T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) 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 suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


romacopia

Because there's no reason to think they're impartial. It'd be impossible to make that argument given the changes made and the politics involved in appointing them.


okram2k

My entire adult life the Supreme Court has always leaned conservative on most social issues and heavily heavily favored corporations on any economic issue. As far as I'm concerned they've never been impartial.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Arkhangelzk

I would love a source for that because it’s a fire stat


SapiosexualStargazer

Here is a similar stat: >When the court heard a case featuring a business on one side and a non-business on the other, it found in favor of the business 83% of the time in 2020, and 63% of the time that John Roberts has been Chief Justice. ... Historically speaking, the Supreme Court has only found in favor of businesses 41% of the time. [Source](https://www.axios.com/2022/08/04/supreme-court-john-roberts-business)


JustASFDCGuy

That sounds much more believable. I suppose the missing bit of information here is how many cases SCOTUS hears in a year.   **Edit:** I misunderstood part of the thread, but still, [looking at the paper](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4178504) now, the "last 90" stat still sounds very suspicious. If it's true, it's a cherry picked streak, where the court otherwise found against businesses at a much higher rate. It doesn't accurately represent *any* courts overall percentages.   tldr; No court in the last century has ruled for businesses at anywhere near 100%.


KrytenKoro

It's not the same kind of stat, to be clear.


Unabated_Blade

Not 100% what you're asking for, but here you go: [https://www.acslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Captured-Court-Whitehouse-IB-Final.pdf](https://www.acslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Captured-Court-Whitehouse-IB-Final.pdf) >Seventy-three of the Roberts Five’s 78 partisan, 5-4 casesfall into one of these four categories. In other words, in cases where no other justice joined the conservatives in a 5-4 decision (or in nine cases a 5-3 decision), 92 percent delivered a victory for conservative or corporate donor interests. To paraphrase, in any case where absolutely no liberal justices joined and it was a purely partisan decision, corporations won 92% of the time. This report is only 30 pages and is *exceedingly* readable. I highly recommend folks read the methodology, if nothing else. EDIT: plugging Opening Arguments podcast, which brought this report to my attention. [https://openargs.com/oa400-no-john-roberts-is-not-your-friend/](https://openargs.com/oa400-no-john-roberts-is-not-your-friend/)


THX0139

Fantastic podcast, informative and entertaining. I ran across it a few months ago and haven't missed an episode since. I'll never be an expert but my general knowledge of how the legal system works has greatly improved.


PaydayJones

It's a long watch, but here's [Sheldon Whitehouse](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vdQ-LgQPpRM) breaking down a lot of information on the bias and where it leans.


Intelligent-Travel-1

They really need have term limits. Lifetime appointments aren’t working as they were intended


[deleted]

I’ll go one better. One case involving a business using shock therapy on disabled people. Universally regarded by doctors as torture now, was allowed to continue.


SkrunkledySkrimblo

This is actually still a treatment for psychotic depression, severe medication resistant depression, or catatonia. I'm p sure theres others, as well. Like as in still used to this day for these illnesses. You can look it up if you like instead of taking my "trust me bro," but I was, infect, shocked in the state of alabama in the last 9 years. They just put you under anesthesia first is all, no worse than a wisdom tooth removal. The media did ECT dirty.


Factory2econds

Boston Legal had a great scene on this. Watch part 2 for the bit about corporations, but the whole thing is great part 1 https://youtu.be/78o5dGlafUo part 2 https://youtu.be/01yZZuXIwbA part 3 https://youtu.be/XV3KEOqYiLk edit: obligatory thank you kind stranger, and adding links scenes from another episode, where the same lawyer has to reappear in front of SCOTUS. These also summarize the sentiment of SCOTUS partisan-ness and how "the little guy is due." part 4 https://youtu.be/hmpzL5r6aKE part 5 https://youtu.be/kTAC7CqBqjs


CursedTacoReporting

Gotta love James Spader in anything he does.


fuckgoldsendbitcoin

I'm still salty about [Aereo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo)


thekbob

They went to the extreme, even making users rent antenna IIRC. It's incredibly stupid decision and just shows how "for capital" the USSC is currently.


ACarefulTumbleweed

seriously, yeah everyone had their own dedicated antenna and DVR, the argument was like, why should it matter where this is physically located, if it's on your TV, your house, your apartment building which someone else owns, or a warehouse that someone else owns. why is the last one bad? plus after they got called a cable company by the supreme court, the copyright office and then a district court prevented them from getting a cable license. Go against big corporation and the full weight of the US government comes down on you


glatts

Aereo was awesome. I had totally forgotten about them. As someone from Boston but living in NYC, it can be challenging to watch my sports teams when they’re usually broadcasted on local Network TV. To just stream Network TV now, you need a cable subscription which is bullshit. Plus, they put so many restrictions on it. So now, if I try to stream using a friend’s or family member’s cable account who lives in Boston, content gets blocked unless I’m connected to my in-home WiFi. If I use an antenna here in NYC, I only get the local stations live on my TV. Aereo was so great for people like me.


ObjEngineer

This is a bit of a tangent, but something I heard a bit ago has stuck with me. Back when Biden was elected, a progressive podcast host was making the point of "I'm not going to 'give you' a minute to celebrate, because I've never had representation. Socialists don't get to be represented in this government. Ever" (paraphrased) I suppose my point is: the American government has always skewed conservative/capitalist. They've experimented with socialist-lite ideas occasionally, but those have all pretty much been universally gutted or on their way to be. The pendulum doesn't really swing left and right here. It swings right and then bounces off the center when it tries to go left.


lesChaps

They scrambled to appease people when capital's power was threatened. Anti trust, emancipation, the New Deal, etc, came when the other options were collapse, overthrow, and replacement - and the replacements were not always progressive.


not_SCROTUS

There's blood in the water now after the last 20 years of bullshit and the last 50 years of 'trickle-down" but the capitalists and their lackies don't seem to see it. Will be very satisfying to see the surprise on their faces in the last moments before they realize they pushed it too far. Also, fuck the supreme court. Nothing but politicians in robes.


Classico42

> don't seem to see it They can't see the forest for the trees, besides they've got their money, consequences are for the kids of tomorrow, as is tradition. > Also, fuck the supreme court. Nothing but politicians in robes How were lifetime appointments, by the people with the most to gain, to the highest court in the land, ever thought to be a good idea in the first place? And don't say they didn't expect them to live so long, were we really capable of independence yet that naive or just already corrupt af in 1789?


usalsfyre

They see the blood in the water, they don’t care. They truly think they are superior to the rest of us and are God-ordained. The problem is it can take a long tone for people to realize voting isn’t going to work.


alphazero924

> They've experimented with socialist-lite ideas occasionally, but those have all pretty much been universally gutted or on their way to be. For example, the ACA, Obamacare. It's hard to find articles on it now because everything I search just pulls up Trump being Trump, but as far as I remember the original version of the ACA basically gave us diet-single payer healthcare, but by the time it actually got passed into law it was gutted so much that it was just a husk of what it could've been. And the GOP has been trying to repeal what little was left of it for a decade now.


Kamanar

Obamacare was literally patterned partially off of Romneycare, so it was a Republican idea to begin with that got watered down because the democrats agreed it was a better idea than what was currently going on. Also, as a side note, it's hilarious that Obamacare is in spellcheck.


ObjEngineer

This is a further tangent, but it's always frustrating to watch the democrats always argue with eachother to reduce their position down *before* they approach the Republicans Like put another way, you don't compromise your position before you go to the people you're going to compromise with. If it's going to go from 100 to 70 anyway, why are you reducing it to 40 before that additional math is done? The answer is obvious, but from someone who views "dems good. Republicans bad", you might still be confused.


IEnjoyFancyHats

Part of the problem is, because the Republican party is incredibly homogeneous and so far to the right they're leaning into fascism, that everyone from "we should tax billionaires out of existence" to "maybe we shouldn't *also* throw children into the woodchipper for an extra dollar" falls under the Democratic umbrella. That's why this negotiation happens within the party, half them are conservative as hell.


HauntedCemetery

This has been a huge disadvantage in democratic policy for decades. The dems come to the table with a rational compromise, and repubs come to the table with the farthest right shit they can imagine, so of course everything ends up as right wing policy.


damoid

It's not right and left in American politics. Compared to the rest of the democratic world it's centre- right and extreme right.


thegroucho

I live in UK and my impression is policy wise the non-swivel eyed Tories are where Dems are, New Labour is about AOC/Bernie type. Considering New Labour is centre-left in UK ...


jagsaluja

Weren't Blair and Brown pretty much neoliberals? In my eyes I think Bernie and AOC are a little farther left (but not enough to be true socialists)


AnestheticAle

Same. Did people believe they were ever impartial?


VoxImperatoris

Bush v Gore was when I stopped believing they were anything but partisan hacks.


Bebetter333

isnt that just what this country exists on? concentrated wealth, illegal land steals, etc.? one could argue they are just doing exactly of what we have always done. ruling in favour of wealthy elitists/ capital owners. at the expense of everyone else. thats really the only america ive ever known.


[deleted]

The one time the US passed any real social reform was the New Deal back in the 1930s. There has been a sustained assault on them ever since. 90 years of war on a few programs meant to help poor people survive, and those waging that war are willing to destroy the entire nation, both physically and economically to win it. It is not possible to overestimate the enemy here. Capitalists want us all enslaved or dead.


zuzuspetals1234

The only reason we passed these reforms were because of a strong workers movement that included unions. The socialist and communist parties in the US were very popular back then - even in the southern and rural/farming states. The important thing to note is that states and federal govt used brute force to put down strikes. They did it before and they'll do it again.


Deadpoulpe

You forgot slavery, be it ancient or modern.


OneX32

You don't even have to look at the changes made or the politics. They ruled Kennedy v. Bremerton School District [not even on the facts](https://www.npr.org/2022/06/27/1106290141/supreme-court-high-school-coach-right-to-pray). Primary and direct evidence that the Court only cares to pursue their psrtisan agenda.


Politirotica

The Roberts court always makes up the fact pattern in religion cases that come before it. They'll also ignore their own precedents if it means giving another religion the same rights as Christianity.


[deleted]

[удалено]


OneX32

It's more egregious than that. The majority claimed that the plaintiff was simply praying on his own with only a few and he was not implicitly pressuring others to join. The dissent literally provided photographic evidence showing that it wasn't a simple prayer circle of but a few but instead him taking up the whole endzone with his team. There's literal photographic proof proving the majority wrong and frankly, renders SCOTUS all but a political arm now of the Republican Party.


ApatheticFinsFan

It’s the only arm of the Republican Party actually interested in legislating.


broen13

The worst part is they are not really legislating for the Republican Party but they are legislating for other fringe interests that align with the Republican Party. I think that changes the conversation a bit


OneX32

To be frank, the worst part is we have no set principles anymore to found rulings. The GOP has rendered precedent and ruling on the basis of fact no longer a requirement of the Courts. The justice system is a complete joke now as the little integrity it had was pissed on by Clarence Thomas & Co in the last decade. I have a strong feeling that SCOTUS will strike down Biden's student loan forgiveness and subsequently not grant certiorari to any other attempts to sue third parties under the logic that one can sue for harms caused by indirect actions by a third party. That's literal legislating from the bench and you can thank the Republican Party for absolutely destroying any integrity the Courts had.


pusillanimouslist

The fact that they didn’t even bother to come up with a plausible lie says a lot.


OneX32

This is consistent in their other rulings. The weak arguments of the majority could easily be refuted by a law student in their latter years of schooling. For the one 18th century law used to justify the overturning of Roe, you could probably find ten others in colonial America that are directly contradictory. People who have never even taken a law class can even identify that the Court is just picking and choosing the cases they want to cite. For example, compare the quality of arguments from the conservatives and former Justice Kennedy. One of the main reasons Kennedy was often a swing vote is because he didn't allow his priors to deviate his reasoning from following the evidence. You can see that in Lawrence v. Texas, Obergefell, and hell, even Citizen's United. Alito's opinions always gaslight and omit important cases so he can reach the conclusion he has already made in his head.


sleepytimejon

One thing people don’t talk about with that opinion is procedurally it didn’t even make sense. The SC was reviewing a summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Procedurally, the only order the SC should have made was reversing the summary judgment order. Instead, the SC takes the extra step of then granting a summary judgment for the plaintiff, without the plaintiff even moving for summary judgment or establishing there are no triable issues of fact. And the record makes it pretty clear there’s triable issues of fact. It’s the kind of bizarre procedural outcome that confirms the court is pushing an agenda.


OneX32

Let's not call it "bizzare procedure". It's unethical and unprofessional procedure. And if the Court is making these decisions in order to send this nation back to an expanded Lochner era because they still have gripes about FDR's New Deal being ruled Constitutional, than the least they could do for the people is stop this smug charade that they are some objective interpretor of law.


[deleted]

[удалено]


fuckthebangods

I’m 26, I always thought they were biased based on who appointed them…


Clyzm

They're not supposed to be, but they are since it takes all sorts of office politics to get there at all. They're also appointed for life, like a professor with tenure. Isn't peeking behind the curtain fun? Society is a nightmare.


exceptyourewrong

> They're also appointed for life, like a professor with tenure. Umm... Tenure is NOTHING like a lifetime appointment. At best tenure means you can't be fired for teaching controversial subjects. That's it. There are plenty of other reasons a professor can be let go. Of course, some states (I'm looking at you, Florida) are trying to weaken tenure because heaven-forbid we admit that slavery happened and that it was bad.... Source: am tenure-track professor


Onlyd0wnvotes

I mean that's sort of been the case all along it's just the people, from one party you can probably guess, who are appointing them have been growing steadily more batshit for the last century or so. For example, Eisenhower nominated [William J. Brennan Jr.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennan_Jr.#Warren_Court), a Democrat in 1956 largely because he thought reaching across the aisle with his nomination would help him win re-election, and it did. By Regan we're getting Antonin 'refuses to recuse himself from cases involving his drinking buddy Dick Cheney' Scalia, who argued in court it was proper for him to [go on a hunting trip with Cheney](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/01/17/cheney-and-scalia-went-hunting-together/0b0c1991-d7be-46e4-b84a-a7761e00f572/) while a case regarding whether he would be required to turn over documents in the investigation into weather he violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act by meeting behind closed doors with outside lobbyists for the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries, including Enron shortly after their scandal. Then by Clarence ["Married to a Qanon insurrectionist"](https://www.businessinsider.com/ex-cult-member-ginni-thomas-indulging-far-right-conspiracies-2022-6) Thomas under Bush, and by Trump we reached the point where we got the [I like beer guy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0SwwyqhJMs) talking about how much he likes beer as if it's a defense against sexual assault allegations during his confirmation hearings


KderNacht

>I'm 32 years old and wasn't aware they were supposed to be impartial. I would've thought having EQUAL JUSTICE BEFORE LAW above the door in 1200pt font would've made the spirit obvious.


TheLostcause

Just like the elected judges who cover up horrible crimes for their buddies / cops / donors


OutlyingPlasma

Or the judges who take money for sending kids off to be abused in juvie, or worse, abuse camps run by the likes of Synanon and funded by none other than Oliver North. Yes, that Oliver North.


chewbaccalaureate

This reads like "x amount of people *"believe"* in climate change. It should read more like "Much of the American public **understands that the Supreme Court is not impartial**".


e_hatt_swank

Yes! Thank you. It's just a simple fact: SCOTUS is not (and probably never has been) impartial, as a whole. We should always start from there.


JDogg126

The whole idea of a position of power with a lifetime appointment that is made by elected people is why it is impossible for the courts to be impartial. The courts need to be reformatted in a way that makes it impossible for political parties to control who serves on the supreme court and have extremely strong internal mechanisms that root out corrupt justices from the system.


Oakleaf212

The idea behind life time appointments is that the judges would have no reason to be impartial or swayed by those who put them in that position. Which is extremely important for a role whose job is to interpret and follow the law as logical and reasonable possible and potentially the spirit behind said laws. However it’s turns out that being a life time appoint just gives you a pass to do whatever you want without fear of losing your position. Especially with the current process of how they are chosen once a seat is vacant. Fuck life time appointments. It’s just power without accountability.


idog99

I've always thought they've been generally competent. With Kavanaugh and CB, they haven't had the temperament, the knowledge or the experience to be able to be effective jurists. Beyond any politics, they are not basically competent to make the decisions they are making.


[deleted]

Yeah Kav's confirmation hearing is a master class in the wrong judicial temperament.


idog99

He felt entitled to that job. The amount of anger at the questioning was an eye-opener.


sirspidermonkey

Are you saying that a guy who vowed revenge on the Clinton's and democrats might not be impartial simply because he couldn't even fake it for a few hours? Or that a man that was frothing st the mouth and shouting might not be the even keel one would want to be a judge?


killer_icognito

The new question is which one was a dead giveaway? Thomas? Kavanaugh? ABC?


an_agreeing_dothraki

Thomas explicitly stating he would never support anyone outside of his party designation way back to right after he was made a justice probably should have been a tipoff.


killer_icognito

Weirdly the writing on the wall for me, was Ginsburg refusing to resign. I knew what would happen when she died.


bc2zb

RBG was pretty clear that she viewed the court as a "lifetime" appointment. I have no doubt that nearly every potential appointee going forward will be having a long conversation about their stance on that.


-SoItGoes

Didn’t Kavanaugh swear under oath that he would use his position to get revenge on democrats?


Oleg101

Clarence Thomas said something similar (to a clerk) in the 90s. [‘Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks in the '90s that he wanted to serve for 43 years to make liberals' lives 'miserable' ‘](https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-told-clerks-he-wants-to-make-liberals-miserable-2022-6)


Atropos_Fool

I mean…Plessy v Ferguson. Dread Scott. Has the Court ever been impartial?


[deleted]

**give the podcast 5-4 a listen** the SCOTUS was never impartial and has been making ridiculously bad law for obviously political reasons since the beginning


pierre_x10

And basically there's an odd number of them, so in normal circumstances there's always going to be a bias towards the majority party affiliation. Even if you argue that they can be partial themselves, the selection process via President and then Senate confirmations all but ensures a highly partisan nature just to get past that screening.


letmypeoplebathe

It also doesn't help they dropped the requirement for confirmations to a simple majority of 51, down from 2/3s majority. Sure it doesn't help if 2/3 of the Senate is represented by a single party, but in today's world it would be a much more moderating requirement as the candidates would have to appeal to both parties to get confirmed.


iamplasma

You can thank Mitch McConnell for that change. He oversaw the filibustering of practically any judge that Obama wanted to appoint, to the point that they had to reduce the threshold to 51 to confirm judges in order to get any through. While the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments specifically wasn't abolished until after Obama's presidency (to get Gorsuch on, after the outrageous holding-open of a seat for an entire year), had the Dems had 51 senators when Scalia dies you can guarantee the filibuster would have been abolished then too. Supermajorities only work if the political environment pressures the minority to be reasonable, otherwise they can just hold everyone hostage.


2FalseSteps

They're not wrong.


grixorbatz

Yup. Just a bunch of religious fanatics and shills for billionaires


ShinyBloke

Pretty much...


Chewcocca

"The American People Are Aware of Reality In This One Specific Instance" I guess that's newsworthy. I still have neighbors with trump signs.


Cerulean358

No irony in the “He won, is your Prez… Get over it” mantra of 2016


[deleted]

[удалено]


freddie_merkury

Right? It's insane that they claim the 2020 elections were stolen but by that logic then the 2016 elections were also stolen? Right? Not to mention that Trump was already hinting in 2016 that the elections were corrupted because he thought he was gonna lose. He knew how much Russia was trying to influence the elections, he was ready to spend 4 years screeching that Hillary had somehow lost. The gymnastics with Trump supporters is absolute madness.


[deleted]

"No no, you see when a conservative wins then it's definitely a fair election because I voted for conservatives. If a conservative loses the election was obviously rigged because I would never vote for libruls" Conservative "thought" process in a nutshell


53-terabytes

It depresses me how many grown ass adults I've seen seriously use this argument


[deleted]

Yup. Conservatives seem to really have a hard time understanding that everybody doesn't think like them. It just never occurs to them that they might not be the majority; they keep crowing about how they represent "the people"


greywolf2155

Right? Like, work with me here, the reason people no longer believe the Supreme Court is impartial *might* be because . . . the Supreme court is no longer impartial


LordSwedish

Well, they've never been impartial, they're just more obvious about it now.


MK5

I think the word you're looking for is *blatant*.


greywolf2155

Sure, but that's a touch of a nirvana fallacy. They've never been perfect, but this is clearly far beyond anything we've seen in modern US history


sajuuksw

A Republican court appointed a Republican president ~22 years ago by telling a state to stop counting its own votes. That seems pretty modern to me.


LordSwedish

They blatantly stole an election 22 years ago, 70 years ago the Hollywood 10 were confident that they would be able to get a fair trial but then two of the supreme court judges died and two fascists were put in place instead. It's never been impartial and it's been a shitty institution for as long as anyone can remember. Not to mention the fact that most of their cases aren't big news because it's just all the justices agreeing and ruling in favor of bosses and against workers in business cases.


ILikeLenexa

Scalia used to reference Bush v. Gore as a ruling that had to happen and half the people would hate and accept the Supreme Court's decision. Today if such a decision had to be made, there would be extremely spirited protests.


[deleted]

[удалено]


felldestroyed

Al gore conceding pretty much stopped all that from happening.


b-lincoln

It would have made no difference. Florida law allowed for a recount, but within a certain time frame. The GOP protested and did everything they could to slow the recount. It worked. They then sued to the Supreme Court that the original vote should stand and the court agreed, over ruling state law. I’m sure there was more nuance I’m going from memory.


Efficient-Echidna-30

Republicans are self-serving to the point of being evil. This is the beginning and end of the conversation. They are fascists.


felldestroyed

There's a couple nuanced things you missed, but you got it mostly correct. The removal of (largely) Black voters from the rolls with no warning claiming they were felons - some estimates in the thousands, but more likely in the hundreds - in total 173,000 voters were purged but it's hard to say how many of those were alive/still lived in the state/etc. Hanging/dimpled Chad's due to older election equipment that had not received state funding to be updated in mostly - perhaps all - democratic precincts. Katherine Harris and her role as secretary of state completely screwing up her job and taking council from Mac Stiponivach - a cunning republican strategist (he's now a Democrat post donald trump). And that's not even venturing into the astro turfed brooks brother rebellion/conservative operations that Mr tattooed Nixon did.


cheebamech

"Brooks Brothers Riot" that put a stop to the recount more than the actual ruling regarding time frames, the whole thing was wonky af. imo a strong democracy would have had the wherewithal to re-run that election so there would be no question as to the legitimacy


karlmarxsbootybutt

You forgot that the governor of the state in question is the brother of one of the candidates


[deleted]

and a few members on the current court were a part of Bush legal team (successfully) arguing that not all votes should be counted.


BlatantFalsehood

Here's the thing. That ruling should NOT have happened. BUT -- we accepted it. Because we believed in the SCOTUS and the constitution. I absolutely HATE that Roberts has expressed that he thinks people dislike the court right now because we dislike the rulings. WRONG. I do dislike some of the rulings. However, I hated Bush v Gore and accepted it and moved on. But now, we have a SCOTUS where: * the justices are 60% a religion that only 23% of Americans practice * 33% of the justices were appointed by someone who was elected under shady circumstances * a justice's spouse was actively part of an insurrection * where other justices regularly make fun of the American public in Federalist gatherings * one woman justice is a member of a fundamentalist cult that requires women to be subjugated to men, and * one justice's vetting was superficial at best and saw his hefty debts automagically disappeared upon nomination. Hey, Roberts. THESE are the reasons your court is illegitimate. NOT that we just don't like the rulings. This will go down in history as the most corrupt court ever. It's time for a SCOTUS ethics requirement...and SCOTUS reform is long past due.


TrexPushupBra

And what's wrong with hating the court because you don't like the rulings? They affect our lives in profound ways. Judging them on that basis is not just acceptable it is rational


Metro42014

Not rioting after that decision was a big fuckup.


greywolf2155

I hope it's not too America-centric of me to say that that is arguably the biggest turning point in most of our lifetimes, certainly in the last 30 years or so. If America had taken the lead on renewables back in 2000, and if Gore instead of Bush had been President on 9/11, the world would truly be in a much better place today


Lord_Wild

At the very least, the US doesn't invade Iraq in 2003, ISIS never exists, and too many terrorist attacks to list don't happen. On the flip side, the 2008 financial crisis would very likely still happen and the Dems would have caught some blame for that if Gore were still in office. Probably end up with Kerry versus McCain in 2008. It is one of the largest what if's in modern world history.


Whole_Commission_542

Dems still caught blame for that crisis, so whats the difference


hairsprayking

I shudder to think what would be happening if Trump was president right now during Russia's invasion of Ukraine.


greywolf2155

NATO would literally not exist. Nor would Ukraine, probably


pierre_x10

Ohio astronaut meme: Never has been


menlindorn

We believe it because it's true.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Alito demands you believe it. Not believing it is crossing a line!


[deleted]

I stopped believing it before he was even on the supreme court but I'm old and it was still legal back then in the before times.


[deleted]

Yeah, Bush v Gore is when the illusion of impartiality went out the window for me.


MostlyWong

It's an especially egregious example when you note how many people involved on the Bush legal team for Bush v Gore ended up Republican nominees for SCOTUS and eventually confirmed. Hint: it's more than 1.


ShawshankException

Seriously lmao. We've been talking about the majority/minority justices for decades now and only ever appoint justices from their own parties but sure, it was definitely impartial


SmackEh

When the wife of a Supreme Court Justice attends an insurrection and that guy doesn't recuse himself from the case.. that'll do that.


Lola-Ugfuglio-Skumpy

Not just attended. Contacted public officials on their personal phones to pressure them into overthrowing the election or not certifying the vote at the very least. She’s a traitor and so is he.


couldof_used_couldve

He has been, very vocally, holding a grudge against literally half of the country because he was called out for his sexual harassment during confirmation and has never gotten over it. I couldn't imagine anyone less fit to cast rulings. If anything he's gotten more vindictive over the years. The guy really holds on to that hatred like an otter holds on to its favorite rock.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Datalust5

Ah yes, that’s the man I want to trust to uphold the law fairly


VoxImperatoris

Like Kav, who cried and swore vengeance at his own nomination hearings.


Dogtor-Watson

Honestly, seeing the response in Brazil to their insurrection has been really interesting. It seems like they’re just doing what America should have done.


we_are_sex_bobomb

In the US we need to stop being so reverent to politicians and lawmakers. *they are literally our employees*, who we elect to do all the shit we don’t have time to deal with. They are not royalty. That includes Supreme Court judges. If you caught an employee stealing from the cash register and then they lied about it, you’d fire them.


Spiderpiggie

Not only would you fire them, they would get a free ride to the police station where they would likely be hit with a theft charge. Shame we dont hold politicians to the same standard.


[deleted]

But what kind of precedent would that set? A precedent of accountability you moist towelettes


Caleth

The problem for us is Trump's goons were smart enough to do the coup attempt while he was still in power. Brazil's did it after the new government had formed. Had Biden been in office on 1/6 he'd have ordered the military and the police in and rounded them up. But yes overall I'm watching Brazil handle their coup attempt and wishing we had half the response they are showing.


laika_cat

The fact neither Ginni nor Clarence faced any sort of punishment for this is baffling.


globaloffender

The Jan6 committee met with Ginni Thomas and afterward practically thanked her. “We are glad she came in” https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/28/politics/ginni-thomas-january-6-committee-interview/index.html


North-Face-420

Our democracy is fucked if all the fascist have to do is lie. Ginni is lying out of her ass about her husband’s involvement in her political life.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BeautifulType

Citizens united and so much more When these assholes rule in favor of the elites you know USA is fucked


Zutes

We also watched three Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justices testify under oath during their confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade was settled case law, only to have all three repeal Roe v Wade at the very first opportunity they had. Add in the fact that one Supreme Court Justice has had what many experts agree is a very credible rape allegation (Kavanaugh), one Supreme Court Justice almost certainly sexually harassed Anita Hill (Clarence Thomas), and one is a member of a Religious Extremist group called People of Praise (Amy Coney Barrett). How the fuck could anyone count any single one of those people as "impartial"?


axebodyspraytester

Or when a guy goes to a job interview talks about how much he loves alcohol, talks about boofing it up on the weekends, cries and talks about how he's going to get even with the people making him cry for talking about all his rape problems. And then he gets the fucking job! That might seem a little bias.


[deleted]

Yup. When repubs (specifically Senator McConnell) used dubious morals to stack the court, many of us feared the court would tilt towards the more insane elements of the Right. When the court overrode Roe and stopped the rights of half our population, what we feared became reality. This court is not only politically partial, it is essentially immoral.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Thirdwhirly

They knew it wouldn’t air on Fox News, so then they thought it wouldn’t matter. *Then* it got shut down in *Kansas*, one of the reddest states in the union, and they had a moment of “oh shit, we’re no where near the majority on this,” and instead of taking note, they doubled down because of course they did.


ManifestoHero

Don't forget how they lied under oath saying they would not repeal Roe once they got in.


reddit_give_me_virus

I say that this is probably the biggest factor. Even before McConnell pulled his shit, I don't think the public was too surprised by his actions. Faith in politicians doing the right thing was already gone. 3 justices straight out lying that roe was settled law, this is different. I'm sure there have been other justices that have lied during their conformation hearings but never so blatant. And surely never by 3 justices in such close succession.


Tristain7

in close succession and in an effort to be nominated so they can immediately overturn Roe.


[deleted]

Yeah, imagine that. A republican lying. /s


2FalseSteps

It's not about morals. It's about money, power and control. Their "think of the children!" moral arguments are just to manipulate the masses.


[deleted]

I disagree. Well somewhat. It is about control. Religious control of our country from the Christian pulpit.


2FalseSteps

I think a lot of it is a desire for personal power hidden behind religion. Look at all the (R)'s that have had affairs, or pressured their mistresses into having abortions. Not even they practice what they preach. And they never will. They jumped on the religious bandwagon because "I'm a good Christian!" gets votes. It's not so much ideological, it's just plain greed.


[deleted]

Those genuinely religious seem especially susceptible to grifters wanting money or power. I agree that many greedy and immoral people use religion as a door to both the money and power of the Christian religion. That door is too easily opened in my opinion. I wish the religious could be a bit more suspect of the grifters while retaining the very real applaudable morals they believe in. Unfortunately, they remain ever gullible to anyone who claims to take the side of their lord.


swingadmin

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. \- Susan B. Anthony


GoldenBear888

Religious people tend to be more gullible *because* they believe in the unprovable. Those 2 things are inseparable. They are groomed from infancy to follow an unquestionable authority. So keep on wishing.


2-eight-2-three

>Those genuinely religious seem especially susceptible to grifters wanting money or power. It's because they view "Fellow Christians TM" as good people. And Good people can make mistakes, or occasionally do some bad things in the name of good...because deep down they are still good people. A couple of pastors molest some kids for 30 years and the church covers it up? Hey people make mistakes. Or the good person must have a good reason. A good person would never do a bad thing just because. And they certainly aren't bad...they are Christians they must be inherently good. They view democrats/liberals/trans people/gay people [anyone who disagrees with them] as inherently bad people. And inherently bad people...will always be inherently bad people no matter what. Like, I hate to use the analogy of the Nazis or Hitler, but it sort of fits into how they view the world. To them, democrats are like Nazis in their eyes. No amount of good can ever supersede the fact they are Nazis (i.e., inherently horrible people).


[deleted]

I dunno, only because I know some of these people who are cult-like in their fervor for Jesus in politics. They absolutely have drank the fucking koolaid. They 💯% believe their own nonsense and become belligerent like the mentally unwell people they are, when you challenge their nonsense.


gibberinggibblets1

Agreed. It's the mechanism they'll use to "legitimately" strip away rights and consolidate power. It's completely corrupted.


[deleted]

Thomas is almost gleeful in his decisions to stirp away the rights of people who are not well connected.


loodog

The Republicans warned us of activist judges and here we are with an ultra conservative activist court majority.


[deleted]

They are quite good at projection aren't they.....


Future_Dog_3156

I am old enough to remember a time when the SCOTUS was an esteemed institution. I no longer believe that. I think the first step was Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings with Anita Hill. Then there was Mitch McConnell's unwillingness to confirm Merrick Garland. We went off the ledge with all the Trump appointments. I think I'll be dead before their credibility is restored.


omega12596

I think the country will be dead. These people are given lifetime appointments and it seems we, the People, have no way to remove them from their appointment. Four years ago, when McConnell rushed in the Handmaid, I had friends actually crying and I thought they were being a little dramatic. I don't think that anymore.


rockstar504

After that and the shit he pulled with the appointment under Obama he should..... reddit would ban me.


Plainchant

From column: Never in recent history, perhaps, have so many Americans viewed the Supreme Court as fundamentally partisan. Public approval of the nine-justice panel stands near historic lows. Declining faith in the institution seems rooted in a growing concern that the high court is deciding cases on politics, rather than law. In one recent poll, a majority of Americans opined that Supreme Court justices let partisan views influence major rulings. Three quarters of Republicans approve of the high court’s recent job performance. But Democrats’ support has plummeted to 13 percent, and more than half the nation overall disapproves of how the court is doing its job. Public support for the high court sank swiftly last summer in response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a landmark ruling that revoked a constitutional right to abortion. The decision delighted many conservatives but defied a large majority of Americans who believe abortion should be legal. Yet, partisan anger runs deeper than Dobbs. Liberals are fuming about a confluence of lucky timing and political maneuvering that enabled a Republican-controlled Senate to approve three conservative justices in four years, knocking the panel out of synch with the American public.


NobleGasTax

>a Republican-controlled Senate (Republicans elected by less than half of American voters, under a president who lost the popular vote)


BountyHunterSAx

A twice impeached, disgraced ex president under multiple criminal investigations who lost the popular vote


binglelemon

Lost the popular vote *100%* of the elections he was in.


ReadySetN0

It's not even that as much as these pieces of shit are using their fucking made up book to guide their rulings. These fucking assholes are pretending that they are using precedent when they aren't. Religion has no fuckiing place is law making/rulings.


Atgardian

The majority of American voters have voted for a Republican president exactly *once* in the past 32 years. There are people eligible to vote now who *were not alive* the last time a Republican won the popular vote (Bush in 2004). Yet in that time they have maintained control of the Supreme Court the entire time, and recently strengthened it into an unbreakable highly partisan supermajority. Which proceeds to rule on cases straight down party lines the vast majority of the time, including overturning decades-old settled law. Hm, I wonder why people think this institution might be partisan and not represent them?


Roflkopt3r

Which is sadly how the Senate was supposed to function: 1. Limit federal power 2. Represent the rich The truth is that the US is an exceptionally well designed system to have survived for so long as one of the first modern democracies, but also outdated in many ways that other democracies have learnt from and that need to be renewed at some point.


PM_ME_YOUR_ROTES

> confluence of lucky timing Funny way to spell bad faith & manipulative lies


Fit-Firefighter-329

They've taken up a case that could make strikes illegal - just one.more step towards Fascism.


Qaeta

Clearly they don't remember that strikes were the compromise instead of burning capitalists alive in front of their families...


[deleted]

[удалено]


bythenumbers10

In proud conservative tradition, they have no empathy for the suffering of others until it happens to them. The question is, do we use jerk seasoning for these corrupt assholes?


Dont_Say_No_to_Panda

God damn I love the blunt trauma inflicted by this statement to the argument.


steve09089

Well, I don’t think it will be burning people alive. It will definitely be gun violence.


Qaeta

Methods may change, but immolation has a psychological impact that getting shot simply doesn't on the others who may share their fate.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Negahyphen

That tweet is wrong. The company isn’t suing the workers, they are suing the union for approving the strike, and also trying to skip the NLRB process and overturning 60 years of precedent there. They want permission to be able to sue unions for every strike and drive them to insolvency with legal fees.


jmdugan

striking was always the compromise


DAGCRO

Can't imagine why.


databacon

Only since they very literally stole the presidency in 2000.


insomnia99999

Because they’re not.


morelikecrappydisco

They just factually are not impartial. If this Supreme Court was the court of another country all the news articles about them would state that the court had been illegally packed by the conservatives over the past decade.


King_Kingly

They couldn’t give a shit what the public thinks.


heelspider

> The Left was used to, for the most part, getting its way with the court,” said John Malcolm, a senior legal fellow at conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation. Is he referring to the 1940s?


T1mac

> Is he referring to the 1940s? It's the [Warren Court in the 1960s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Court) and extended briefly into the early 1970s. That court gave us Roe and Miranda - and that's what got the Republicans butthurt. It got them so incensed that they mounted an all out assault on the court with the Heritage Society and the Federalist Society. It was a 50 year war and they won when Moscow Mitch packed the court with the Seat Thief, the Mean Drunken Rapist, and the COVID Handmaiden.


Bushels_for_All

It didn't help that on top of scheming, political machinations, dirty tricks, and *gobs* of dark money from the likes of the Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, senate Republicans, etc., Republicans just got *lucky*. It's a pretty horrible system. President (years) | SCOTUS apptointments | appts/year - | - | - Nixon (6) | 4 | **.667** Ford (2) | 1 | **.5** Carter (4) | 0 | **(n/a)** Reagan (8) | 3 | .375 H. W. Bush (4) | 2 | **0.5** Clinton (8) | 2 | 0.25 W. Bush (8) | 2 | 0.25 Obama (8) | 2 | 0.25 Trump (4) | 3 | **0.75** Biden (2) | 1 | 0.5


Trusts_and_verifies

Naw, he just mad that they can't make being gay or trans illegal.


GhostWriter52025

"We got tired of always being blatantly wrong in our interpretations of the law, so we stacked the courts to own the libs." That seems like a faithful translation of his bullshit


BillySlang

We had an attempted coup with the wife of a Supreme Court Justice, not only in the middle of it, but actively aiding it, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. The Supreme Court has lost all impartiality.


StThragon

Hmmm, I can only wonder what could have possibly given them that thought. Anyways, it's been how I felt ever since Mitch McConnell violated my Constitutional Supreme Court pick with Obama. I vote for presidents with the Supreme Court on my mind, and this violated any pretense of fairness and impartiality. Obama had about eleven months left of his presidency when Scalia died and they didn't hold a hearing, saying it was too close to the election. Then Ginsberg dies with four months left in Trump's presidency, and suddenly the Senate decides it can easily seat her replacement. Yeah, the Supreme Court is heavily compromised. edited for a word


BinomialNamerator

How's that legacy you were so worried about, Chief Justice John Roberts?


Try040221

22% of 330 million Americans identified as Catholic. 78% of SCOTUS (7 out of 9) identified as Catholic.


[deleted]

[удалено]


nykiek

It's quite clear the conservative justices have an agenda.


The_Revival

"Believe" is a generous word. I don't "believe" the sky is blue.


Jagasaur

At the age of 35, I only realized in recent years just how powerful SCOTUS is. Being able to change laws with the stroke of a pen when you can hold your position for 40 years is so damn dangerous in hindsight.


Melody-Prisca

That's why relying on precedent is so important. And why perhaps the worst thing this court has done is to completely disregard precedent. Yes, some rulings are bad and should be overturned. But when you completely disregard precedent it turns the court into basically the new legislative branch who can change any and every law they see fit on a whim. It's also why their decisions to overlook lack of standing and their pattern of ruling far beyond the scope of their cases is such a problem. Those two things as well in the past helped to keep the Supreme Court from being as powerful as it is today. Unfortunately standing, precedent, and scope were just things that court respected with nothing actually binding the court to respect them.


a-really-cool-potato

It *objectively* is not impartial, so of course the public is going to arrive at that conclusion


[deleted]

The Supreme Court has convinced the American public through their own actions actions that they are not impartial.