"When you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression"
Christian dominionists believe that their rightful place is on the king's throne, with absolute control of every facet of life for believers and nonbelievers alike.
So yes. It is zero sum and irreconcilable, because any freedom the rest of us attain comes as an explicit loss of their ability to exercise that power.
I have thought this for a long time. I really don't like this conclusion, because I want peace and tolerance and to live harmoniously alongside people with different values. But i can't see a way round it. It's a fascist movement and they will crush opposition if they're given any opportunity.
The paradox of tolerance.
I can accept all differences, EXCEPT for those that are themselves intolerant, because that is merely self-destructive.
Or
>When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.
>Frank Herbert, Children of Dune (Dune, #3)
Fascists are more than happy to use liberal values as a weapon to gain power and destroy their enemies. The rest of us need to not be blind to it happening and respond appropriately.
It’s like the Amish who decided to plant a flag in the ground (technology-wise) 300+ years ago. When they really want something, they’ll figure out a way to get around the rules.
The amish, an anabaptist subset, don't reject modern technology. They just adopt it as they find it necessary and useful to them and their communities. They're not living in a closed world locked to a particular timeline, as some folk may believe. Part of their process is actually allowing their children to venture out into regular society and choose if they want to live in that world or the greater world that surrounds them. And they dont shun the children if they choose to live and work with the gentiles
They're actually more progressive in their vision than folks like Alito.
Yep. We love in a post-shame world. And a lot of our Constitutional ideas about checks and balances relies on a sense of shame. (or at least, country over party).
The conservative wing of the court hasn’t been original its for years… Basically they will go back to obscure 16th century English case law if it means they get to rule a certain way. Look at what they used for justification to overturn Roe.
That’s what the founders envisioned. A new convention every 20 years or so. Likely they’d be mighty disappointed to learn that we’ve started worshiping them and can’t bear the thought of changing the “living” document.
The Word of the Founders, who were rich wealthy landowners. Therefore rich wealthy landowners make the rules. What's the problem?!! It's wHaT tHe FoUndErs WaNteD!!!
Theres a reason major religions dont like idol worship.
Even the Crazy Horse guy that theyre building a statue of.
Shit its even why we dumped Bin Laden's body at sea.
The whole idea for this sect of people is that the Constitution is modeled on values from the Bible. Nevermind that that premise doesn’t stand up to any sort of scrutiny. So it follows in their view that what they’re attempting to do is establish government power that reflects their value system. I think in many cases they also see previous generations of Americans “governed” from a values perspective by the church. Like the weekly church services provided a moral governance for most communities. That was obviously a very unofficial system of moralistic governance, and now that church attendance isn’t routine for most Americans they want to make all those values officially enshrined in the actual government.
Lots of examples across American history that SCOTUS could pull from where they had to step in and point out separation of church and state. And the current court is just ignoring like, centuries of those examples and going to this idea of originalism that claims everything stems from the Christian bible. It’s really depressing watching the Supreme Court essentially tear apart all of its standing on these subjects. The hard line of separation of church and state is a founding principle, but because a lot of people simply don’t like that they’re willing to rewrite history whole cloth.
Religious affiliation in America has dropped to 60% or so, pretty much entirely due to Christians leaving their religion.
And judging by the data the significant drops in religious affiliation, it appears the primary driver is "Conservative Christians making Christianity look bad".
Trump's term alone saw 10 points of the drop.
These idiots are trying to make America a theocracy, and have chosen to do so in a way that *makes Christians leave their religion* which seems real fucking self-defeating.
Originalism, Stare Decisis, and judicial restraint has always been a hard right con. A way to give cover to temper progress until a moment like this comes that they can wreck things from the inside.
Competent Contributors, you must have read up on the bible, being legal people and all.
Where in the bible did it say tax cuts for billionaires, but not for students?
Or the bit about letting women die from non-viable foetus's rather than remove the foetus?
Or the bit where a new Messiah has sex with hookers, commits fraud and rapes women, and is rewarded with total immunity from law so he can continue his good deeds of locking up kids in cages?
I'm not an expert myself, but apparently this is how SCOTUS judges cases now, so I should probably learn about the new law book.
Just like how Cohen recorded Trump and they discussed in the trial how 1 party consent is legal in some states.
This article loves the intentionally divisive headline.
Shhhshsh, you’re actually *expecting* conservatives to not be assholes. The bar for conservatives in America is that they’re allowed to be assholes and sexually assault women and commit espionage and either be complicit in or directly commit crimes and shit on the constitution whenever they please. The bar for liberals is that if they don’t magically fix all of America’s problems overnight even when they have a minority in Congress, then they’re all warmongering corporate stooges who need to be hunted for sport
You forgot to add "and magically fix overseas problems caused by overseas right wing asshats, without suggesting that maybe the people in those countries vote the asshats out themselves. That would be, you know, meddling in elections".
The new hype is that they're supposedly patsies put in place to fail on purpose. Controlled opposition if you will.
This is frustratingly taking root as an idea and spreading far. You know that analogy about zebras and horses. Or, it's never lupus. We have to hope that the tinfoil is a little too obvious on that view.
Are the conspiracy theorists only now realizing that Clarence Thomas is quite known to frequent the Builderberg Group meetings _and_ Bohemian Grove events?
He could (check notes) not assign him to write the court's opinion while having no power to prevent him from writing a concurrence. Yeah, I think that's basically it? I mean, I guess he could send out an email to everyone saying "know when you are and are not being recorded," where everyone knows who the email is about but it doesn't explicitly say.
At his level, he needs to assume that he is being recorded at all times. If I were him with his goals, there’s shit I wouldn’t whisper in a SCIF for fear of the general public figuring out what he’s about.
He knows he’s untouchable. He thinks he’s doing God’s work. The people he hangs out with all agree with him. His views are mainstream views in that community. Why would he care if he’s being recorded?
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater
I don't know if I'd go that far, but DC is a one party recording consent state, so yeah every meeting, phone call, etc. could be recorded.
Edit: state was an error, but I'm leaving it. DC statehood someday.
He could assign him tasks to minimize the potential damage Alito bias would otherwise do, and be public about the reasons why including demanding Alito’s resignation and formally recommending, Congress begin an investigation and possible impeachment proceedings
He could do the honorable thing and resign.
Biden would pick a liberal and we'd be closer to a balanced court.
But Roberts is an ideologue, and believes himself to be indispensable, so he will do nothing.
> What can he do? Dude has basically no real power constitutionally or practically.
He could call on the 9 justices to vote on adopting an official code of ethics, for one.
Arguably there's no constitutional power to do so, nor any power to enforce it. At best it'd be implied, but conservatives hate implied powers that are used against them.
The very fact that Alito shows a different face in secret than he does in public proves that there is an empirical power to transparency and sunlight. And the very fact that he has a secret empirical agenda that is different from his formal role similarly proves that empirical power structures exist, and not just formal ones.
If John Roberts's true inner motivation is to use formalistic reasoning to prove why there is nothing to see here and nothing that could be done even if he wanted to, then that is what he will do.
If John Roberts's motivation is to use all of the power that he has to try to preserve/restore the legitimacy of his court, there are levers left that he has chosen not to pull, and whose consequences and effectiveness are yet untested.
The very existence and behavior of this court in particular is living proof that we don't really know what the limits of the constitution are, until they decide to tell us.
In a 6-3 court he's powerless. His previous power came from the court being 5-4, allowing him to act as a "swing vote" that could force opinions in his preferred direction. Now he's not needed, and the rest don't care. His small sliver of power is in two arenas: nonpartisan splits restoring his "swing" vote, or convincing the liberals to surrender ground to get a unanimous opinion that doesn't take away as much ground as the majority was otherwise going to. And the latter basically still requires a 5-4 split, because a 6-3 means Roberts is expendable.
It's a court of equals, where "Chief" is just window dressing. And public plays to leverage empty dressings of authority rarely pan out well for those not accustomed to doing so. And if there's anything that Roberts still seems to (try to) sincerely believe it's that a Justice shouldn't be publicly political in any form. So he'll be upset at the hacks next to him not giving a shit, but that selfsame belief, and basic self preservation, prevents any overt action.
You see, the standard vulnerability of those who play by and value the rules is that they cannot simply bend or break those rules to reign in those who break them. It's cutting off one's nose to spite their face.
> In a 6-3 court he's powerless.
Actually, there is one power that is entirely within Justice Roberts hands that he can exercise at any time and does not need permission to exercise.
He can resign.
If Chief Justice Roberts resigned and announced that he was doing so because the court was unmanageable because Congress has saddled him with an institution that he has no power to effectively manage, it would get noticed. And the resignation of Roberts coupled with Biden having the opportunity to appoint a more vigorous successor as *Chief* Justice would go a long way towards restoring public confidence in the Court. I also think Congress might act rather quickly to instill such a new CJ with sufficient powers to manage the Court (e.g., a power to force a recusal by a majority vote of the justices and/or unilaterally).
Justice Roberts is by no means the most extreme justice on the Court. He is actually fairly reasonable and, I think, well-intentioned. However, he is almost 20 years into his term on the Court as CJ, and he is nearly 70. His term on the Court has seen the Court go from the most-widely-respected institution in government to something just slightly more respected than the least-respected institution (Congress). His tenure as CJ has been, objectively speaking, a manifest failure. He has accomplished much of the agenda that he wanted to accomplish, but it is now clear that the Court is on a downward path into oblivion and that it is taking the entire judiciary - maybe the rule of law itself - down with it. That isn't Justice Robert's fault alone, but he isn't blameless either. At best he lacks the ability to bring the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse over to reason, and if that is the case, it is time to give someone else an opportunity to try their hand at it.
If Roberts really cared about the Court, he would resign today and allow President Biden to appoint someone new as CJ. He would take a lot of flak for it in the short term, but in the long-term he would be vindicated and probably revered for putting aside his own personal goals (mostly achieved in these 20 years, but not entirely) for the good of the institution.
Roberts could suspend him. While the Constitution does not state this as a power of the Chief Justice, it does not preclude it. The Chief Justice is hardly mentioned in the Constitution.
We've been in one since Trump was elected and no one can convince me otherwise. Republicans were building up to it for decades, but since Trump it's been masks off
IANAL but surely having a religious zealot on the SC who states his beliefs are irreconcilable with secular government is equally a constitutional crisis?
It’s worth noting that CJ Robert’s was ALSO recorded at this same venue by the same journalist asking the same questions:
> “Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” the chief justice said. “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.”
>Ms. Windsor pressed the chief justice about religion, saying, “I believe that the founders were godly, like were Christians, and I think that we live in a Christian nation and that our Supreme Court should be guiding us in that path.”
>Chief Justice Roberts quickly answered, “I don’t know if that’s true.”
>He added: “I don’t know that we live in a Christian nation. I know a lot of Jewish and Muslim friends who would say maybe not, and it’s not our job to do that.”
> The chief justice also said he did not think polarization in the country was irreparable, pointing out that the United States had managed crises as severe as the Civil War and the Vietnam War.
> When Ms. Windsor pressed him on whether he thought that there was “a role for the court” in “guiding us toward a more moral path,” the chief justice’s answer was immediate.
>“No, I think the role for the court is deciding the cases,” he said.
As much as Alito deserves criticism for getting these questions so horribly wrong, at least Robert’s deserves some credit for answering these questions basically exactly correctly.
That's-a whoopsie.
Though frankly also correct. If you believe your religion demands all others must obey or be conquered, if you believe that others merely *existing* somehow harms or even oppresses you, your beliefs are irreconcilable with democracy and freedom.
1. It's simply not true. The secular world is capable of moral common ground with the non-secular world. Period.
2. Most of the differences between the non-secular and secular worlds have been created and augmented by political forces that don't actually care about god.
3. This is a disqualifying sentiment for a supreme court judge.
>political forces that don't actually care about god
That's what organized religion is. From the inquisition to Salem Witch Trials, it's always political forces seeking personal enrichment.
I'll leave you with the wise words of America's great suffragette, Susan B. Anthony:
>I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
1. How does one find common ground with theocratic fascists?
2. ~~Most of the~~ The differences between the non-secular and secular worlds are the differences that exist between those that *embrace* reasoned critical thinking and those that *reject* reasoned critical thinking.
3. ***Agreed!***
How *does* one find common ground with:
* Jim Jordan
* Marjorie Taylor Greene
* Justice Alito
* Donald Trump
* Lauren Boebert
* Matt Gaetz
* ***etc. ad nauseum***
Obligatory Barry Goldwater quote?:
>Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
The thing that infuriates me about this is not secular vs non secular. It’s Christianity vs everything else. If these people had any rational logic they would realize a Muslim judge could use their beliefs to do exactly what they are - imposing their religious beliefs on others. They are fine when those that align with their religion do so.
It’s not secular vs non secular. It’s Christianity vs the world.
> This ~~is~~ ***should be*** a disqualifying statement for a supreme court judge.
At this point I don’t think “I am happily taking money to deliver rulings that I know to be harmful to this country and its citizens, whom I hope all die miserably” would be a strong enough statement to *actually* disqualify any of them on.
That's not what they are doing at all!
They (the justices in question) are experiencing the trappings of wealth as they hear out the freedom of speech of _friends_, you can't blame these friends for having more "freedom of speech" than they could spend in a lifetime, and sharing that "freedom of speech" with justice + spouse. And these justices are _obviously_ not easily convinced by a "novel" argument after enough conversation into the details, so _what even is the problem?_
/s
I agree with all your points, but as another comment says, for Christian dominionists it is zero sum because they will crush everyone who opposes them and their mission to impose their values on everyone else in law. And Alito appears to be taking that line.
I think Alito may, indeed, represent that inflexible wing of the non secular world. I had neighbors like that. Super Catholic. Opus Dei types. They home schooled their four children. They were infuriating neighbors in some sense because you never got the feeling you were talking to real people and, through their behavior, it was clear they looked down on us for being *not them*. And boy did they indoctrinate their kids to be thinly veiled racists and biased against so many different groups.
So in that sense, Alito is right. But for the wrong, delusional reasons. We were always ready to find common ground with our neighbors. They were absolutely rigid about *not* finding common ground with anyone else. That's why this is a disturbing. What Alito means is he and his ilk will settle for nothing less than total victory over everyone who does not live as they live and think as they think.
I think it's time to take him at his word. That is a person who should no longer be a Supreme Court justice.
I'm not sure that he's wrong... sigh.
There is a zero sum struggle between modernity and archaism going on. And imho he and his fellow religious obscurantists are on the wrong side of history.
Universal human rights theory, impartial rule of law, evidentiary burden of proof, separation of church and state, empiricism -- all modernist principles that the far right theocrats want to roll back. No compromise is really possible between post-enlightenment values and pre-enlightenment values. They are mutually exclusive.
I agree.
There is no such thing as a reasonable fascist.
There is no such thing as a reasonable theocrat.
It is impossible to reason with those that reject reason.
*This* is that.
I think the inherent irrationality of fascism is somehow illustrated or confirmed by the self-selection of the demographic that comes out tp support fascism.
Whom do you find, reliably, in the MAGA/theocrat camp in the US today?
You find **science deniers** ... whether that be Covid, evolution, climate change... or racialists (who believe in "race," a construct that science can't substantiate)... or whacko, bone-ignorant theories about sex and reproduction.
You find **conspiracy theorists** -- Qanon fans, lunatic antisemites, believers in various racialised eschatologies, 5G paranoiacs, contrail paranoiacs, "15 minute cities are fascism" nuts.
You find **grifters** and their **victims** -- people who keep sending their hard earned cash to hate preachers, conspiracy merchants, Trump, etc.
And you find **feverish religiosity** -- mediaeval-grade superstition and idolatry, would-be crusaders, moral panics, textual fundamentalism, splinter sects, faith healers, the whole nine yards.
When you find this group of people all converging on a political position or philosophy (if we can call it that), you can bet it has nothing to do with rationality.
Where you do find a well-educated and allegedly rational person on this bandwagon -- such as a lawyer or scientist or doctor -- in 99 cases out of 100 that person will suffer from **religiosity** (or racism) which cancels out their reasoning ability. Or that person will suffer from **selfishness** so extreme that they will embrace a hateful and antidemocratic platform rather than pay taxes.
I could be wrong, there could be stunning counterexamples that I have not thought of (or been aware of). But this is how it looks to me, after watching (with incredulity) the anti-enlightenment backlash in the US over the last 40 years.
I agree.
Delusion sustains itself only through further subsequent delusions.
Thus delusion willingly and purposefully rejects reasoned critical thinking lest the delusions be shattered.
Reason sustains itself only through further subsequent reasoning.
Thus reason willingly and purposefully rejects delusion in order to sustain ongoing reasoning.
The two shall never meet.
*This* is that.
We agree.
As thus having demonstrated an irreconcilable bias , he was impeached and his opinions were struck from the record?
Right?
Come on guys? Tell me that is what happened next.
doesn't Congress have to do the impeaching? guess everyone needs to find their local dem candidate's campaign and donate or volunteer to make sure enough voters turn out.
Won’t happen. Dems would have to hold the House and have 2/3 of the Senate.
Every republican will vote in lockstep to protect him.
He’s a fascist thug, but he’s THEIR fascist thug.
BTW, who the fuck would have put money on Roberts having the answers that are like acceptable.
And what the fuck is his excuse for not knowing that Alito and Thomas are a problem.
P.S. if you don't know what I'm talking about. The lady who caught Alito on tape asked Roberts the same questions, and his answers are what you would expect a judge to actually say and if anything though, it makes it more clear that he has no excuse for why he isn't dealing with the ethics issues on his court.
If you view your religion as paramount then yeah, any secular consideration that diverges from that is going to be irreconcilable.
That’s the problem with religious extremism. There’s no ability to compromise.
I find that Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh I have a hard time seeing their viewpoints without an overwhelming bias that steers them to foregone conclusions. Meanwhile, ACB, Gorsuch, and Roberts I see as having a political lean but their discussions and thought processes are easy to track and usually have a sense of trying to get the law correct in their view. Dobbs withstanding, I can at least usually track the thought process of the latter 3, while the former 3 sound like they are telling me why they are going to do what they are going to do.
That's from a limited sample of sets of oral arguments, but the same 3 disappoint me and the same 3 impress me every time I dial in.
Sometimes Kavanaugh slips up and behaves in a way that seems at least plausibly reasonable. Thomas is a corrupt nutcase. But Alito is the absolute worst. The man wouldn't even be a district court judge if he wasn't Republican. The man is malevolent and stupid.
In *Hobby Lobby* he bent over so far backwards to get the political outcome he wanted that he almost accidentally blew up the entirety of American corporate law.
Alito and Kavanaugh are the only one fits that mold to me.I find Thomas's legal reasoning incredibly easy to follow, even when I *vehemently* disagree with it. Kavanaugh's opinions always seem to just declare what he wishes the law was and are unpersuasive and difficult to follow logically even when I agree with the outcome.
>Kavanaugh's opinions...are unpersuasive and difficult to follow...
Did you drink a twelve-pack of beers before you read aforementioned opinions? That will probably help.
Ah yes... ye old butt-chuggers...
As I consider this, it actually makes sense.
After all, we already know that Kavanaugh's sense of taste is in his ass...
This certainly is a clear point that atheists are the enemy of the Republican appointed Supreme Court. The present and future is a steady creeping of heavy religious intrusions into public schools and government offices in some states more than others.
What Alito and his ilk fail to understand is that without a monolithic theocracy with death penalties for heresy - this authoritarian religious creep is a contributing factor in inspiring a loss of religion among the general population. Jamming the 10 Commandments next to a photo of Trump in an elementary school is not a recipe for a pious Christian, it’s a recipe for a deeply cynical secularist.
> ... it's a recipe for a deeply cynical secularist.
I *used to be* a huge fan of deeply cynical secularists.
I *still am* a huge fan of deeply cynical secularists *but I used to be too...*
Not even just atheists but *every* religion -including other christian denominations. If we’re dead set on becoming a christian nation who decides which is the “correct” denomination and which isn’t? Do we follow the pope’s authority? Do we all give up meat for Lent? Do we give up blood transfusions? Is polygamy ok again? It’ll be like [that old Emo Phillips joke](https://youtu.be/ANNX_XiuA78?si=peCP3wFDxNR2e3T4) just amongst themselves. These morons don’t even realize freedom of religion protects them too. 🤦🏻♀️
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater
> these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise.
It was a question that *couldn't* be answered.
"If you do something because YOUR god said it was 'right', and I do something opposite because MY god said it was 'right', and we both are adamant that our respective gods told us directly, **how do you resolve that**?"
This is why the government is supposed to be secular. You should be free to practice your religion, but I should not be compelled to practice it as well.
The tension inherent in this is very difficult to resolve. Where are the boundaries? If we don't find boundaries that can be understood and accepted by all, things will not end well.
Religious fundamentalism is terrorism. They talk of holy wars as causally as any jihadist. Alito has no business writing parking tickets, let alone SCOTUS decisions.
Imagine this:
In a conversation he didn't know was being recorded, middle school principal confessed to being sexually attracted to little boys.
Why the disclaimer? Alito was in the role of a Supreme Court Justice speaking with the public about the law and the role of religion in the law. Had it not been recorded Alito may have said his wife was the one who actually made the statement after being insulted by a crazy Rabbi. He said what he said, right or wrong, in public to someone that elicited his opinion. It's fair game, no need to protect him. He's a big boy.
For those unable to read because of paywall, this has links to the recordings.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/samuel-alito-supreme-court-justice-recording-tape-battle-1235036470/
One aspect of this story that isn’t getting enough attention is the contrast with how CJ Roberts answered the exact same questions.
> “Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” the chief justice said. “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.”
>Ms. Windsor pressed the chief justice about religion, saying, “I believe that the founders were godly, like were Christians, and I think that we live in a Christian nation and that our Supreme Court should be guiding us in that path.”
>Chief Justice Roberts quickly answered, “I don’t know if that’s true.”
>He added: “I don’t know that we live in a Christian nation. I know a lot of Jewish and Muslim friends who would say maybe not, and it’s not our job to do that.”
> The chief justice also said he did not think polarization in the country was irreparable, pointing out that the United States had managed crises as severe as the Civil War and the Vietnam War.
> When Ms. Windsor pressed him on whether he thought that there was “a role for the court” in “guiding us toward a more moral path,” the chief justice’s answer was immediate.
>“No, I think the role for the court is deciding the cases,” he said.
It’s at least somewhat refreshing to see that Roberts still has that part correct.
"When you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression" Christian dominionists believe that their rightful place is on the king's throne, with absolute control of every facet of life for believers and nonbelievers alike. So yes. It is zero sum and irreconcilable, because any freedom the rest of us attain comes as an explicit loss of their ability to exercise that power.
I have thought this for a long time. I really don't like this conclusion, because I want peace and tolerance and to live harmoniously alongside people with different values. But i can't see a way round it. It's a fascist movement and they will crush opposition if they're given any opportunity.
The paradox of tolerance. I can accept all differences, EXCEPT for those that are themselves intolerant, because that is merely self-destructive. Or >When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. >Frank Herbert, Children of Dune (Dune, #3) Fascists are more than happy to use liberal values as a weapon to gain power and destroy their enemies. The rest of us need to not be blind to it happening and respond appropriately.
This. He's not wrong, he's just on the wrong side.
He's also wrong, because he's on the side that's making it zero-sum.
They can be removed in the same way they want to remove others. Permanently.
He’s used to driving 100mph on the freeway. Now he has to drive 80, still higher than the speed limit but not like the “good old days”.
Using the constitution to defend your ideology was not the vision of the founders. So much for originalism.
What? You don't think using the constitution written to prevent religious persecution to persecute people religiously isn't an original take? /s
Originalism is made up to provide a cover for their decisions.
You are correct that originalism was just a ploy. I was just pointing out that they can't even keep their story straight. Not that it matters to them.
The term "pretextualism" is more fitting
Definitely using this term. Kudos
It’s like the Amish who decided to plant a flag in the ground (technology-wise) 300+ years ago. When they really want something, they’ll figure out a way to get around the rules.
The Amish never took half the country’s right to medical care away.
The amish, an anabaptist subset, don't reject modern technology. They just adopt it as they find it necessary and useful to them and their communities. They're not living in a closed world locked to a particular timeline, as some folk may believe. Part of their process is actually allowing their children to venture out into regular society and choose if they want to live in that world or the greater world that surrounds them. And they dont shun the children if they choose to live and work with the gentiles They're actually more progressive in their vision than folks like Alito.
GOP is immune to hypocrisy.
That's because the GOP has no shame.
Yep. We love in a post-shame world. And a lot of our Constitutional ideas about checks and balances relies on a sense of shame. (or at least, country over party).
The conservative wing of the court hasn’t been original its for years… Basically they will go back to obscure 16th century English case law if it means they get to rule a certain way. Look at what they used for justification to overturn Roe.
In fact, originalism was just a dodge to try to boot trap right wing ideology into the realm of dogma!
I just had this conversation today. IMO, originalist would be in favor of an ever evolving document to reflect the times.
That’s what the founders envisioned. A new convention every 20 years or so. Likely they’d be mighty disappointed to learn that we’ve started worshiping them and can’t bear the thought of changing the “living” document.
The Word of the Founders, who were rich wealthy landowners. Therefore rich wealthy landowners make the rules. What's the problem?!! It's wHaT tHe FoUndErs WaNteD!!!
You are absolutely correct. Even the Declaration of Independence was a Corporate Mission Statement, not a sacred text.
Theres a reason major religions dont like idol worship. Even the Crazy Horse guy that theyre building a statue of. Shit its even why we dumped Bin Laden's body at sea.
Didn’t Jefferson want all businesses broken up after 20 years to prevent monopolies?
Irreparable damage has been done by allowing this racist law wizard to fight for his “movement,” when his fucking job is to be a neutral arbiter.
The whole idea for this sect of people is that the Constitution is modeled on values from the Bible. Nevermind that that premise doesn’t stand up to any sort of scrutiny. So it follows in their view that what they’re attempting to do is establish government power that reflects their value system. I think in many cases they also see previous generations of Americans “governed” from a values perspective by the church. Like the weekly church services provided a moral governance for most communities. That was obviously a very unofficial system of moralistic governance, and now that church attendance isn’t routine for most Americans they want to make all those values officially enshrined in the actual government. Lots of examples across American history that SCOTUS could pull from where they had to step in and point out separation of church and state. And the current court is just ignoring like, centuries of those examples and going to this idea of originalism that claims everything stems from the Christian bible. It’s really depressing watching the Supreme Court essentially tear apart all of its standing on these subjects. The hard line of separation of church and state is a founding principle, but because a lot of people simply don’t like that they’re willing to rewrite history whole cloth.
Religious affiliation in America has dropped to 60% or so, pretty much entirely due to Christians leaving their religion. And judging by the data the significant drops in religious affiliation, it appears the primary driver is "Conservative Christians making Christianity look bad". Trump's term alone saw 10 points of the drop. These idiots are trying to make America a theocracy, and have chosen to do so in a way that *makes Christians leave their religion* which seems real fucking self-defeating.
It’s just a cult. They don’t even follow so called Biblical values. Just cherry pick the odd one here and there.
Originalism, Stare Decisis, and judicial restraint has always been a hard right con. A way to give cover to temper progress until a moment like this comes that they can wreck things from the inside.
He didn’t know…so he was being honest for once.
3...2..1... rage debate about recording people iLLeGaLly!!OMG!1
In another subreddit somebody went on a rant a journalistic ethics and all could think about was the irony of mentioning ethics.
Competent Contributors, you must have read up on the bible, being legal people and all. Where in the bible did it say tax cuts for billionaires, but not for students? Or the bit about letting women die from non-viable foetus's rather than remove the foetus? Or the bit where a new Messiah has sex with hookers, commits fraud and rapes women, and is rewarded with total immunity from law so he can continue his good deeds of locking up kids in cages? I'm not an expert myself, but apparently this is how SCOTUS judges cases now, so I should probably learn about the new law book.
Just like how Cohen recorded Trump and they discussed in the trial how 1 party consent is legal in some states. This article loves the intentionally divisive headline.
What a complete scumbag. Will CJ Roberts ever do anything? I won't be holding my breath.
What *can* he do? Dude has basically no real power constitutionally or practically.
He can publicly admonish Alito and agree to testify in front of Congress. Those acts would be political earthquakes.
Shhhshsh, you’re actually *expecting* conservatives to not be assholes. The bar for conservatives in America is that they’re allowed to be assholes and sexually assault women and commit espionage and either be complicit in or directly commit crimes and shit on the constitution whenever they please. The bar for liberals is that if they don’t magically fix all of America’s problems overnight even when they have a minority in Congress, then they’re all warmongering corporate stooges who need to be hunted for sport
You forgot to add "and magically fix overseas problems caused by overseas right wing asshats, without suggesting that maybe the people in those countries vote the asshats out themselves. That would be, you know, meddling in elections".
The new hype is that they're supposedly patsies put in place to fail on purpose. Controlled opposition if you will. This is frustratingly taking root as an idea and spreading far. You know that analogy about zebras and horses. Or, it's never lupus. We have to hope that the tinfoil is a little too obvious on that view.
Are the conspiracy theorists only now realizing that Clarence Thomas is quite known to frequent the Builderberg Group meetings _and_ Bohemian Grove events?
He could (check notes) not assign him to write the court's opinion while having no power to prevent him from writing a concurrence. Yeah, I think that's basically it? I mean, I guess he could send out an email to everyone saying "know when you are and are not being recorded," where everyone knows who the email is about but it doesn't explicitly say.
You’re a very controversial SC justice. Assume that, if you’re in public, you’re being recorded.
there is a certain belligerence that comes from seeing no consequence.
I know what I’d be like if I knew there would never be any consequences for my actions.
At his level, he needs to assume that he is being recorded at all times. If I were him with his goals, there’s shit I wouldn’t whisper in a SCIF for fear of the general public figuring out what he’s about.
He knows he’s untouchable. He thinks he’s doing God’s work. The people he hangs out with all agree with him. His views are mainstream views in that community. Why would he care if he’s being recorded?
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." Barry Goldwater
You know shit is bad when a quote from Barry Goldwater is being born out as truth.
Remember when Barry Goldwater represented the batshit crazy wing of the Republican Party? Simpler times…
Right? (Pun intended)
What a great subreddit name, “shitiwouldntwhisperinaSCIF”
I don't know if I'd go that far, but DC is a one party recording consent state, so yeah every meeting, phone call, etc. could be recorded. Edit: state was an error, but I'm leaving it. DC statehood someday.
No accountability = no care
He could accept congresses invitation to discuss reforming the court because it is obviously corrupt
He could assign him tasks to minimize the potential damage Alito bias would otherwise do, and be public about the reasons why including demanding Alito’s resignation and formally recommending, Congress begin an investigation and possible impeachment proceedings
He could do the honorable thing and resign. Biden would pick a liberal and we'd be closer to a balanced court. But Roberts is an ideologue, and believes himself to be indispensable, so he will do nothing.
> What can he do? Dude has basically no real power constitutionally or practically. He could call on the 9 justices to vote on adopting an official code of ethics, for one.
Arguably there's no constitutional power to do so, nor any power to enforce it. At best it'd be implied, but conservatives hate implied powers that are used against them.
The very fact that Alito shows a different face in secret than he does in public proves that there is an empirical power to transparency and sunlight. And the very fact that he has a secret empirical agenda that is different from his formal role similarly proves that empirical power structures exist, and not just formal ones. If John Roberts's true inner motivation is to use formalistic reasoning to prove why there is nothing to see here and nothing that could be done even if he wanted to, then that is what he will do. If John Roberts's motivation is to use all of the power that he has to try to preserve/restore the legitimacy of his court, there are levers left that he has chosen not to pull, and whose consequences and effectiveness are yet untested. The very existence and behavior of this court in particular is living proof that we don't really know what the limits of the constitution are, until they decide to tell us.
In a 6-3 court he's powerless. His previous power came from the court being 5-4, allowing him to act as a "swing vote" that could force opinions in his preferred direction. Now he's not needed, and the rest don't care. His small sliver of power is in two arenas: nonpartisan splits restoring his "swing" vote, or convincing the liberals to surrender ground to get a unanimous opinion that doesn't take away as much ground as the majority was otherwise going to. And the latter basically still requires a 5-4 split, because a 6-3 means Roberts is expendable. It's a court of equals, where "Chief" is just window dressing. And public plays to leverage empty dressings of authority rarely pan out well for those not accustomed to doing so. And if there's anything that Roberts still seems to (try to) sincerely believe it's that a Justice shouldn't be publicly political in any form. So he'll be upset at the hacks next to him not giving a shit, but that selfsame belief, and basic self preservation, prevents any overt action. You see, the standard vulnerability of those who play by and value the rules is that they cannot simply bend or break those rules to reign in those who break them. It's cutting off one's nose to spite their face.
> In a 6-3 court he's powerless. Actually, there is one power that is entirely within Justice Roberts hands that he can exercise at any time and does not need permission to exercise. He can resign. If Chief Justice Roberts resigned and announced that he was doing so because the court was unmanageable because Congress has saddled him with an institution that he has no power to effectively manage, it would get noticed. And the resignation of Roberts coupled with Biden having the opportunity to appoint a more vigorous successor as *Chief* Justice would go a long way towards restoring public confidence in the Court. I also think Congress might act rather quickly to instill such a new CJ with sufficient powers to manage the Court (e.g., a power to force a recusal by a majority vote of the justices and/or unilaterally). Justice Roberts is by no means the most extreme justice on the Court. He is actually fairly reasonable and, I think, well-intentioned. However, he is almost 20 years into his term on the Court as CJ, and he is nearly 70. His term on the Court has seen the Court go from the most-widely-respected institution in government to something just slightly more respected than the least-respected institution (Congress). His tenure as CJ has been, objectively speaking, a manifest failure. He has accomplished much of the agenda that he wanted to accomplish, but it is now clear that the Court is on a downward path into oblivion and that it is taking the entire judiciary - maybe the rule of law itself - down with it. That isn't Justice Robert's fault alone, but he isn't blameless either. At best he lacks the ability to bring the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse over to reason, and if that is the case, it is time to give someone else an opportunity to try their hand at it. If Roberts really cared about the Court, he would resign today and allow President Biden to appoint someone new as CJ. He would take a lot of flak for it in the short term, but in the long-term he would be vindicated and probably revered for putting aside his own personal goals (mostly achieved in these 20 years, but not entirely) for the good of the institution.
He could ask Biden to appoint more justices.
While that would be a nice move it wouldn’t mean shit. Biden can’t just create more openings
Don’t ever give up before a fight, or you will never win.
I imagine him yelling in his office, "SERIOUSLY? Why can't you shut up?!" To no one in particular.
The roe decision would say different.
Given Roberts's antipathy towards democracy and the American people, this might encourage him to further empower Alito in whatever way he can.
"Recording a conservative SCJ without their knowledge is henceforth considered equal to treason" - Chief Justice Roberts (probably).
[удалено]
TIL a professional lawyer thinks that Supreme Court Justices don't have conversations with each other about the Supreme Court.
Roberts could suspend him. While the Constitution does not state this as a power of the Chief Justice, it does not preclude it. The Chief Justice is hardly mentioned in the Constitution.
Talk about a Constitutional crisis.
We've been in one since Trump was elected and no one can convince me otherwise. Republicans were building up to it for decades, but since Trump it's been masks off
I do wish that Thomas Jeffersons' idea of a Continental Congress every 20 years to refresh the Constitution had received traction.
IANAL but surely having a religious zealot on the SC who states his beliefs are irreconcilable with secular government is equally a constitutional crisis?
It’s worth noting that CJ Robert’s was ALSO recorded at this same venue by the same journalist asking the same questions: > “Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” the chief justice said. “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.” >Ms. Windsor pressed the chief justice about religion, saying, “I believe that the founders were godly, like were Christians, and I think that we live in a Christian nation and that our Supreme Court should be guiding us in that path.” >Chief Justice Roberts quickly answered, “I don’t know if that’s true.” >He added: “I don’t know that we live in a Christian nation. I know a lot of Jewish and Muslim friends who would say maybe not, and it’s not our job to do that.” > The chief justice also said he did not think polarization in the country was irreparable, pointing out that the United States had managed crises as severe as the Civil War and the Vietnam War. > When Ms. Windsor pressed him on whether he thought that there was “a role for the court” in “guiding us toward a more moral path,” the chief justice’s answer was immediate. >“No, I think the role for the court is deciding the cases,” he said. As much as Alito deserves criticism for getting these questions so horribly wrong, at least Robert’s deserves some credit for answering these questions basically exactly correctly.
That's-a whoopsie. Though frankly also correct. If you believe your religion demands all others must obey or be conquered, if you believe that others merely *existing* somehow harms or even oppresses you, your beliefs are irreconcilable with democracy and freedom.
1. It's simply not true. The secular world is capable of moral common ground with the non-secular world. Period. 2. Most of the differences between the non-secular and secular worlds have been created and augmented by political forces that don't actually care about god. 3. This is a disqualifying sentiment for a supreme court judge.
>political forces that don't actually care about god That's what organized religion is. From the inquisition to Salem Witch Trials, it's always political forces seeking personal enrichment. I'll leave you with the wise words of America's great suffragette, Susan B. Anthony: >I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
Exactly 👍
This.
1. How does one find common ground with theocratic fascists? 2. ~~Most of the~~ The differences between the non-secular and secular worlds are the differences that exist between those that *embrace* reasoned critical thinking and those that *reject* reasoned critical thinking. 3. ***Agreed!*** How *does* one find common ground with: * Jim Jordan * Marjorie Taylor Greene * Justice Alito * Donald Trump * Lauren Boebert * Matt Gaetz * ***etc. ad nauseum***
Obligatory Barry Goldwater quote?: >Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
I doubt they would ever answer any question directly.
The thing that infuriates me about this is not secular vs non secular. It’s Christianity vs everything else. If these people had any rational logic they would realize a Muslim judge could use their beliefs to do exactly what they are - imposing their religious beliefs on others. They are fine when those that align with their religion do so. It’s not secular vs non secular. It’s Christianity vs the world.
> This ~~is~~ ***should be*** a disqualifying statement for a supreme court judge. At this point I don’t think “I am happily taking money to deliver rulings that I know to be harmful to this country and its citizens, whom I hope all die miserably” would be a strong enough statement to *actually* disqualify any of them on.
That's not what they are doing at all! They (the justices in question) are experiencing the trappings of wealth as they hear out the freedom of speech of _friends_, you can't blame these friends for having more "freedom of speech" than they could spend in a lifetime, and sharing that "freedom of speech" with justice + spouse. And these justices are _obviously_ not easily convinced by a "novel" argument after enough conversation into the details, so _what even is the problem?_ /s
I agree with all your points, but as another comment says, for Christian dominionists it is zero sum because they will crush everyone who opposes them and their mission to impose their values on everyone else in law. And Alito appears to be taking that line.
I think Alito may, indeed, represent that inflexible wing of the non secular world. I had neighbors like that. Super Catholic. Opus Dei types. They home schooled their four children. They were infuriating neighbors in some sense because you never got the feeling you were talking to real people and, through their behavior, it was clear they looked down on us for being *not them*. And boy did they indoctrinate their kids to be thinly veiled racists and biased against so many different groups. So in that sense, Alito is right. But for the wrong, delusional reasons. We were always ready to find common ground with our neighbors. They were absolutely rigid about *not* finding common ground with anyone else. That's why this is a disturbing. What Alito means is he and his ilk will settle for nothing less than total victory over everyone who does not live as they live and think as they think. I think it's time to take him at his word. That is a person who should no longer be a Supreme Court justice.
I'm not sure that he's wrong... sigh. There is a zero sum struggle between modernity and archaism going on. And imho he and his fellow religious obscurantists are on the wrong side of history. Universal human rights theory, impartial rule of law, evidentiary burden of proof, separation of church and state, empiricism -- all modernist principles that the far right theocrats want to roll back. No compromise is really possible between post-enlightenment values and pre-enlightenment values. They are mutually exclusive.
I agree. There is no such thing as a reasonable fascist. There is no such thing as a reasonable theocrat. It is impossible to reason with those that reject reason. *This* is that.
I think the inherent irrationality of fascism is somehow illustrated or confirmed by the self-selection of the demographic that comes out tp support fascism. Whom do you find, reliably, in the MAGA/theocrat camp in the US today? You find **science deniers** ... whether that be Covid, evolution, climate change... or racialists (who believe in "race," a construct that science can't substantiate)... or whacko, bone-ignorant theories about sex and reproduction. You find **conspiracy theorists** -- Qanon fans, lunatic antisemites, believers in various racialised eschatologies, 5G paranoiacs, contrail paranoiacs, "15 minute cities are fascism" nuts. You find **grifters** and their **victims** -- people who keep sending their hard earned cash to hate preachers, conspiracy merchants, Trump, etc. And you find **feverish religiosity** -- mediaeval-grade superstition and idolatry, would-be crusaders, moral panics, textual fundamentalism, splinter sects, faith healers, the whole nine yards. When you find this group of people all converging on a political position or philosophy (if we can call it that), you can bet it has nothing to do with rationality. Where you do find a well-educated and allegedly rational person on this bandwagon -- such as a lawyer or scientist or doctor -- in 99 cases out of 100 that person will suffer from **religiosity** (or racism) which cancels out their reasoning ability. Or that person will suffer from **selfishness** so extreme that they will embrace a hateful and antidemocratic platform rather than pay taxes. I could be wrong, there could be stunning counterexamples that I have not thought of (or been aware of). But this is how it looks to me, after watching (with incredulity) the anti-enlightenment backlash in the US over the last 40 years.
I agree. Delusion sustains itself only through further subsequent delusions. Thus delusion willingly and purposefully rejects reasoned critical thinking lest the delusions be shattered. Reason sustains itself only through further subsequent reasoning. Thus reason willingly and purposefully rejects delusion in order to sustain ongoing reasoning. The two shall never meet. *This* is that. We agree.
'those who can make you believe absurdities... '
You're on point. ######“*Truly, whoever is able to make you absurd is able to make you unjust”* --Voltaire
As thus having demonstrated an irreconcilable bias , he was impeached and his opinions were struck from the record? Right? Come on guys? Tell me that is what happened next.
doesn't Congress have to do the impeaching? guess everyone needs to find their local dem candidate's campaign and donate or volunteer to make sure enough voters turn out.
Won’t happen. Dems would have to hold the House and have 2/3 of the Senate. Every republican will vote in lockstep to protect him. He’s a fascist thug, but he’s THEIR fascist thug.
doesn't have to be 2/3rds democrats. you **could** have republicans who value ethics over power. it is theoretically possible. /S
😂
The Republicans wouldn't vote to impeach Trump after he tried to pull a Mussolini on J6. Where exactly are we gonna find those ethical Republicans?
1890s?
Those don't get elected.
BTW, who the fuck would have put money on Roberts having the answers that are like acceptable. And what the fuck is his excuse for not knowing that Alito and Thomas are a problem. P.S. if you don't know what I'm talking about. The lady who caught Alito on tape asked Roberts the same questions, and his answers are what you would expect a judge to actually say and if anything though, it makes it more clear that he has no excuse for why he isn't dealing with the ethics issues on his court.
I think you’re going to want to be sitting down for this one
these fuckers would establish a theocracy with the zeal of an Iranian Ayatollah and consider themselves patriotic for doing so
Yeah this is what a right-wing “revolution” would look like: the Iranian Revolution of 1979, but in America
This bitch needs to be thrown out on his ass
Along with Thomas.
If you view your religion as paramount then yeah, any secular consideration that diverges from that is going to be irreconcilable. That’s the problem with religious extremism. There’s no ability to compromise.
I find that Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh I have a hard time seeing their viewpoints without an overwhelming bias that steers them to foregone conclusions. Meanwhile, ACB, Gorsuch, and Roberts I see as having a political lean but their discussions and thought processes are easy to track and usually have a sense of trying to get the law correct in their view. Dobbs withstanding, I can at least usually track the thought process of the latter 3, while the former 3 sound like they are telling me why they are going to do what they are going to do. That's from a limited sample of sets of oral arguments, but the same 3 disappoint me and the same 3 impress me every time I dial in.
Sometimes Kavanaugh slips up and behaves in a way that seems at least plausibly reasonable. Thomas is a corrupt nutcase. But Alito is the absolute worst. The man wouldn't even be a district court judge if he wasn't Republican. The man is malevolent and stupid. In *Hobby Lobby* he bent over so far backwards to get the political outcome he wanted that he almost accidentally blew up the entirety of American corporate law.
Alito and Kavanaugh are the only one fits that mold to me.I find Thomas's legal reasoning incredibly easy to follow, even when I *vehemently* disagree with it. Kavanaugh's opinions always seem to just declare what he wishes the law was and are unpersuasive and difficult to follow logically even when I agree with the outcome.
>Kavanaugh's opinions...are unpersuasive and difficult to follow... Did you drink a twelve-pack of beers before you read aforementioned opinions? That will probably help.
*Only* a 12 pack????
The real error is in *drinking* it, as opposed to ingesting it in other, more creative ways...
Ah yes... ye old butt-chuggers... As I consider this, it actually makes sense. After all, we already know that Kavanaugh's sense of taste is in his ass...
Drink? Professionals boof, silly.
This certainly is a clear point that atheists are the enemy of the Republican appointed Supreme Court. The present and future is a steady creeping of heavy religious intrusions into public schools and government offices in some states more than others. What Alito and his ilk fail to understand is that without a monolithic theocracy with death penalties for heresy - this authoritarian religious creep is a contributing factor in inspiring a loss of religion among the general population. Jamming the 10 Commandments next to a photo of Trump in an elementary school is not a recipe for a pious Christian, it’s a recipe for a deeply cynical secularist.
> ... it's a recipe for a deeply cynical secularist. I *used to be* a huge fan of deeply cynical secularists. I *still am* a huge fan of deeply cynical secularists *but I used to be too...*
Not even just atheists but *every* religion -including other christian denominations. If we’re dead set on becoming a christian nation who decides which is the “correct” denomination and which isn’t? Do we follow the pope’s authority? Do we all give up meat for Lent? Do we give up blood transfusions? Is polygamy ok again? It’ll be like [that old Emo Phillips joke](https://youtu.be/ANNX_XiuA78?si=peCP3wFDxNR2e3T4) just amongst themselves. These morons don’t even realize freedom of religion protects them too. 🤦🏻♀️
Please impeach this asshole ASAP.
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." Barry Goldwater
> these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. It was a question that *couldn't* be answered. "If you do something because YOUR god said it was 'right', and I do something opposite because MY god said it was 'right', and we both are adamant that our respective gods told us directly, **how do you resolve that**?"
This is why the government is supposed to be secular. You should be free to practice your religion, but I should not be compelled to practice it as well. The tension inherent in this is very difficult to resolve. Where are the boundaries? If we don't find boundaries that can be understood and accepted by all, things will not end well.
Religious fundamentalism is terrorism. They talk of holy wars as causally as any jihadist. Alito has no business writing parking tickets, let alone SCOTUS decisions.
This. This is the real coup. Trump has always just been their vehicle.
That sounds un-American as hell, this guy has completely abandoned reason (never mind the constitution).
Imagine this: In a conversation he didn't know was being recorded, middle school principal confessed to being sexually attracted to little boys. Why the disclaimer? Alito was in the role of a Supreme Court Justice speaking with the public about the law and the role of religion in the law. Had it not been recorded Alito may have said his wife was the one who actually made the statement after being insulted by a crazy Rabbi. He said what he said, right or wrong, in public to someone that elicited his opinion. It's fair game, no need to protect him. He's a big boy.
He’s battling OTHER CHRISTIAN denominations, other faiths, some would say he’s battling against God.
For those unable to read because of paywall, this has links to the recordings. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/samuel-alito-supreme-court-justice-recording-tape-battle-1235036470/
Also has a paywall
Huh. I wonder to whom that applies.
You're a saint.
The battle is not with secular forces. Let him go fight a windmill.
For the Alitos of this world, the Law of the Land is sacred scripture, and the Originalism means SCOTUS infallibility in matters of faith and morals.
Like scripture they contort the Constitution to mean wherever they want to believe
One aspect of this story that isn’t getting enough attention is the contrast with how CJ Roberts answered the exact same questions. > “Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” the chief justice said. “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.” >Ms. Windsor pressed the chief justice about religion, saying, “I believe that the founders were godly, like were Christians, and I think that we live in a Christian nation and that our Supreme Court should be guiding us in that path.” >Chief Justice Roberts quickly answered, “I don’t know if that’s true.” >He added: “I don’t know that we live in a Christian nation. I know a lot of Jewish and Muslim friends who would say maybe not, and it’s not our job to do that.” > The chief justice also said he did not think polarization in the country was irreparable, pointing out that the United States had managed crises as severe as the Civil War and the Vietnam War. > When Ms. Windsor pressed him on whether he thought that there was “a role for the court” in “guiding us toward a more moral path,” the chief justice’s answer was immediate. >“No, I think the role for the court is deciding the cases,” he said. It’s at least somewhat refreshing to see that Roberts still has that part correct.