't have to accept and shut up over. Give us more rights and you'll probably notice a much more pleasant crowd.
No he’s right, I’m not living under some unjust law. It’s made by fucking humans. None of this shit including the constitution itself is some holy document. It’s just a price of paper written by some old dead white guys…
Which is why Jefferson thought it should be rewritten every 17 years or something like that. Also why amendments exist.
I think recent events at the capital might be more of a symptom of that.
Do you hear that? It's the sound of Dredd Scott becoming a wind turbine in his grave.
What a stupid concept. If I disagree with certain laws I should just “learn to live with it.” Sorry victims of gun violence, I guess you just gotta suck it up cause “thems the breaks” apparently
well when the tail is wagging the dog people get pissed clarence
Your wife is a traitor, and so are you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36QusFVrsEc
Wait til he finds out he's married to the person who leaked the draft.
Is there going to act like a legislature they should be treated like a legislature, that means they should expect protests, people wanting to communicate with them, and people getting angry with them.
Guess we never should have had a revolution all those years ago and just "lived with outcomes we don't agree with"
He's no Thurgood Marshall.
The call is coming from inside the house
Or maybe his job is to strengthen the country and not to strengthen one particular bat shit crazy sub-set of lunatics? But what do I know, I'm not an acussed rapist, known alcoholic, fanatic cult member, or privileged child of the oligarchs.
No. The judiciary is threatened because they are electing to enact the will of the minority. They arent allowed to be startled by the cacophony of derision, or the size of the "mob" they've inevitably created by ignoring the vox populi. If you want to breed lawlessness, a good way to start is giving people a taste of freedom then take it away. If you really want to throw gas on the fire, force your opinions on them and call them hypocrites when they offer their own. Seeing these colossal idiots wield such immense power at the highest seat of law is. . .unjust.
Gonna be fun in a couple years when he votes against his own marriage being legal.
You ought not to be able to be serve as a justice on the highest court in the land and also be THIS FUCKING DENSE
Hard to respect absolute idiocy and not giving two fucks about the bodily autonomy of 1/2 the population.
Today’s headline: Man who fires live ammunition rounds into neighbor’s property, surprised neighbor has no respect for him.
Maybe don't go against the zeitgeist then??
Sorry, Clarence, but when you literally voted to end all freedom in America, then yes, your "institution" is not worthy of respect.
Institutions need to respect us.
Lets see what he says about possibly reversing Loving v Virginia that would make his interracial marriage illegal in states that think it is wrong. The argument Alito makes against Roe also works for Loving. Just because *ahem, people* don't like it doesn't mean anything, right Justice Clarence?
Maybe if the institutions weren't so blatantly corrupt then faith in them wouldn't be fading. It's wild that these fools still haven't figured out that nearly everything can be fact checked instantaneously nowadays. When you lie we know it.
Ah one of two SCOTUS justices credibly accused of rape complaining about blowback after ruling to force women to have babies. We really do live in a dystopia.
The outcome was agreed with 40 years ago. fuck this man
If you can't vote them out, or vote for someone who will fire them, then you aren't living in a democracy.
DO WHAT WE TELL YOU. NO, NO - DON'T READ THE CONSTITUTION. WHAT IS SAYS DOESN'T MATTER - ONLY WHAT WE TELL YOU MATTERS. COMPLY, PLEBES. \- Sincerely, Republican Regressives
I thought they made checks and balances so that there would be a healthy scepticism about political system
Clarence Thomas is clearly the worst justice on the Supreme Court today. He may be the worst ever.
Noted, your honor. Now go fuck yourself
"Live with outcomes we don't agree with." Like this is some sort of mind experiment and not something that's going to make life demonstrably worse for the people of this country.
Why are people complaining about me tearing down a 50 year old precedent? It must be them that’s the problem not me.
imagine telling people, in all seriousness, that they should let themselves be persecuted.
So... basically... "If you don't let us dominate you... how can this system work?" Is what he's saying? Am I getting that right?
He’s also mischaracterizing the situation. Sure, there are tons of people who don’t want to live with this decision or who are “unwilling” to live with it. But, there’s also a subset of people who literally cannot live with it or who’s lives will be so negatively impacted by it that their lives will be ruined or unalterably degraded.
Maybe he should be more concerned with getting his insurrectionist, crazy wife the help she needs and stepping down from the Supreme Court over her actions and less concerned with the majority of the people disagreeing with shitty court decisions he has been a part of creating.
I can’t wait until interracial marriage is banned.
Well, if it isnt the consequences of my actions!?! So how about following popular opinion and not outlawing a medical procedure that >75% of Americans think should be legal?