Well if the court didn't engage in clearly partisan politics, maybe the liberal justices wouldn't have anything to criticize.
Does he realize how bad it looks when he voices that his problem is criticism and not like, I don't know, taking money from political interests? Or refusing to recuse in cases where there's a relative directly involved?
It is really incredible how far down the drain the SCOTUS has gone in such a short period of time. Not saying it was great before Justice Kennedy retired either, but at least back then it was generally respected.
On the other hand, it's our job to pick the best president and we majorly blew it. I can easily imagine RBG thinking "if they are dumb enough to elect this chode, they deserve what they get".
Why do you think they would've filled her spot when they didn't fill the other one with Merrick Garland? She protected her spot or they would've held it up until Trump.
She could have retired at any time, including right after Obama was elected. The Republicans couldn't have held the spot open for years. It would have become a major election issue.
I'd bet good money McConnell would have tried to find a way/reason to keep it open, look at all the rules making/breaking they did to fill/keep a seat empty close to elections, I'm sure they'd just come up with some other bullshit
I'm sure he would have tried, but we're dealing with massive hypotheticals at this point. Under your argument, we should not have a justice at any point ever step down because McConnell would try to block a nomination. Yes, he would try. Doesn't change the fact that the best move was for her to step down at the beginning of the term.
We should honestly be pushing for justices getting on in years and having health issues to step down at the beginning of presidential terms regardless.
"Why won't they just let us make wildly unpopular decisions that jeopardize the livelihoods of Americans without having to make us feel bad about it?!"
I don't know, I like Sotomayor. And Brown-Jackson seems alright. And I really don't have much opinion on Kagan aside from the fact that I usually agree with her rulings. As for Conservatives, I disagree with all of them almost always, but Gorsuch at least seems to care about consistency, and I think his views on Native affairs is admirable.
If it's not clear, I mean all the conservatives that clearly were put there for nefarious reasons. And none of them deserves a life time position on the supreme court regardless, and by them here I mean everyone, not just conservatives.
Holy crap this is endgame. The head of the judicial body is too concerned about the feelings of the body?
So, just logically. I have a personal commitment and value to something. And somebody gets mad at me about it. My values and commitment should be able to withstand that? Yes? As soon as someone has a different opinion it's like "I can't bear to hear a different opinion (clutches pearls) and I can't stand to have my opinion critiqued"
For you and me and the lady in the checkout line (and I say that as a lady who is often in checkout lines), that's great. But this is the head of the judicial body of one of the most powerful nations - most powerful democracies - on earth. These are opinions that shape the lives of 300 million people at least. And he's gonna be there for another quarter of a century.
Like how many steps is Roberts from a kind of de facto chilling effect, and I'm not trying to be funny
Thank God for the generations who hear a public figure try to corral or control a situation and then begin to act in doing the exact opposite. Definitely need to remind the conservative justices that there are people out here
I don’t think he is anywhere near a chilling effect on the liberal justices.
They main problem we have with SCOTUS is that they don’t have to GAF what anybody says.
That is good if the person has principles, but has problems if they are grifting trash.
The thing he should be complaining about is the bribes - I’m sorry, speech - that the justices are taking. But since he gets 8 figures of speech by consulting gigs for his wife, there is no chance the Chief Grifter will tackle the real problem.
The fact that these republicans took nearly a million dollars in loan forgiveness for covid themselves then complain about helping kids out is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Roberts complains about his extreme right wing judges being singled out then takes away rights for LGBTQ people on a hypothetical not actual laws. The person never existed and was all thought up by the extreme right billionaire friends to put in front of the court.
Absolutely disgusting. So John roberts deserves all the criticism coming at him.
Undoing decades of precedent to make political agenda-based rulings that will drastically change the lives of people in this country forever... That's fine, just don't criticize the court, or expect them to adhere to any ethical guidelines...
The supreme court even as a concept is one of the most asinine yet accepted institutions in the world. On par with the Catholic church, but so much worse because it actually has enormous and direct power over 330+ million people. I am dreaming and pining for the day that someone in power, most likely a president, just legitimately tells them to fuck off. They have no enforcement power and they fucking know it. I'm yearning for someone to have the courage, but it's as clear as it possibly can be that it certainly won't be a Democrat.
The thing is that the court only has so much power right now because Congress is so fucking broken. If Congress where in working order it could just legislate all the shit that the court is blocking the executive on.
Is there any sense when Congress went off the rails? Some folks I have listened to say it was around the 90s but there were obviously very contentious times before then.
The Congress has never consistently functioned well, I'm not entirely convinced it's designed to. For the current mess, both in Congress and American politics in general, probably the most influential source is Newt Gingrich's electioneering policy of attacking wedges and saying anything you have to to get headlines without regards to the truthfulness of your statements. That's what reshaped the Republican party to be particularly welcoming to extremists, popularized science denial, and led to the modern wave of Christian Nationalism.
Can you elaborate on the comparison to the church? You don't like a panel having authority so you want to consolidate it to a president unilaterally ignoring the third branch? Would term limits on judges change how you see the court?
The Catholic church is an unjustifiable and ridiculous institution in the same way the supreme court is. The Catholic church also had a lot of control over the lives of many people for a very long time, although that influence has obviously waned in recent centuries and decades (although it's clearly still not completely gone). Now, as far as the president having control, I will also say fuck the presidency, but it would always be my hope that a person in that position would do anything in their power as a president and a person to stand up to unjustifiable institutions like the supreme court. Obviously a president couldn't abolish the supreme court single-handedly, nor do I think that would necessarily, inherently be a good thing, but I do think that a president could and should call out the obvious reasons for which the institution needs to be abolished, because it absolutely does. The fact that nine human beings can directly control the lives of millions and millions and millions of people is an absolute travesty. I don't even feel dissimilarly about congress, but obviously it's a bit better because they are actually elected. In general, though, I am a very strong proponent of direct democracy. Term limits are a starting point, but it would be akin to applying a bandaid to a gaping, oozing wound.
The thing is, I can see the logic behind why the Supreme Court is designed the way it is. If they don’t have to worry about reelection, they shouldn’t have a vested interest in making calls that make a specific voting group happy. In theory, this means they should be free to provide unbiased decisions that help society to better function.
The problem though is that there isn’t a way for the public to easily remove a justice that obviously is just trying to rule from the bench. This increases the chance of them abusing their position of power.
The current Supreme Court has made several decisions recently that are beyond a rational understanding of the law that only serve to the benefit of themselves and to their wealthy benefactors. The decisions are harming people with little genuine benefit for our collective society. As such, we should be able to remove them in such extenuating circumstances. But we can’t, and they are there for life. It is extremely frustrating.
Always putting people in their place. Hey, try doing better. Ever thought of that? A scumbag named Donald Trump put three of you there. I think criticism is warranted. The jokes write themselves, but if you’re not on board, the head dingus will put you in your place!
He controls the court and is still mewling about dissent. That's some small penis energy right there. "Stop picking on us for being evil! I'm telling Mom!"
I read the entire article, could not find any mention of Roberts 'begging' the liberal justices for anything. Is my reading comprehension lacking, or is the headline click bait hyperbole?
Add comment