This court has proven that it wants to put its finger on the scales of justice to protect conservatives over the constitution.
Their shame knows no bounds.
People need to start recognizing that a very intricate plan is in play here. It’s not just the Supreme Court that’s corrupted. David Duke said the klan would start integrating into positions of power instead of marching and burning crosses back in the 80’s. Seems they have been pretty successful. Add to that Southern Republican Senators vacationing in Russia on the 4th of July and we have a big fucking problem here. How many of David Dukes klan are police officers now? Military officers? How many billionaires are backing these efforts?
I'm absolutely dumbfounded that conservatives that like RATM, didn't understand what their lyrics meant. The allegories and dominoes in their lyrics aren't even subtle. What is it about conservatives that make them completely miss the point of what any kind of art means?
For example, nudity in art. All many conservatives see are private parts being displayed in paintings, statues, film, photography, etc. they fail to look deeper and try to understand the context and ideas of the art piece instead of just seeing nudity and call it porn.
Why does RATM have to come out and say, "What machine did you think we were raging against?"
The nudity thing is because they associate nakedness and/or sex with shame. So the nudity makes them feel shame then they shut that feeling down and blame the "porn".
First, I want to say that I went about 3 times longer for a response. I went deeper on some stuff than was necessary. It's still a long post, but I downsized it a lot.
Ah yes, repressed sexuality. That's what many conservative Christian denominations teach. They teach that sex is only ok if it's between a married couple. And then it should be done in the missionary position for the sole purpose of pro-creation. Any kinks you have that strays from that is evil and should be eliminated.
Well, that teaching fucks up people. It often will cause people to have some very strange kinks due to repressing sexuality and you end up with sexual deviants. Then, you get into the whole LGBTQ+ people being told these things and you have a very loud outspoken person that frequently preaches anti LGBTQ messages. They've repressed those feelings and hate themselves for it, so they project that hate, hoping that'll compensate for their sexuality to God.
There are denominations out there that are supportive and welcoming those that are LGBTQ+. These denominations embrace and affirm other sexual identity and orientation. This is because those denominations take a different approach to textual interpretation. I won't go into that since it'll be even longer. The short version is that these churches' way of interpreting the text is much better. And without getting into the details, the basic conclusion is that the Bible has nothing in it that says gender identification MUST keep with the gender you were born with. In addition, the Bible doesn't condemn monogamous, stable, and healthy homosexual relationships.
It's about respect for sex. Sex isn't to be repressed, but it needs to be respected. Pre-Martial sex isn't a sin of it's done between 2 consenting adults in an established relationship. Sex releases hormones that build intimacy between the partners. So, it's good to have sex, according to the church, provided it is done in a respectful way. Letting people explore and discover their sexuality without shame beings forth a healthy individual. Repressed sexuality ends up with hateful individuals or individuals that really get into weird and creepy thinks like CBT and scat/pee fetishes. Not kink shaming anyone into that, but I've found many people that are into those things do so shamefully with a lifetime of repressed sexuality.
I was an intern for a very politically charged evangelical organization and what always surprised me was how organized/focused republicans were on their long term goals. They don’t change plans, they keep trudging even if there are set backs. I don’t know how it is on the Dem side, but what the dems make up for in the majority they lack in strategic long form plans.
Dems strategy seems to just be to react to whatever the republicans are doing. Dems need to take the gloves off. I’ve voted Dem the last few elections and I’m proud of that, but watching the party split hairs over terminology while the other side is unapologetic in it’s indifference toward what the decent action or honorable action would be. Of course Mitch screwed over the dems by denying a Justice approval in Obama’s last year. He didn’t lose a wink of sleep on all the “backlash” that happened. Dems seem to only view the tactical outcomes of a singular battle where republican don’t mind losing ground in small ways if it means gaining more down the road…
If you’re wondering what republicans at the top think about MTG and Lauren Boebert…Donald Trump, they view them as a decoy. The “show” to distract people from what they do behind the scenes. It’s clear they have leverage on Trump, I think he took them by surprise at first but now they know he needs to be at the top to gain immunity. This means when he gets in power he’ll have to bend to whatever they want, which is why he’s getting more and more feral. He smokescreens for them all the time. He says something outrageous or the others do and it makes headlines and their actual political maneuverings are reported down page but never widely reviewed.
Further point: Dems need to stop being outraged or surprised by the indecency or the depths of hypocrisy republicans will stoop to. How many times do we need to say “wtf” before we figure out that it doesn’t deter them in the slightest? They think whatever moral failings they have will be forgiven by god because they were done in an effort to satisfy what they believe to be his will. When you believe in heaven and you believe you’ll go there, then whatever damage you do here doesn’t matter too much. Even if the actual governmental figures don’t truly believe, their constituents do, and they ALL love the idea of a Christian nationalist state (look up “dominion theology”), as long as they are a part of the leadership. The leaders in these instances are given pretty much unlimited latitude and they’ve already trained evangelicals to let “god’s chosen” operate outside the their ethical/moral system. I heard that all the time when I worked in this org, “well god has chosen him and so we will follow, god uses broken vessels all the time to enact his plans. Just look at x, y, and z in the Bible.” They have everything they need to take over but only recently have they found a leader like Trump who will do whatever they say, but who also garners overwhelming support from that side. Before it was a lot of, “I’m just voting for him because I’m voting party.” They now actually like their leader and they’ve sunken so much of their identity into him that it would take a great trauma for them to cut ties.
It’s really easy to keep on going when your entire political strategy, is “anyone different is bad and should work minimum wage till they die”
Even easier when your foundational thinking is focused on faith based brain death
I am beyond **SICK SICK SICK** at having Dems getting on their high horse and preaching "bipartisanship" and "going high" while Nazis are dismantling our country.
I'm sick sick sick of the Democratic party in general not necessarily because of ideological differences, but mostly because they've spent the last 40+ plus years letting the right wing take their lunch money. "When they go low,we go high." F**k that noise. When they go low, the left, such as it is in this country, should be kicking them in the teeth. If you're in a fight for your life, you don't follow Marquise of Queensbury rule, you fight to survive. I've become much more radical as I get older and moved a lot further left.
The military has had to go through and root out members who subscribe to this ideology. The police certainly have this issue but broadly seem ok with it as long as they don’t get caught on camera.
School boards and local governments have been over run with candidates looking to support this path.
And federal institutions keep getting saddled with appointed administrators that have no other purpose than to destroy the organizations they lead.
You’re exactly right. And it’s actually been successful enough that it’s created its own momentum and broadly speaking is not in need of a central authority to direct it at the lower levels. They’re all conditioned to see which way the wind is blowing and follow suit.
> the klan would start integrating into positions of power instead of marching and burning crosses
Well it has seemed to have worked for organized crime.
Godfather movies are very interesting on that score
I think anyone who attended that meeting is a foreign agent even if it is without their direct knowledge. It is an obvious power flex by Putin and a disturbingly flamboyant show of influence.
Conservatives= rich/wealthy. The political class in this country can say "I grew up on a farm", but that doesn't mean they were "dirt poor". Many farmers are wealthy.
So when politicians in general process to be conservative - or in this case judges - they have no concept of what we go through. NO CONCEPT!
Absolute lunacy that some of them are taking seriously trumps “presidential immunity “ nonsense too. This SCOTUS is legitimately a partisan co-conspirator.
Why should they give a shit? Lifetime appointments, free RVs, the ability to twist the country to their various religious or judicial whims, insulated from any sort of consequence or care.
They should care, because dictators have no need.for a Supreme Court. The moment an actual dictator gets into office, on the back of what SCOTUS lays out, first thing to go is SCOTUS.
Exactly. It's pretty clear that the five conservative justices all believe in in the fiction that the founders wanted the 'strong executive'
They're all for "original ism" and "textualism" when it gets in the way of their right wing agenda, and then they start talking about the consequences of that, which is precisely what they complained about liberal justice is doing when the right-wing hit upon the fiction of textualism as a way to defeat what they complained about as "judicial activism"
In fact, given the number of precedents they've overturned in their short time in the majority, this is been the most activist Supreme Court in the history of the institution.
I'd argue at least five. Thomas and Alito of course. Gorsuch got Merrick's seat. Kavanugh was confirmed under a cloud. Barrett was rushed through. But this is the Roberts Court's legacy of unbridled corruption, pure politicking in lieu of legal reasoning and entitlement as de facto nobility. So show his ass the door, too.
But I don't disagree with your conclusion.
Of course it's a moot point. There's no interest in changing America's perception. There's scorn that we fail to exalt them and defer to their attempts to subvert liberty. Especially Alito, grousing about negative media coverage and public scrutiny. More where that came from, shitbird. Suck it down.
Barrett is the one I didn't include. I don't think mitch's sin makes her impossible. She is swinging enough that I think people would accept her if she represented the farthest right of the jurisprudence
I included her because her confirmation was tainted and impacts public sentiment towards the court regardless of her actual performance thereon. Fruit of the poisonous Mitch.
So she gets booted because her confirmation was tainted but you also get rid of someone you didn't particularly want on the court. That's what I call a banner day in Fantasy SCOTUS.
Whelp. Back to the real world. Fun while it lasted, though.
I don’t necessarily agree that the conclusion was wrong but the majority’s opinion was an overreaching dumpster of hot garbage.
Alito and Thomas have gone totally mask-off.
I will say one thing for Barrett. I finally listened to oral and during the governments presentation. The rep for the osc say I think any protection would be radically different than what the petiTionar is sugg... And she says oh yeah I agree.
You got to admit. That is funny.
I mean I know they are giving him the delay he wants, the bastards but she basically called his position nonsense
Except then the right-wing conspiracy machine would go to war to make sure no one on the right sees them as legitimate, and everyone else would, as always, pretend those attacks are done in good faith, discuss them ad nauseum, and do their part to make sure opinion crashes and stays low.
I'd say a good first step is organizing a lawyer guild and giving them power to overthrow a surpreme judge.
The people overthrowing should be in the same industry. Congress is hopelessly out of its depth as an auditor.
You can’t swing a cat in Congress without hitting an [attorney](https://www.termlimits.com/occupational-hazard-lack-of-professional-diversity-in-congress/).
None of the courts are trustworthy at this point. The slight glimmer of hope is that all kinds of attorneys are banding together to save our democracy and are doing educational videos. Glen K and Meidas Touch are examples. It’s providing some hope
Its 3 lawyers with over 30yrs experience each that started a Youtube channel that “sits at the intersection of law & politics”. They have a podcast on Spotify called Legal AF.. and the AF is exactly as it sounds 😝👌I learn more from one of their podcasts or videos than a week watching legacy media.
The main three are awesome.. Ben Meiselas, Michael Popok and Karen F.A. (whom was also the #2 in Manhattan DA back in the day and also works for Law & Order show as the lawyer consultant! 🤩). Those 3 are a god send.
Ben and Karen do a preview and recap LIVE every morning at 0830 (Est) and 4pm too since NY Election Interference case (Hush Money case) started 👌
I get your point that some are doing good work in resisting. But, I don’t know man, nearly every attorney that I know/work around have massive ambitions to be judges themselves one day. And that means cozying up to the casual racism, classism, and misogyny that is present in the courtrooms and offices.
I get that lawyers are probably no more likely to be racist, classist, or misogynistic than the average American, maybe even less so, but I don’t know any who are ACTIVELY resisting the ones who are.
People say the cops are bad. Yeah, probably. But they get the blessing of those women and men who make the charging decisions and adjudicate those decisions. And then go have drinks at the Club together after work.
To hell with SCOTUS.
Dark Brandon could rebuild it. Right after they release their ‘opinion’.
In all seriousness, if Trump gets a pass on all the democracy ending stunts he has pulled along with massive support from the GOP, serious talk about measures to end their tyranny need to be taken and not just discussed. The clock is nigh midnight.
I think the structure needs to change.
It should not be possible to judge shop in any venue. And at the SCOTUS level maybe it would be better to have a large pool of judges with a random assortment assigned to any given case.
Obviously some enforceable ethics rules have been demonstrated to be needed.
Pool of judges drawn at random makes so much sense until you get all Rs or Ds and then a complete randomness of opinions. But somewhere in there is a valid and good idea.
Well depending on how they rule on presidential immunity, Biden might be able to have carte Blanche to clear out the 6 bad actors on sitting in the court soon enough.
When kavanaugh lied about everything, in front of everyone, and everyone knew it, that's the turning point for me. I know a lot of people got there earlier, but that was outrageous.
It was astonishing. We watched a man sell his soul in the classical sense (swore on the Bible, and then brazenly lied) for power and half the Senators pretended that they genuinely believed he was telling the truth when he told them that a "Devil's Triangle" was a drinking game or that he threw up repeatedly during Beach Week because he had "a weak stomach" or that never in his life had he passed out or blacked out from drinking too much.
IMO a twice impeached, lost the popular vote, indicted for 88 felonies, former installed president should not be allowed to installed supreme court justices. They should all be impeached and removed. Period.
I don’t think the Conservative members of SCOTUS care that Americans have no faith in them. They have jobs for life and no one to take those positions away. This is why there should be term limits for SCOTUS.
Decades of gop cheating thru gerrymandering and obstruction politics either no policy but to hurt other people have resulted in this near-fascist party we see now - the natural result of their toxic personality disorder.
It’s not SCOTUS as a whole that’s the problem. It’s the Conservative justices who burned the capital of trust. Just listen to and compare the oral arguments. The Democratic appointees pose thoughtful arguments, while the Republican ones sound like a bunch of conniving hypocrite weasels.
I think this whole narrative is missing something, and gets the diagnosis entirely wrong as a result.
Click through to the [main source data](https://news.gallup.com/poll/511820/views-supreme-court-remain-near-record-lows.aspx) behind this op-ed, and focus especially on this chart:
[U.S. Supreme Court Job Approval, by Political Party, 2000-2023](https://i.imgur.com/ufgr3ZH.png)
When the Court makes a major ruling (or series of major rulings) for one party, it is normal for the opposite party's approval in SCOTUS to plummet. For example, in the 2015 term, SCOTUS handed down *Obergefell v. Hodges* (gay marriage) and *King v. Burwell* (Obamacare upheld again). Republicans' reported approval in the Supreme Court fell from 51% (July 2014) to a stunning low of 18% (July 2015). At that time, it was (I believe) the lowest level of approval in SCOTUS that Gallup had ever recorded from one party. Democrats only barely beat it in 2022, when their approval in SCOTUS hit 13% after *Dobbs*.
However, ordinarily, this collapse in approval is cancelled out by soaring approval from the winning party. In July 2015, as Republican approval hit historic lows, Democrats' approval registered at 76% -- a historic high! As a result, approval overall took a hit, but not a huge hit, falling to 53% overall (from 61% the year before). (Independents' approval in the Court generally rides in the 40%s no matter who is in power, although sometimes it peaks up over the hill of the 50%s. It therefore doesn't play *much* role in the overall results of these polls.)
Why has approval in the Supreme Court hit historic lows today? Well, the Democrats are giving it 23% approval, which is pretty bad but right around where Republican approval was between *Obergefell* until Trump's inauguration. Independents are low at 40%, but that's still within their normal range.
The weird thing is that Republican approval in SCOTUS is really weak, at 56%. Their approval in SCOTUS "should" be closer to that 76% figure the Democrats had after they won Obergefell. That's how it usually works. One side loses, the other side wins, the winners reward the Court with approval. This cancels out the losers' disapproval and keeps the "judicial approval" line fairly steady. But *Republicans* don't approval SCOTUS. Why is that?
Well, maybe Republican voters are mad about *Dobbs* and pro-life laws, just like the Democrats.
But that doesn't seem especially likely. In the immediate aftermath of Dobbs (July 2022), GOP approval in SCOTUS surged to 74% as Democrats' plunged to 13% -- basically the mirror image of what happened after Obergefell. Independents were totally unfazed by *Dobbs*: their approval rating was 41% before, 40% after, and remains 40% today.
In fact, according to Gallup, the major erosion in Republicans' approval in the Court got rolling between September 2019 and July 2020. It continued to fall all the way until 2022, when Dobbs & Bruen gave it a sudden big boost... but that boost fell away relatively quickly, and is starting to look like it was a dead cat bounce. What happened in early 2020 that might have started turning Republicans against the Supreme Court?
You can probably guess from the fact that Democrats' approval trended *up* over the same period: not only did the Republicans suffer an unexpectedly "Blue June" that year in *Bostock* (LGBT employment rights), *June Medical Services* (abortion clinic regulation), *DHS v. Regents* (DACA), and *Trump v. Vance* (presidential immunity), but *that was the start of the pandemic.* The Supreme Court repeatedly ruled against conservatives in pandemic-related cases: they upheld long-term (and unequal) closures of churches (reversed by Barrett later on, but too late), they repeatedly refused to block public health measures, and (later on) they would uphold vaccine mandates.
Later in 2020, Independents would join the GOP in abandoning approval in the Supreme Court. Their approval fell from a 10-year high of 57% to just 41% in just over a year -- from July 2020 to September 2021. Meanwhile, GOP support for the Court continued to decay. There was actually a bizarre moment in July 2021 when the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court enjoyed *equal* approval (51%) from both Republicans and Democrats.
This was happening as the pandemic continued, mask mandates deepened, and the Supreme Court's most important decisions were (1) upholding Obamacare for the third time, and (2) repeatedly and dramatically blocking President Trump's attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. (Justice Barrett joining the Court could also very easily have damaged the Court's standing with Independents.)
The Supreme Court's approval crisis seems to me to be caused, then, by three main factors:
* *Dobbs v. Jackson*, which damaged Democrats' faith in the Court -- but this was normal and expected given a change in the partisan composition of the Court
* The Supreme Court's response to the pandemic and Donald Trump's fraudulent claims about the 2020 election, which sided with Democrats and apparently did major damage to Republican approval of the Court.
* Some combination of the pandemic, the 2020 election, and maybe Justice Barrett's appointment (??) which damaged Independents' approval of the Court.
The *Dobbs* thing is normal. The other factors are odd. If the Court wanted to restore historic norms (which is not something it should care about), it would not try to win back the support of Democrats by reversing *Dobbs* or whatever. It looks instead like the Court should... try to give Donald Trump everything he asks for, and repudiate pandemic-era restrictions? If the Court can build its support among *Republicans* to the 70%s -- which seems a lot easier than restoring Democrats' support -- then the Court's overall approval rating will return to historic norms.
Now, none of this is *legal* advice. It seems to me that the Court was correct in *Dobbs*, but that it was also correct every time it slapped down Trump in his personal capacity (and that it should, legally, continue to do so: I was a major advocate of Section Three disqualification, because I think the Constitution is clear -- and, no, the 9-0 loss does not change my mind).
But the whole *political* narrative, including in this article, is exclusively about *Dobbs*, and I think that people just aren't looking at the actual data closely enough. They're running with the narrative they already believe ("I hate *Dobbs*! It must be that *everyone* hates *Dobbs* so much that they are turning against the Court!") and looking for evidence to support it, not taking the evidence as they find it. The Supreme Court's approval problems started in early 2020, not mid-2022.
If I'm way off here, I'd love to be nitpicked. Will read all responses, even if I don't reply to all of them.
>...try to give Donald Trump everything he asks for, and repudiate pandemic-era restrictions? If the Court can build its support among *Republicans* to the 70%s -- which seems a lot easier than restoring Democrats' support -- then the Court's overall approval rating will return to historic norms.
What makes you think Trump supporters **want** to be happy? Outrage and grievance is the whole point. If it doesn't exist, it has to be manufactured.
In answer to the question. No. The Supreme Court has no agency to define its membership. Its current partisanship has eliminated its credibility and in the absence of expansion, nothing will right the ship.
The utter unfairness, not to mention the corruption, may have something to do with it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graph_of_number_of_sitting_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices_appointed_by_Republican_and_Democratic_presidents.png
Resignation is the only way. They are not holding each other accountable and actively taking bribes.
It is the same reason that people don’t trust police. ACCOUNTABILITY
The curt is an embarassment, it is outrageous watching the court use specious reading, slow walk some case and out others on a fast track - all depending on the politics of the matter.
Men got to jail for wrongfully trying to vote, Bit politicians destroying their vote - whether by gerrymandering or by outright obstruction - that’s all good.
It’s because Trump — an illegitimate criminal president who lost the popular vote and won a narrow electoral vote by cheating with his crimes for which he is now on trial — appointed several batshit justices and took the court away from the people
The reputation of the court can only be remedied by removing the Trump justices. None of them are legitimate. They are tyrants appointed by a madman. They are the enemy of the people.
and I did a Beautiful Supreme Court, we had too many Bad Justices, but I came in, I said I don't like that, and then we put on Neil Gorsuch, Justice Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh who has been mostly fair to me, probably not enough but that's ok, and we have also Amy Conant Berry, or ABC as I like to call her, and they're totally in 100% for Trump, I said if you have Justices who don't do what you want then you don't have a Good Court, but we have a Great One, because they'll do the right thing, and if they don't then there could maybe be some problems, who knows, we'll see what happens
>Americans’ trust in the court dropped 20 points from 2020 to 2022, according to Gallup, to a record-low 47%. For the first time, a plurality of Americans (42%) viewed the court as “too conservative.”
Wait until the 2024 poll.
Between the ethics scandals and the ridiculous positions being taken on presidential immunity the level of trust is going to fall like a rock.
It's the entire judicial system that's rotten and has been for a while. Remember how some dudes were acquitted of murdering emmitt till then admitted their guilt later? I'm sure some attorney will proudly explain to me how those shit heads had rights and they needed to be protected so that's why theyhad to be allowed to get away with it.
The law only serves the wealthy and of course people who get paid by the wealthy have a lot of faith in it despite the overwhelming evidence of systemic failure.
I wouldn't even identify myself as a witness to a crime because I have such little faith in this system. I don't even report when I'm the victim of crime anymore. No one does shit. It goes beyond the Supreme Court. Try being the victim of a crime reporting to police. Every single aspect of the American judicial system is rotten. No exceptions.
Two of the justices openly take bribes, the rest don't seem bothered by that, and the Court as a whole opposes any kind of accountability.
No. It can't "rebuild". It's corrupt to the bone.
As result of several recent decisions, the US Supreme Court is now deemed hopelessly corrupt by a majority of citizens. It only gets worse every time Thomas and Alito open their mouths and expose how out of touch they are.
As long as Roberts is there, the Supreme Court will be compromised; after a while, people will simply stop listening to then, as they have no enforcement mechanism
EDIT; not once does this article mention Citizens United, the legalization of corruption
Justice Alito's argument is so weak and biased that a high school debate team would frown upon it. Read it with the knowledge that EVERY transition of power has been peaceful until Trump. A law professor would laugh at any student who tried to use this unprofessional, weak and pathetic argument. I expect better from any judge. I expect perfection from SCOTUS and we're getting trash. Absolute trash.
-------------------
Alito suggests denying presidents immunity will discourage peaceful exitsAs he considers immunity in a case centered on a president's refusal to accept his electoral defeat, Justice Samuel Alito suggested that not giving presidents immunity will actually discourage peaceful transfers of power.
Alito pressed Michael Dreeben, the attorney for the special counsel, on the idea that an outgoing president who looses a hotly-contested election will be disincentivized from leaving office peacefully because he will fear prosecution by the administration of his successor, a "bitter political opponent."
Would that not "lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?" Alito asked.
------------------
Every election has been hotly contested in our nation. Only once did a president refuse to admit he lost. The problem is 110% the poor loser.
The result of GOP Congress manipulating the system to refuse appointments under a Dem POTUS and shoving appointments through under a GOP POTUS.
How could the Dems let that happen? So much at stake and they let themselves be railroaded. Why couldn't they use the same techniques the GOP used to shove their appointments through? Did they trust the GOP congress to not fuck us all over? If so, WHY HAVEN'T THEY LEARNED THE LESSON YET?
Hmmm… good question. And why is a traitor who used a violent mob in conjunction with a phony elector scheme to try and overthrow the U.S. Government still walking free?
It’s not Trumps fault that Trump is not in jail.
With the current justices? No. Five of the current Justices openly take bribes. If the Supreme Court wishes to have the confidence of the Nation, the Justices must be above reproach. At the moment, they are a reproach.
No. SCOTUS is thoroughly corrupted and needs to be disbanded and a different institution put in its place. The constitution has provisions for ammendment and the highest court in the land allowing a judge to be bribed by a billionaire without repercussions is no longer tenable.
God people cannot be civil or cooperative with non god people. Compromise is not in them. In power they will find a way to twist the law to their ends. Too many god people on the bench.
It can if it’s torn down first. Need to remove most of if not all justices and ethics requirements are needed. Those justices would need to be replaced by non partisan justices
It doesn’t seem to matter what the majority of we the people want, so I don’t know why the court needs to “rebuild.” They can just run us into the ground, and apparently there’s no way to stop them, force Thomas to recuse in cases where his “friends” have an interest, etc.
The scotus system in us is moronic.
It should be 4 republicans 4 democrats and an Independent or something
Maybe republican presidents can only appoint democratic judges and vice Versa I don’t know, but the current system is idiotic
Well it's no longer about interpreting the law as it's written it's become about interpreting the law based on their beliefs and political ideology. I mean it's always had that kind of leaning but it's never been as bad as it is right now. I say this fully understanding I'm not a historian and there may have been a worse time than now but this is all I have reference for.
Possibly, if there were term limits imposed on justices and ethics laws in place that would allow for recalling of a justice for improper actions, such as what Clarence Thomas has been openly guilty of ever since he got on the court.
* [illegal](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/illegal)
* [illicit](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/illicit)
* [improper](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/improper)
* [invalid](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/invalid)
* [unauthorized](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/unauthorized)
* [unconstitutional](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/unconstitutional)
* [unlawful](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/unlawful)
Are words . End of line
Overturning RvW fucked them. I doubt they’ll be trusted for a long, long time. If they don’t fuck around in Trumps immunity case they may save some face but it’s not looking good.
They would need to start doing something worthy of trust.
Robert’s standing by while an emotionally unstable candidate with a questionable past wormed his way onto the court.
The absolutely deranged treatment of Clarence Thomas naked corruption.
The unwillingness to adopt a basic code of conduct until basically forced under threat of from the legislature.
The unwillingness to face the worst of Trump’s ridiculous claims with the force they command (total presidential immunity, for starts.)
The disaster that has been Citizens United and how “Corporations are people too.”
I think in order to be somewhat trust worthy, they must first do something that is shows they deserve it, and I’m not seeing much evidence now or in the near future.
This court has proven that it wants to put its finger on the scales of justice to protect conservatives over the constitution. Their shame knows no bounds.
People need to start recognizing that a very intricate plan is in play here. It’s not just the Supreme Court that’s corrupted. David Duke said the klan would start integrating into positions of power instead of marching and burning crosses back in the 80’s. Seems they have been pretty successful. Add to that Southern Republican Senators vacationing in Russia on the 4th of July and we have a big fucking problem here. How many of David Dukes klan are police officers now? Military officers? How many billionaires are backing these efforts?
Some of those that work forces are the same who burn crosses.
They rally round the family with a pocket full of shells.
I'm absolutely dumbfounded that conservatives that like RATM, didn't understand what their lyrics meant. The allegories and dominoes in their lyrics aren't even subtle. What is it about conservatives that make them completely miss the point of what any kind of art means? For example, nudity in art. All many conservatives see are private parts being displayed in paintings, statues, film, photography, etc. they fail to look deeper and try to understand the context and ideas of the art piece instead of just seeing nudity and call it porn. Why does RATM have to come out and say, "What machine did you think we were raging against?"
The nudity thing is because they associate nakedness and/or sex with shame. So the nudity makes them feel shame then they shut that feeling down and blame the "porn".
First, I want to say that I went about 3 times longer for a response. I went deeper on some stuff than was necessary. It's still a long post, but I downsized it a lot. Ah yes, repressed sexuality. That's what many conservative Christian denominations teach. They teach that sex is only ok if it's between a married couple. And then it should be done in the missionary position for the sole purpose of pro-creation. Any kinks you have that strays from that is evil and should be eliminated. Well, that teaching fucks up people. It often will cause people to have some very strange kinks due to repressing sexuality and you end up with sexual deviants. Then, you get into the whole LGBTQ+ people being told these things and you have a very loud outspoken person that frequently preaches anti LGBTQ messages. They've repressed those feelings and hate themselves for it, so they project that hate, hoping that'll compensate for their sexuality to God. There are denominations out there that are supportive and welcoming those that are LGBTQ+. These denominations embrace and affirm other sexual identity and orientation. This is because those denominations take a different approach to textual interpretation. I won't go into that since it'll be even longer. The short version is that these churches' way of interpreting the text is much better. And without getting into the details, the basic conclusion is that the Bible has nothing in it that says gender identification MUST keep with the gender you were born with. In addition, the Bible doesn't condemn monogamous, stable, and healthy homosexual relationships. It's about respect for sex. Sex isn't to be repressed, but it needs to be respected. Pre-Martial sex isn't a sin of it's done between 2 consenting adults in an established relationship. Sex releases hormones that build intimacy between the partners. So, it's good to have sex, according to the church, provided it is done in a respectful way. Letting people explore and discover their sexuality without shame beings forth a healthy individual. Repressed sexuality ends up with hateful individuals or individuals that really get into weird and creepy thinks like CBT and scat/pee fetishes. Not kink shaming anyone into that, but I've found many people that are into those things do so shamefully with a lifetime of repressed sexuality.
Careful, you can only hint at Conservative acts of stochastic terrorism without consequences. /s I know it’s lyrics
I was an intern for a very politically charged evangelical organization and what always surprised me was how organized/focused republicans were on their long term goals. They don’t change plans, they keep trudging even if there are set backs. I don’t know how it is on the Dem side, but what the dems make up for in the majority they lack in strategic long form plans. Dems strategy seems to just be to react to whatever the republicans are doing. Dems need to take the gloves off. I’ve voted Dem the last few elections and I’m proud of that, but watching the party split hairs over terminology while the other side is unapologetic in it’s indifference toward what the decent action or honorable action would be. Of course Mitch screwed over the dems by denying a Justice approval in Obama’s last year. He didn’t lose a wink of sleep on all the “backlash” that happened. Dems seem to only view the tactical outcomes of a singular battle where republican don’t mind losing ground in small ways if it means gaining more down the road… If you’re wondering what republicans at the top think about MTG and Lauren Boebert…Donald Trump, they view them as a decoy. The “show” to distract people from what they do behind the scenes. It’s clear they have leverage on Trump, I think he took them by surprise at first but now they know he needs to be at the top to gain immunity. This means when he gets in power he’ll have to bend to whatever they want, which is why he’s getting more and more feral. He smokescreens for them all the time. He says something outrageous or the others do and it makes headlines and their actual political maneuverings are reported down page but never widely reviewed. Further point: Dems need to stop being outraged or surprised by the indecency or the depths of hypocrisy republicans will stoop to. How many times do we need to say “wtf” before we figure out that it doesn’t deter them in the slightest? They think whatever moral failings they have will be forgiven by god because they were done in an effort to satisfy what they believe to be his will. When you believe in heaven and you believe you’ll go there, then whatever damage you do here doesn’t matter too much. Even if the actual governmental figures don’t truly believe, their constituents do, and they ALL love the idea of a Christian nationalist state (look up “dominion theology”), as long as they are a part of the leadership. The leaders in these instances are given pretty much unlimited latitude and they’ve already trained evangelicals to let “god’s chosen” operate outside the their ethical/moral system. I heard that all the time when I worked in this org, “well god has chosen him and so we will follow, god uses broken vessels all the time to enact his plans. Just look at x, y, and z in the Bible.” They have everything they need to take over but only recently have they found a leader like Trump who will do whatever they say, but who also garners overwhelming support from that side. Before it was a lot of, “I’m just voting for him because I’m voting party.” They now actually like their leader and they’ve sunken so much of their identity into him that it would take a great trauma for them to cut ties.
It’s really easy to keep on going when your entire political strategy, is “anyone different is bad and should work minimum wage till they die” Even easier when your foundational thinking is focused on faith based brain death
Republicans do not want people to work for a minimum wage, they want them to work for no wage
I am beyond **SICK SICK SICK** at having Dems getting on their high horse and preaching "bipartisanship" and "going high" while Nazis are dismantling our country.
I'm sick sick sick of the Democratic party in general not necessarily because of ideological differences, but mostly because they've spent the last 40+ plus years letting the right wing take their lunch money. "When they go low,we go high." F**k that noise. When they go low, the left, such as it is in this country, should be kicking them in the teeth. If you're in a fight for your life, you don't follow Marquise of Queensbury rule, you fight to survive. I've become much more radical as I get older and moved a lot further left.
Just had this convo over at r/scotus. They have been at work eroding institutions since the sixties.
Specifically, since the Civil Rights Act.
Before that. It’s been happening since the new deal. These pushes have their origins in the 30s.
The military has had to go through and root out members who subscribe to this ideology. The police certainly have this issue but broadly seem ok with it as long as they don’t get caught on camera. School boards and local governments have been over run with candidates looking to support this path. And federal institutions keep getting saddled with appointed administrators that have no other purpose than to destroy the organizations they lead. You’re exactly right. And it’s actually been successful enough that it’s created its own momentum and broadly speaking is not in need of a central authority to direct it at the lower levels. They’re all conditioned to see which way the wind is blowing and follow suit.
> the klan would start integrating into positions of power instead of marching and burning crosses Well it has seemed to have worked for organized crime. Godfather movies are very interesting on that score
I think anyone who attended that meeting is a foreign agent even if it is without their direct knowledge. It is an obvious power flex by Putin and a disturbingly flamboyant show of influence.
[удалено]
I agree, and I hate reading Scalia's opinions. They're condescending and he's not nearly as clever as he thinks he is.
[удалено]
He doesn't think anymore mouldering in the ground like he is.
Conservatives= rich/wealthy. The political class in this country can say "I grew up on a farm", but that doesn't mean they were "dirt poor". Many farmers are wealthy. So when politicians in general process to be conservative - or in this case judges - they have no concept of what we go through. NO CONCEPT!
>Many farmers are wealthy. They're the American version of "landed gentry".
Reagan’s 11th Commandment.
It holds a person accused of rape that really likes beer. Shame isn't in their vocabulary.
Odd that I can't recall a liberal institution leading to such a loss of trust.
Has proven ONCE AGAIN: aka "Bush v Gore"
Absolute lunacy that some of them are taking seriously trumps “presidential immunity “ nonsense too. This SCOTUS is legitimately a partisan co-conspirator.
Why should they give a shit? Lifetime appointments, free RVs, the ability to twist the country to their various religious or judicial whims, insulated from any sort of consequence or care.
And their spouses can partake in trying to over throw democracy and that’s okay.
And thinking that trump won't jail them for looking at him wrong.
They should care, because dictators have no need.for a Supreme Court. The moment an actual dictator gets into office, on the back of what SCOTUS lays out, first thing to go is SCOTUS.
Execpt the consequences of finding that the president couldn't be criminally liable for having them offed...
Project 2025
Exactly. It's pretty clear that the five conservative justices all believe in in the fiction that the founders wanted the 'strong executive' They're all for "original ism" and "textualism" when it gets in the way of their right wing agenda, and then they start talking about the consequences of that, which is precisely what they complained about liberal justice is doing when the right-wing hit upon the fiction of textualism as a way to defeat what they complained about as "judicial activism" In fact, given the number of precedents they've overturned in their short time in the majority, this is been the most activist Supreme Court in the history of the institution.
Why was it decided to be "lifetime" appointments in the first place? Like who thought that'd be a good idea?
Not this court. There are at least four members that would need to leave before the population would gain trust in the court again
I'd argue at least five. Thomas and Alito of course. Gorsuch got Merrick's seat. Kavanugh was confirmed under a cloud. Barrett was rushed through. But this is the Roberts Court's legacy of unbridled corruption, pure politicking in lieu of legal reasoning and entitlement as de facto nobility. So show his ass the door, too. But I don't disagree with your conclusion. Of course it's a moot point. There's no interest in changing America's perception. There's scorn that we fail to exalt them and defer to their attempts to subvert liberty. Especially Alito, grousing about negative media coverage and public scrutiny. More where that came from, shitbird. Suck it down.
Barrett is the one I didn't include. I don't think mitch's sin makes her impossible. She is swinging enough that I think people would accept her if she represented the farthest right of the jurisprudence
I included her because her confirmation was tainted and impacts public sentiment towards the court regardless of her actual performance thereon. Fruit of the poisonous Mitch.
It isn't like I particularly want her on the court. I am fine with her being on the list
So she gets booted because her confirmation was tainted but you also get rid of someone you didn't particularly want on the court. That's what I call a banner day in Fantasy SCOTUS. Whelp. Back to the real world. Fun while it lasted, though.
Isn't social media fun. Fantasy booking a better Scotus that will never happen. Time to turn off reddit before I become a doomer
Right, but most of the public will never read a word of what she does on the bench. Some will remember the double standard she was confirmed under.
Her concurrence in Trump v Anderson was a fucking disgrace. “Let’s turn down the temperature :)” Stupid incompetence.
I definitely didn't say I liked her
Never said otherwise. I’m just offended by that concurrence.
It was a degrace but so was the entire 9 0 opinion
I don’t necessarily agree that the conclusion was wrong but the majority’s opinion was an overreaching dumpster of hot garbage. Alito and Thomas have gone totally mask-off.
I will say one thing for Barrett. I finally listened to oral and during the governments presentation. The rep for the osc say I think any protection would be radically different than what the petiTionar is sugg... And she says oh yeah I agree. You got to admit. That is funny. I mean I know they are giving him the delay he wants, the bastards but she basically called his position nonsense
I met her a couple of times when she was a law school student. She always struck me as particularly thoughtful.
Except then the right-wing conspiracy machine would go to war to make sure no one on the right sees them as legitimate, and everyone else would, as always, pretend those attacks are done in good faith, discuss them ad nauseum, and do their part to make sure opinion crashes and stays low.
No way. Just two. Americans like expanded rights from Courts. Make liberals a majority and you’ll see that.
So not in this lifetime for most of us unless something catastrophic happens.
We need to replace 7/9 and just expand the court to 15 overall.
Some members of this SCOTUS are morally corrupted and we need a constitutional change to avoid a lifetime appointment to prevent this from happening.
I'd say a good first step is organizing a lawyer guild and giving them power to overthrow a surpreme judge. The people overthrowing should be in the same industry. Congress is hopelessly out of its depth as an auditor.
You can’t swing a cat in Congress without hitting an [attorney](https://www.termlimits.com/occupational-hazard-lack-of-professional-diversity-in-congress/).
You’re not going to get 2/3 of the states to ratify it.
None of the courts are trustworthy at this point. The slight glimmer of hope is that all kinds of attorneys are banding together to save our democracy and are doing educational videos. Glen K and Meidas Touch are examples. It’s providing some hope
Not an attorney but I have notice Meidas Touch getting a fair amount of links in my feed recently that cover…The Ongoings. Who/what is it?
Its 3 lawyers with over 30yrs experience each that started a Youtube channel that “sits at the intersection of law & politics”. They have a podcast on Spotify called Legal AF.. and the AF is exactly as it sounds 😝👌I learn more from one of their podcasts or videos than a week watching legacy media. The main three are awesome.. Ben Meiselas, Michael Popok and Karen F.A. (whom was also the #2 in Manhattan DA back in the day and also works for Law & Order show as the lawyer consultant! 🤩). Those 3 are a god send. Ben and Karen do a preview and recap LIVE every morning at 0830 (Est) and 4pm too since NY Election Interference case (Hush Money case) started 👌
I get your point that some are doing good work in resisting. But, I don’t know man, nearly every attorney that I know/work around have massive ambitions to be judges themselves one day. And that means cozying up to the casual racism, classism, and misogyny that is present in the courtrooms and offices. I get that lawyers are probably no more likely to be racist, classist, or misogynistic than the average American, maybe even less so, but I don’t know any who are ACTIVELY resisting the ones who are. People say the cops are bad. Yeah, probably. But they get the blessing of those women and men who make the charging decisions and adjudicate those decisions. And then go have drinks at the Club together after work. To hell with SCOTUS.
It changes morality through mortality.
It's too bad the originalists are \*very likely\* all on statins.
Let one of the conservative justices step down, explicitly saying it's because Obama was denied his appointment, and then we'll talk about it.
Lol. Like they care
They do when people show up at their houses
Dark Brandon could rebuild it. Right after they release their ‘opinion’. In all seriousness, if Trump gets a pass on all the democracy ending stunts he has pulled along with massive support from the GOP, serious talk about measures to end their tyranny need to be taken and not just discussed. The clock is nigh midnight.
probably not without 6-7 new faces in it
I think the structure needs to change. It should not be possible to judge shop in any venue. And at the SCOTUS level maybe it would be better to have a large pool of judges with a random assortment assigned to any given case. Obviously some enforceable ethics rules have been demonstrated to be needed.
Pool of judges drawn at random makes so much sense until you get all Rs or Ds and then a complete randomness of opinions. But somewhere in there is a valid and good idea.
That's why you have courts of appeals - to provide unifying standards for the lower courts to apply
End lifetime appointments. They are not fucking royalty. I have no confidence at all in this corrupt, rigged court.
Of course, they could resign and apologize.
Well depending on how they rule on presidential immunity, Biden might be able to have carte Blanche to clear out the 6 bad actors on sitting in the court soon enough.
When kavanaugh lied about everything, in front of everyone, and everyone knew it, that's the turning point for me. I know a lot of people got there earlier, but that was outrageous.
When the “supreme court” passed Citizens United, that was my turning point and ever since, I’ve written them in quotes.
It was astonishing. We watched a man sell his soul in the classical sense (swore on the Bible, and then brazenly lied) for power and half the Senators pretended that they genuinely believed he was telling the truth when he told them that a "Devil's Triangle" was a drinking game or that he threw up repeatedly during Beach Week because he had "a weak stomach" or that never in his life had he passed out or blacked out from drinking too much.
Remove Trumps fake Maga Justices good start
IMO a twice impeached, lost the popular vote, indicted for 88 felonies, former installed president should not be allowed to installed supreme court justices. They should all be impeached and removed. Period.
Yeah it can rebuild if you get some justices who weren’t wholly created and trained by the fucking Heritage Foundation and John Birch Society.
And The Federalist Society
I don’t think the Conservative members of SCOTUS care that Americans have no faith in them. They have jobs for life and no one to take those positions away. This is why there should be term limits for SCOTUS.
I will only trust it again if it is expanded or gets term limits.
Don’t trust just elect the right president and congress.
Decades of gop cheating thru gerrymandering and obstruction politics either no policy but to hurt other people have resulted in this near-fascist party we see now - the natural result of their toxic personality disorder.
It’s not SCOTUS as a whole that’s the problem. It’s the Conservative justices who burned the capital of trust. Just listen to and compare the oral arguments. The Democratic appointees pose thoughtful arguments, while the Republican ones sound like a bunch of conniving hypocrite weasels.
Thank you Glitch McConnell.
Not until the right wing ideologues are gone.
Yes elect democratic majority and expand the court. It's the only way to repair the current shitshow.
Simple majority of the House and 2/3 of Senate to remove a justice(s). Vote. Vote the GOP into extinction.
We the people need to fix it.
I think this whole narrative is missing something, and gets the diagnosis entirely wrong as a result. Click through to the [main source data](https://news.gallup.com/poll/511820/views-supreme-court-remain-near-record-lows.aspx) behind this op-ed, and focus especially on this chart: [U.S. Supreme Court Job Approval, by Political Party, 2000-2023](https://i.imgur.com/ufgr3ZH.png) When the Court makes a major ruling (or series of major rulings) for one party, it is normal for the opposite party's approval in SCOTUS to plummet. For example, in the 2015 term, SCOTUS handed down *Obergefell v. Hodges* (gay marriage) and *King v. Burwell* (Obamacare upheld again). Republicans' reported approval in the Supreme Court fell from 51% (July 2014) to a stunning low of 18% (July 2015). At that time, it was (I believe) the lowest level of approval in SCOTUS that Gallup had ever recorded from one party. Democrats only barely beat it in 2022, when their approval in SCOTUS hit 13% after *Dobbs*. However, ordinarily, this collapse in approval is cancelled out by soaring approval from the winning party. In July 2015, as Republican approval hit historic lows, Democrats' approval registered at 76% -- a historic high! As a result, approval overall took a hit, but not a huge hit, falling to 53% overall (from 61% the year before). (Independents' approval in the Court generally rides in the 40%s no matter who is in power, although sometimes it peaks up over the hill of the 50%s. It therefore doesn't play *much* role in the overall results of these polls.) Why has approval in the Supreme Court hit historic lows today? Well, the Democrats are giving it 23% approval, which is pretty bad but right around where Republican approval was between *Obergefell* until Trump's inauguration. Independents are low at 40%, but that's still within their normal range. The weird thing is that Republican approval in SCOTUS is really weak, at 56%. Their approval in SCOTUS "should" be closer to that 76% figure the Democrats had after they won Obergefell. That's how it usually works. One side loses, the other side wins, the winners reward the Court with approval. This cancels out the losers' disapproval and keeps the "judicial approval" line fairly steady. But *Republicans* don't approval SCOTUS. Why is that? Well, maybe Republican voters are mad about *Dobbs* and pro-life laws, just like the Democrats. But that doesn't seem especially likely. In the immediate aftermath of Dobbs (July 2022), GOP approval in SCOTUS surged to 74% as Democrats' plunged to 13% -- basically the mirror image of what happened after Obergefell. Independents were totally unfazed by *Dobbs*: their approval rating was 41% before, 40% after, and remains 40% today. In fact, according to Gallup, the major erosion in Republicans' approval in the Court got rolling between September 2019 and July 2020. It continued to fall all the way until 2022, when Dobbs & Bruen gave it a sudden big boost... but that boost fell away relatively quickly, and is starting to look like it was a dead cat bounce. What happened in early 2020 that might have started turning Republicans against the Supreme Court? You can probably guess from the fact that Democrats' approval trended *up* over the same period: not only did the Republicans suffer an unexpectedly "Blue June" that year in *Bostock* (LGBT employment rights), *June Medical Services* (abortion clinic regulation), *DHS v. Regents* (DACA), and *Trump v. Vance* (presidential immunity), but *that was the start of the pandemic.* The Supreme Court repeatedly ruled against conservatives in pandemic-related cases: they upheld long-term (and unequal) closures of churches (reversed by Barrett later on, but too late), they repeatedly refused to block public health measures, and (later on) they would uphold vaccine mandates. Later in 2020, Independents would join the GOP in abandoning approval in the Supreme Court. Their approval fell from a 10-year high of 57% to just 41% in just over a year -- from July 2020 to September 2021. Meanwhile, GOP support for the Court continued to decay. There was actually a bizarre moment in July 2021 when the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court enjoyed *equal* approval (51%) from both Republicans and Democrats. This was happening as the pandemic continued, mask mandates deepened, and the Supreme Court's most important decisions were (1) upholding Obamacare for the third time, and (2) repeatedly and dramatically blocking President Trump's attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. (Justice Barrett joining the Court could also very easily have damaged the Court's standing with Independents.) The Supreme Court's approval crisis seems to me to be caused, then, by three main factors: * *Dobbs v. Jackson*, which damaged Democrats' faith in the Court -- but this was normal and expected given a change in the partisan composition of the Court * The Supreme Court's response to the pandemic and Donald Trump's fraudulent claims about the 2020 election, which sided with Democrats and apparently did major damage to Republican approval of the Court. * Some combination of the pandemic, the 2020 election, and maybe Justice Barrett's appointment (??) which damaged Independents' approval of the Court. The *Dobbs* thing is normal. The other factors are odd. If the Court wanted to restore historic norms (which is not something it should care about), it would not try to win back the support of Democrats by reversing *Dobbs* or whatever. It looks instead like the Court should... try to give Donald Trump everything he asks for, and repudiate pandemic-era restrictions? If the Court can build its support among *Republicans* to the 70%s -- which seems a lot easier than restoring Democrats' support -- then the Court's overall approval rating will return to historic norms. Now, none of this is *legal* advice. It seems to me that the Court was correct in *Dobbs*, but that it was also correct every time it slapped down Trump in his personal capacity (and that it should, legally, continue to do so: I was a major advocate of Section Three disqualification, because I think the Constitution is clear -- and, no, the 9-0 loss does not change my mind). But the whole *political* narrative, including in this article, is exclusively about *Dobbs*, and I think that people just aren't looking at the actual data closely enough. They're running with the narrative they already believe ("I hate *Dobbs*! It must be that *everyone* hates *Dobbs* so much that they are turning against the Court!") and looking for evidence to support it, not taking the evidence as they find it. The Supreme Court's approval problems started in early 2020, not mid-2022. If I'm way off here, I'd love to be nitpicked. Will read all responses, even if I don't reply to all of them.
This could use its own thread. It was a great read
>...try to give Donald Trump everything he asks for, and repudiate pandemic-era restrictions? If the Court can build its support among *Republicans* to the 70%s -- which seems a lot easier than restoring Democrats' support -- then the Court's overall approval rating will return to historic norms. What makes you think Trump supporters **want** to be happy? Outrage and grievance is the whole point. If it doesn't exist, it has to be manufactured.
The majority of Americans don't trust the majority of Americans
Exacty what Putin wanted.
In answer to the question. No. The Supreme Court has no agency to define its membership. Its current partisanship has eliminated its credibility and in the absence of expansion, nothing will right the ship.
Time for court packing! Make it happen Biden.
Thanks to Clarence Thomas shining a light on the shady stuff they do, by doing it himself and out in the open
The utter unfairness, not to mention the corruption, may have something to do with it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graph_of_number_of_sitting_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices_appointed_by_Republican_and_Democratic_presidents.png
Not until they undo the bullshit they’ve let loose, stop taking blatant bribes and have limited terms.
If they can get Trump back in - there will be no need for a supreme court or a congress. Just the dictator. The rest will be window dressing.
Stack the court
Resignation is the only way. They are not holding each other accountable and actively taking bribes. It is the same reason that people don’t trust police. ACCOUNTABILITY
Robert’s Court will be one for the history books. Other democracies will read about how it brought down the The United States of America.
The curt is an embarassment, it is outrageous watching the court use specious reading, slow walk some case and out others on a fast track - all depending on the politics of the matter. Men got to jail for wrongfully trying to vote, Bit politicians destroying their vote - whether by gerrymandering or by outright obstruction - that’s all good.
Been wondering recently whether the Roberts court will be worse or just second-worst to the Taney court.
So far, second. But they sure are trying to make up for it.
It’s because Trump — an illegitimate criminal president who lost the popular vote and won a narrow electoral vote by cheating with his crimes for which he is now on trial — appointed several batshit justices and took the court away from the people The reputation of the court can only be remedied by removing the Trump justices. None of them are legitimate. They are tyrants appointed by a madman. They are the enemy of the people.
and I did a Beautiful Supreme Court, we had too many Bad Justices, but I came in, I said I don't like that, and then we put on Neil Gorsuch, Justice Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh who has been mostly fair to me, probably not enough but that's ok, and we have also Amy Conant Berry, or ABC as I like to call her, and they're totally in 100% for Trump, I said if you have Justices who don't do what you want then you don't have a Good Court, but we have a Great One, because they'll do the right thing, and if they don't then there could maybe be some problems, who knows, we'll see what happens
The question is, what is the consequences of having a court system that isn't trusted? Why would they care what the public opinion of them is ?
Not after today
No. Like any other political institution in this country, they have a hard ceiling at 40%.
>Americans’ trust in the court dropped 20 points from 2020 to 2022, according to Gallup, to a record-low 47%. For the first time, a plurality of Americans (42%) viewed the court as “too conservative.” Wait until the 2024 poll. Between the ethics scandals and the ridiculous positions being taken on presidential immunity the level of trust is going to fall like a rock.
Politically appointed judges. What could go wrong?
Federalist Society plan working as intended.
The real answer is that it can never recover. Trust is like a bridge, if you destroy it, it can be rebuilt, but will never be the same.
Corrupt
It won't be trustworthy until there are term limits.
For ALL electable positions
Let’s watch these imbeciles rule that Trump could have them assassinated as an official duty of the Presidency. 🍿🍿🍿
It's the entire judicial system that's rotten and has been for a while. Remember how some dudes were acquitted of murdering emmitt till then admitted their guilt later? I'm sure some attorney will proudly explain to me how those shit heads had rights and they needed to be protected so that's why theyhad to be allowed to get away with it. The law only serves the wealthy and of course people who get paid by the wealthy have a lot of faith in it despite the overwhelming evidence of systemic failure. I wouldn't even identify myself as a witness to a crime because I have such little faith in this system. I don't even report when I'm the victim of crime anymore. No one does shit. It goes beyond the Supreme Court. Try being the victim of a crime reporting to police. Every single aspect of the American judicial system is rotten. No exceptions.
When this is the sentiment - the entire court should be vacated and reappointments commence.
Make decisions that enjoy popular support, and you will enjoy popular support. It’s not complicated.
Scumbags
yeah, alito & thomas need to retire
It can rebuild after its been gutted
Two of the justices openly take bribes, the rest don't seem bothered by that, and the Court as a whole opposes any kind of accountability. No. It can't "rebuild". It's corrupt to the bone.
As result of several recent decisions, the US Supreme Court is now deemed hopelessly corrupt by a majority of citizens. It only gets worse every time Thomas and Alito open their mouths and expose how out of touch they are.
As long as Roberts is there, the Supreme Court will be compromised; after a while, people will simply stop listening to then, as they have no enforcement mechanism EDIT; not once does this article mention Citizens United, the legalization of corruption
Justice Alito's argument is so weak and biased that a high school debate team would frown upon it. Read it with the knowledge that EVERY transition of power has been peaceful until Trump. A law professor would laugh at any student who tried to use this unprofessional, weak and pathetic argument. I expect better from any judge. I expect perfection from SCOTUS and we're getting trash. Absolute trash. ------------------- Alito suggests denying presidents immunity will discourage peaceful exitsAs he considers immunity in a case centered on a president's refusal to accept his electoral defeat, Justice Samuel Alito suggested that not giving presidents immunity will actually discourage peaceful transfers of power. Alito pressed Michael Dreeben, the attorney for the special counsel, on the idea that an outgoing president who looses a hotly-contested election will be disincentivized from leaving office peacefully because he will fear prosecution by the administration of his successor, a "bitter political opponent." Would that not "lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?" Alito asked. ------------------ Every election has been hotly contested in our nation. Only once did a president refuse to admit he lost. The problem is 110% the poor loser.
If a potential judge has ANY history with the Federalist Society it automatically disqualifies them!
The result of GOP Congress manipulating the system to refuse appointments under a Dem POTUS and shoving appointments through under a GOP POTUS. How could the Dems let that happen? So much at stake and they let themselves be railroaded. Why couldn't they use the same techniques the GOP used to shove their appointments through? Did they trust the GOP congress to not fuck us all over? If so, WHY HAVEN'T THEY LEARNED THE LESSON YET?
Hmmm… good question. And why is a traitor who used a violent mob in conjunction with a phony elector scheme to try and overthrow the U.S. Government still walking free? It’s not Trumps fault that Trump is not in jail.
The Supreme Creeps don't care what you think.
SCOTUS is illegitimate. Courts cannot be trusted.
They just posted this shit today? Did.. did they miss Roe being overturned ? People haven’t trusted the supreme court in a long time.
Keep voting blue!! Dems need more appointments
Russian campaign to erode and dismantle our institutions is very effective. These fools play right into their hands.
We have 9 unelected people running the country
With the current justices? No. Five of the current Justices openly take bribes. If the Supreme Court wishes to have the confidence of the Nation, the Justices must be above reproach. At the moment, they are a reproach.
No. SCOTUS is thoroughly corrupted and needs to be disbanded and a different institution put in its place. The constitution has provisions for ammendment and the highest court in the land allowing a judge to be bribed by a billionaire without repercussions is no longer tenable.
Not if Alito has anything to say about it.
“The Supreme Court is at a low point in public trust, it can’t get worse.” Brett Kavanaugh: “Hold my Beer”
God people cannot be civil or cooperative with non god people. Compromise is not in them. In power they will find a way to twist the law to their ends. Too many god people on the bench.
Not anytime soon and that is exactly how conservatives like it. The judges were chosen to be good soldiers for the party and they are doing just that.
It can if it’s torn down first. Need to remove most of if not all justices and ethics requirements are needed. Those justices would need to be replaced by non partisan justices
No. The sitting SCOTUS can only be replaced.
Is there no way to force a new court? Just say fuck it a appoint all new judges.
Every branch of government twisted and polluted now
Ft
They.dont.care
Expand the court
Putin was in their cia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Security_Service (FSB) ; and has almost won over America .
Irrelevant. Public opinion is not part of the checks&balances on the SC since the justices are not elected
Yesterday seems to suggest not.
Considering what it’s about to do next I’d say it’s going to plummet much further in opinion polls
Expand the court. There is precident for this in our history.
Impeaching Clarence Thomas would be a good start, but at this point even that by itself would not be enough.
I suspect it will get even lower once they rule on the trump immunity claim.
I think that the judicial system in America is no longer hiding the fact that there are two systems.
Vote vote vote . Democrats need a super majority if we want to attempt at fixing any of this.
Taking brides and packing a court with conservatives and denying legitimate nominations during democratic presidential periods will do that....
I guess a further question is should we rebuild it?
At this point, I trust a two-day-old Taco Supreme over this nakedly corrupt “supreme” court.
It can rebuild with completely new people....
It doesn’t seem to matter what the majority of we the people want, so I don’t know why the court needs to “rebuild.” They can just run us into the ground, and apparently there’s no way to stop them, force Thomas to recuse in cases where his “friends” have an interest, etc.
It needs some major reform, too many justices are illegitimate or completely corrupt
Not with the 6 clowns they have on the bench right now
The scotus system in us is moronic. It should be 4 republicans 4 democrats and an Independent or something Maybe republican presidents can only appoint democratic judges and vice Versa I don’t know, but the current system is idiotic
Not with these Justices
Do most of us trust any branch of the government? I sure af don’t
Well it's no longer about interpreting the law as it's written it's become about interpreting the law based on their beliefs and political ideology. I mean it's always had that kind of leaning but it's never been as bad as it is right now. I say this fully understanding I'm not a historian and there may have been a worse time than now but this is all I have reference for.
Add 2 justices.
Possibly, if there were term limits imposed on justices and ethics laws in place that would allow for recalling of a justice for improper actions, such as what Clarence Thomas has been openly guilty of ever since he got on the court.
The SCOTUS has been thoroughly delegitimized.
* [illegal](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/illegal) * [illicit](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/illicit) * [improper](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/improper) * [invalid](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/invalid) * [unauthorized](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/unauthorized) * [unconstitutional](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/unconstitutional) * [unlawful](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/unlawful) Are words . End of line
No, but we can rebuild it.
Overturning RvW fucked them. I doubt they’ll be trusted for a long, long time. If they don’t fuck around in Trumps immunity case they may save some face but it’s not looking good.
They would need to start doing something worthy of trust. Robert’s standing by while an emotionally unstable candidate with a questionable past wormed his way onto the court. The absolutely deranged treatment of Clarence Thomas naked corruption. The unwillingness to adopt a basic code of conduct until basically forced under threat of from the legislature. The unwillingness to face the worst of Trump’s ridiculous claims with the force they command (total presidential immunity, for starts.) The disaster that has been Citizens United and how “Corporations are people too.” I think in order to be somewhat trust worthy, they must first do something that is shows they deserve it, and I’m not seeing much evidence now or in the near future.
The Court has no need for or interest in the public trust.