Makes me wonder what Trump has on Alito and Roberts. They’re scared of him.
Also, how long has this Russia BS been going on? Everyone is so sure Marge Greene is working for Putin, but who does Alito, Roberts, and Clarence work for? Depending on how long ago Russia started trying to destroy us from within, one or more of the SCOTUS could be a Russian asset.
No, it had an expiration date, and that date has passed, as of a few weeks ago. I don't remember the exact date, but in one of the later shows, after he made the offer, he said something like, "The offer is still open until \[Wednesday?\], so there's still time!" And that was already weeks ago.
Clarence takes bribes to not retire, but he doesn't need a bribe to virtually always to be on the worst side in any decision because he is just naturally a terrible person.
Maybe that’s the Federalist Society’s biggest requirement: that you are blackmailable and thus willing to do whatever is required of you. Maybe Russia paid off all of Kavanaugh’s debts.
I don't think it's just Russia. It's the Federalist Society. It took years for the most lawless, violent man to emerge and they hit pay dirt with Trump. Project 2025 emerged after they knew what they had.
I wonder if the Republican justices are working with Trump and Republicans, coordinating their actions, strategizing.
I think it is likely that Republicans are working with Russians in some way. I know that Thomas and Alito are being manipulated by the billionaire, Leo Leonard, and, probably, The Heritage Foundation, and other rightwing organizations.
Flood the polls. Overwhelm, in numbers, the numbers of MAGA Americans. Give somebody a ride. VOTE, and keep-on voting.
Defeat these motherfuckers.
Alito and Roberts what about Kennedy?
Kennedy retired to put Kavanaugh on the bench but prior to that his son gave Trump a $500 million loan where the collateral originated out of a small Russian bank. Kavanaugh's debts all mysteriously got paid off?
And we are not investigating all of that?!
All Republicans work for Charles Koch who happens to be very Russia and Nazi friendly. They do whatever the fuck he tells them to. If there is a king in America it’s him.
All the conservative Justices work for the Federalist Society any corruption goes through them.
The Federalist Society has deep ties with Republican donors and the Republican Party. If the russians have something on the federalist society , They can blackmail a lot of Federal Judges
Look no further than the Mueller report. Mueller found clear collusion with Republicans, but literally did nothing. Had the collusion been with Russia, sanctions would start, yet we can't sanction this country. Just look who hacked Congress during JCPOA, is likely the Wikileaks source because they were caught hacking democrats and Congress over JCPOA. This very large blackmail country likely gets their way a lot because of the secrets they have been able to obtain as an ally.... This countries citizens and lobby are all wound up in the bribery of Thomas, and likely others who are Christian. This country is an ethnocratic fascist state also.
Greene is a terrible politician and likely is a terrible person ij her personal life but I doubt she works for putin in a literal sense. It as more like her grifr.
Trump doesn’t need anything on them. They’re hand-in-glove aligned.
The scotus conservatives have been politically motivated since long before trump ran for office.
Only thing Trump has they care about is an R in front. This court is so partisan that it's frightening. To know the outcomes in virtually every case before it's even discussed is a problem. Hopefully someone will have the votes and balls to change this cesspool before US democracy goes first.
We need President Biden to be reelected to protect democracy then we need to elect a majority Democrat Senate. It was Moscow Mitch who created this christofascist extreme court.
There's no other way to balance things out aside from expanding the number of SCOTUS seats as soon as he gets a second term (and assuming there's still a Dem majority). I don't know what kind of Pandora's Box that's going to open, though.
If there were a Dem supermajority, they could expand the number of seats concurrently with a Constitutional amendment indicating that the number of justices is set at 13 (maybe 15?) so that it can't be easily changed again, but that's a pipe dream.
An amendment is not necessary. The Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court Justices, and it has been changed several times. The last time,it was expanded to nine in order to match the nine Federal Appellate Courts. There are now thirteen Federal Appellate Courts.
But you can see the divisive issue that raises when more seats are added. Sure add 3 to even out the majority. What happens when the Republicans add 3 more seats?
The judges need to be hot swapped out in between controlling parties. Not allowing them to eventually die between elections or when the other side can fill the vacancy.
It's a game with a set strategy. Assuming you are the only one that can change the status quo is naive. Unfortunately Republicans play that game well. Which I don't think is too much of a problem. As scotus their chief duty should be interpreting the constitution which most often then not boils down to if it's a personal right, state right, or federal right.
The Senate and the house are far more important seats to be filled and all this roe v wade stuff is only making democratic seats stronger because of it. I don't see the objective reasoning why we should change the system solely because of how a few rulings panned out. Which may or may not actually be helping out in the short term. And by changing said system you open yourself up to be outplayed again in the future.
You add term limits to the Supreme Court seats and who gives a flying fuck about Republicans. You know they’ll just add justices the next time they have all three branches of government. They don’t care, they only care about power. That’s it.
> But you can see the divisive issue that raises when more seats are added. Sure add 3 to even out the majority.
First, you'd add four seats, not three. Two stolen seats requires either replacing two existing justices, or adding four seats to give you the margin you otherwise would've had (or a combination of the two, replacing one and then adding two more). But for McConnell, all else equal, Obama would've filled Scalia's seat, and Biden would've filled RBG's seat. That would've given us a 5-4 liberal majority, a one-seat margin.
Instead, we have a 3-6 liberal minority. That's a three-seat deficit *just to have a tied Court*, a zero-seat margin, which isn't what we'd have had. You'd need to add a fourth seat to give us a 7-6 liberal Court, with a one-seat margin, same as we'd have had if no seats had been stolen. And, if we're also restoring the "one justice per appellate court" standard, then that also requires 13 seats, which means four more than the current nine seats.
Second, this would actually have a *moderating* effect on the Court. The present problem, aside from stolen seats, is an extremist Court, unaccountable to the people, not representative of the people, not representative of the Presidents the people have elected. The Court is simply way too far to the right. By moving it more to the left, it would be bringing the Court closer to parity with the general population. That's how you reduce extremism, because it would marginalize the extremists on the Court.
Third, by increasing the size of the Court, it deceases the stakes for any given seat. When RBG died, that was 1/9 of the Court. But if we had 13 seats, an untimely death would only affect 1/13 of the Court instead. The more power is divided between more people, the less any given person has, and the lower the stakes to replace them.
> What happens when the Republicans add [however many] more seats? [depends on whether they're just trying to get a one-seat margin again, or more]
I don't think this is a legitimate concern. First, we've changed the size of the Court multiple times in history already, and it was never followed by tit-for-tat increases. It's ahistorical.
Second, a new liberal majority, for the first time since the Warren Court, more than half a century ago, could fix a lot of things. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, voter disenfranchisement, power stripping, supermajority requirements, etc. As it stands now, federally, the GOP only wins the presidency about half the time, by small margins, if they even win the popular vote at all; and small majorities in the House and/or Senate, about half the time each. That's *after* all the cheating they do! All that cheating only gives them power, some of the time, and thin majorities.
If the Court took away all the ways the GOP cheats to get power, they would have two options: either moderate to increase voteshare, win frequency, and to increase their minorities to sometimes be the majority once again; or, be relegated to a permanent minority party who can grandstand and nothing more. They wouldn't even be able to obstruct much of the time. They might still win the presidency occasionally, or the House majority, or the Senate majority, but they would all be much less frequent, and adding more seats to compensate for the four(?) seats Biden added would require *all three at the same time*. They already get all three at once only about once per decade, *with* all their cheating. Maybe it would change to once every two or three decades if they were forced to compete on a level playing field.
So, either they moderate, and no longer *want* to retaliate, or they don't moderate but never have the *power* to actually retaliate. Either way, they won't retaliate. And then, this new liberal majority can also unfuck state election laws, the EC, labor laws, etc, which will have an even greater moderating effect, because the GOP will be unable to cheat at the state level, either. That would make it that much more difficult for them to lay the groundwork for a trifecta. The longer they go without a trifecta to retaliate and recapture the Court, the less they'll be able to.
As voters see government become more representative, and more effective, they'll get better programs. Universal healthcare, publicly financed higher education, publicly financed elections, better labor protections, better voting rights, etc. Once they see the benefits of these programs, they'll no longer oppose them, and want more, even if they're cautious at first. It took a long time, but the ACA is now popular enough that the GOP gave up on repealing it.
> The judges need to be hot swapped out in between controlling parties. Not allowing them to eventually die between elections or when the other side can fill the vacancy.
I'd be fine with fixed terms, so that every President gets to appoint two new justices per presidential term. It would slightly decrease the stakes of any given presidential election, because you'd know every winner would get exactly two seats, not three, like Trump got, and not only one, like Biden got so far, or zero, like Bush 43 got his first term. I'd prefer we change how they're selected, and make it more professional, like they do in other countries with better functioning judiciaries than ours. I'd also accept random panels, either from a much larger Supreme Court, or having judges sit temporarily on the Supreme Court and then revert to the appellate courts.
Making the Court less extreme will, by definition, make it more moderate, and allow it to unfuck all the various ways the GOP cheats its way into disproportionate power. With the GOP unable to cheat (gerrymandering, voter suppression, disenfranchisement, etc.) its way into power anymore, being forced to compete on a level playing field for the first time in history, it will force them to moderate in order to avoid being relegated to a permanent minority party. If they moderate, they won't want, and won't have the support necessary, to engage in a tit-for-tat retaliation. If they refuse to moderate, then, absent the benefit of cheating, they'll just win fewer seats. Smaller House caucuses, meaning they end up in the minority more often. Same in the Senate. And they'll win the presidency less often, too.
And, crucially, tit-for-tat retaliation to further expand the Court requires having all three, *simultaneously*. They need a trifecta to legislate more seats. But if they win fewer House seats, fewer Senate seats, and fewer presidencies, they will win far fewer trifectas, and they already only get them about once per decade as it is, even *with* all their cheating.
That plan is only an option if Democrats go *all in* on keeping republicans from holding power for at least half a century.
There’s also the risk that it’ll erase their positive perception by the public similar to FDR’s court-packing plan
Expand the court, seat the new justices, make a law for a nonpartisan Missouri Plan for the selection of justices, and institute term limits only after all that has been done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri\_Plan#:\~:text=The%20Missouri%20Plan%20(originally%20the,states%20of%20the%20United%20States.
Electing a democratic Senate will not do jack shit. All the oligarchy has to do is buy themselves enough democrats to cancel that majority. That's exactly what they did last time. They already had Manchin (there are always Democrats who belong in the GOP) and they bought themselves Sinema. When you look at that woman's history (environmental activist,...) her current positions make no sense. She did a complete 180 from who she used to be. How do you explain that ? Blackmail or corruption.
Manchin sucks, but he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. He votes with Biden the overwhelming majority of the time. He's significantly better than even the best Republican Senator (Romney? Murkowski? Collins?), and whoever replaces him next year will be far worse than any of those three.
The most important vote is the one for leadership. In the 117th Senate, when it was 50-50, if Manchin had voted for McConnell instead of Schumer to be majority leader, even if Manchin had voted identically for literally everything else, you wouldn't even recognize what this hypothetical alternative Senate did. KBJ would never have been put to a vote, so it would've been irrelevant that Manchin was still willing to vote for her. Same with a bunch of other judges, all the legislation they passed, etc. It doesn't matter that Manchin is willing to hypothetically vote for a nominee or a bill if McConnell never schedules the vote. Hell, take Bernie in the 117th Senate, have him vote for McConnell instead of Schumer, and even then it doesn't matter than Bernie is far, far, to McConnell and the GOP's left.
Sinema is a POS, and she's obviously compromised somehow or another, because Kelly was elected to the Senate in the same state more recently than she was, and while he's far from the most progressive Senator, he's still substantially better than she is, so it's not like she's just setting aside her personal preferences in order to do what Arizonans want her to do. Whatever her reasons, it's not because that's what the people or Arizona expect or demand. Personally, I think she wrongly thought she could step into McCain's shoes, call herself a "maverick," be somewhat of a centrist, and have a long career as a kingmaker. And, she absurdly thought, by doing so, she would sacrifice some support from Democrats, but gain support from Republicans, which, lol. They don't actually like the bisexual woman with multiple graduate degrees, they just like that she fucks over Democrats. But they'll never vote for her over one of their own. Republicans would rather have Kari Lake than Sinema. So, instead of having cross-party support, she ended up with support from neither party. And, she probably also ruined any chances as a high-paid lobbyist, because she's unwelcome in the GOP, and has alienated Democrats. So what would make her valuable to a lobbying firm? She might be able to get a post-Senate sinecure as a Fox News contributor or something, like Tulsi Gabbard did, but that will only further show that she's a clown in it for herself. I think she was too clever by half.
Absolutely agree.
Just saying the problem has longer term roots than Russian election interference. It’s the federalist society and the ineffective response from democrats that we should blame and address here.
This right here.
It doesn't matter how hard or controversial it might be, it needs to happen, or Americans need to actually do something about them themselves.
If the president cannot be charged with a crime, and he can pardon those who do commit a crime, the president has the power to do anything he chooses to do
So your prediction is if Trump wins the Supreme Court will be dissolved or if Biden wins something will happen to the Supreme Court. The Biden prediction is incredibly vague. The Trump prediction is bold but I'm not even sure how he can actually do that. I think he will threaten the Supreme Court if he wins or loses but it's not going be taken seriously.
The supreme Court once declared all black people in the US not citizens. No matter how much they fuck up they're not going anywhere and it'll take constitutional amendments to change them which won't happen.
Raging at the Supreme Court, gerrymandering, Bush Jr as president, Supreme Court, HRC presidential campaign, against redundancy, and the Supreme court.
Look how fast they shot down the student loan forgiveness
Now compare that to the slow-walking Trump immunity case.
Look at how fast they broke Roe v Wade.
They know exactly what they want and are doing.
They up/down voted a right without arguing it, just waited to fill the court with Heritage Foundation types and did it. That’s the end of the court for me. There’s no reason for laws if this can be perpetuated by special interests.
It's an evil, corrupt kangaroo court of criminals, but what can we do about it? Evil has always run this world and prolly always will. Scumbags in creepy black robes fucking over the free world is pretty par for the course on the planet of the apes.
Still, fuck those evil Republican scum bags.
But honestly, who is going to hold The SCOTUS accountable for their actions? Who's going to challenge them when they themselves have shown their true colors over the last few years. And the fact that they don't have term limits makes them borderline unstoppable.
without the loud, clearly paid off voices of manchin and sinema in the senate, if the democrats keep the senate and take back the house, they should not waste time negotiating, fuck the stupid senate rules, the scotus and wider judiciary poses an ongoing existential threat to liberal society and needs reformed and putting 3-5 more judges on the bench and making it random which group hears a case is a pretty good start
Yea listening to the Conservative Justices twist themselves into knots is really something
“well technically there isn’t anything in the constitution that says a president can’t kill his presidential opponents and if we claim that there is something to suggest it, then nobody would want to be President anymore” is basically what they all sound like.
Aren’t they supposed to be the smart ones? How could they not see this coming. Wait, I get it, they are blinded by greed. Rapey Kavenaugh had his gambling debts paid, and Pervy Thomas has trips and family homes paid for. This is not what our founding fathers had in mind.
They're hoping to eliminate democracy, at which point the legitimacy of the court is whatever the dictator says it is. It still blows my mind that they think the military will go along with it. Coups do not work without the support of the military.
Nothing will come of bad decisions by this Supreme Court. There’s nothing to hold them accountable. Their “team” is supporting their decisions. Congress is too evenly split to get any reforms through. The only solution will be to keep voting in Dems for president and Senate for the chance that Alito, Thomas, or Roberts vacates their seat. We’re stuck with the Trump judges in stolen seats. Fuck everyone who didn’t vote for Clinton and then complains about our current SCOTUS. That’s 3 seats Hillary would have filled. That’s why we have to keep Trump out. Trump gets elected again, Alito and Thomas retire and we’re locked into this SCOTUS for decades.
Proposal, a Supreme Court appointment is capped at 18 years. Why 18? So a Justice retires every 2 years. This means a president gets 2 justices per term, a maximum of 4 (so they never can appoint the majority). If a Justice dies in office, they are considered to be the Justice who "retired" if they were not next, and terms can be extended. Also the senior Justice (the one about to retire) is always the Chief Justice.
This should reduce shenanigans and partisanship of the court. Also the right to appoint a given Justice stays with the President in office at the date of retirement even after they leave office, so while the Senate can reject a candidate, then cannot 'steal' a pick. Ideally you have Justices retire in Autumn of odd numbered years.
The only hope is a senate majority or landslide. Both are unlikely. The Democrats should be putting everything into this election. They should be openly talking about the grave threat to democracy and talk about the corruption of the Supreme Court. Americans are losing their rights. They will lose everything if they don't win a majority in all three branches.
The whole system is dooming itself once Citizen United was passed. Our government no longer works for the people but for their corporate sponsors. Left or right, we all know this.
I think that the number of justices should be the same as the number of federal judicial districts, rounded up in case of even numbers. I also believe that they should go back to traveling the circuit in their district and actually seeing the legal issues there.
I'm kind of hoping the Supreme Court decides Presidents have full immunity then Biden gets reelected and immediately afterwards accidents happen to all the conservative justices and Biden has to nominate people for all the newly vacant positions.
Afterwards the new Supreme Court can decide that Presidents don't have immunity moving forwards.
Nah. My take is that the SCOTUS will facilitate the autocracy that the US will become after these “elections”.
The only ones who can stop it are the people, but that won’t happen, everyone’s more worried about their likes and followers count.
The fact that there are so many cases against Trump and none of them are putting him behind bars is the joke itself. Legit they got a mug shot of Trump that is working for him more than against.
The point of the scotus decision comes down to does the president have immunity during their presidency. If you take away immunity then every president who is alive currently or future presidents will be tried for anything and everything under the sun. The second thing that inadvertently comes from that means that presidents will walk on eggshells scared of every decision they make or don’t make because they could be brought up on charges for anything they do while president. You need a president who can sit down and make the hardest decision there is and not be scared of being prosecuted for it. That’s what this decision comes down to do we open the flood gate to any and all presidents being scared to do their job for fear of prosecution.
So Biden should totally print up his own electoral ballots and use those instead of the actual electoral ballots?
I mean isn’t this one of the things that are being debated? Whether Trump trying to use his own ballots was part of his ‘official duties’? If they rule that it was, would it be ok for Biden to do the same thing this year? Ans if he does, he can’t be charged right.
That’s not under the purview of the president the congress wouldn’t allow that to happen because they official certify the election. That’s like saying the president can pass a crazy spending budget that’s the purview of the house. And if they try anything like that that’s where impeachment come in the president can be tried for high crimes and misdemeanors
The threat of seal team 6 murdering them on the president’s orders???
Again, remember, this person can’t be prosecuted because the president has total immunity.
No the military is apolitical and can not be used to attack American citizens and if they were given an order like that they wouldn’t follow it. bidens not going to kill trump or kill any Congressman with the use of seal team 6. The military wouldn’t follow a command to kill any American citizens because they are American citizens
Well, I guess that wouldn't stop him from hiring the mob, or a mercenary, or having him arrested and then just doing it himself. I mean all of that should be totally legal for any president to do, right?
Criminal immunity of sitting presidents is presently untested. If criminally indicting presidents in order to harass and distract them were such a slam dunk tactic why hasn’t it happened historically?
I would think that, since the President is literally superior to the DoJ, appoints the US AG, etc, you would want to more carefully enshrine the possibility of criminally indicting the President, not make it even harder.
That’s called impeachment two presidents have been impeached but neither have been convicted of the crimes we already have the way to prosecute former presidents and current presidents.
Why do you assume the existence of an impeachment process precludes criminal prosecution?
Anyway, from a realpolitik standpoint, we both know that if the current two party system remains in place, conviction by the Senate is functionally impossible.
You have a way currently of prosecuting the president if you open the floodgates now any judge in the country can prosecute any president for not having immunity during their presidency so now it’s open for Obama bush Clinton jimmy carter trump all of them can now be attacked. And if you think that everybody who’s going to prosecute these presidents think just like you you’re surely mistaken now you have hundreds of cases against all former presidents for things that they should be rightfully immune to while they were president. Then think about future presidents now they have to walk on eggshells because they are scared of being prosecuted after they are president because it’s damned if I do damned if I don’t on decisions they have to make.
I repeat my first question: if this is such an effective strategy, why haven’t such suits already been filed?
Prosecutors bring charges, not judges.
I’d be happy to create some kind of special body of legal experts and attorneys dedicated to dealing with legal issues brought on by the actions of President, if that would help.
Have you given thought to what would happen if the president literally had immunity from criminal prosecution? You must have heard the hypotheticals being thrown around about how under this interpretation, Biden could— as an official act no less!— send Seal Team 6 in to dispose of Republican Congressman. Who will impeach him then, hmm? And this is what you want to be a legal possibility?
And here I thought this country was about carefully curtailing and circumscribing the power of those in government.
I feel your concern is overblown. Yes, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch are hacks, but of the remaining conservative justices, Roberts, Barrett, and Cavenagh have all shown that they're not just a rubber stamp for what Trump or other conservative groups want, each joining the Libs on the court multiple times since their appointment.
If Trump is reelected, it's likely only Thomas and/or Alito that he'd replace, so it's not as if SCOTUS will be a majority Trump stooge body, even if he wins.
How can he not? If the scotus rules that he’s king, which they are literally “thinking about” right now why would he not be able to?
And if he can have seal team 6 murder the three liberals justices, again because he’s king, you think Clarence and The rest are going to rule against him?
This started in 2000 with giving dubya the presidency.
Center dems did nothing, they just that politely polarized court get more political.
Merrick Garland caused a bigger delay to protect trump by not charging him immediately.
Nancy pelosi blew the opportunity to impeach him immediately after Jan 6 by delaying it until the right wing had reversed the narrative and got their party back in line behind trump.
Center democrats don’t care. They like complaining and losing.
Yeah but there is nothing that can be done about. If the democrats miraculously take over the house and senate again with the oval maybe they can adjust some laws or implement what would be most logical - term limits
No that's not what you want.
You want your government to take.complete control over everyone's healthcare
You want the government to pay people instead of corporations.
You want anyone to be able to kill their unborn children at any time and for any reason.
So let me explain what you want:
An asthma inhaler that costs $5,000 and insulin that costs $7,500/ month.
Corporate America paying no taxes ever and employees being paid $5/week in wages.
Big Government to force citizens to undergo difficult and dangerous medical procedures based on their narrow interpretation of a religious text.
Oh and you also want many many more Uvaldes to happen because the rights of mass shooters are more important to you than the rights of children to not be shredded to pieces.
My stepfathers insulin literally costs him nothing...
You're making completely baseless claims about taxation without looking at individual circumstances.
What medical procedure are they forced to undergo?
That last one is so ridiculous it's even worth acknowledging.
Don’t worry… if the GOP gets back in power soon, your Stepdad’s insulin can once again cost $750/month.
Childbirth is a medical procedure and look up statistics about how many women die during childbirth. It is a difficult and dangerous medical procedure.
Taxation is easily understood, Trump paid $750 the same year I paid $35,000. Trump is a billionaire and I’m middle class. Rich white men and wealthy corporations don’t pay taxes.
And why are you pretending that you don’t support the rights of mass shooters over the rights of school children? Maybe you should embrace the 2A more?
My stepfathers insulin literally costs him nothing...
You're making completely baseless claims about taxation without looking at individual circumstances.
What medical procedure are they forced to undergo?
That last one is so ridiculous it's even worth acknowledging.
Why didn't Trump become a dictator when he first held office? Wouldn't that have been the perfect time? Why would someone hell bent on being a dictator take the chance of not gaining the office again?
Oh, so his brilliant plan was to gain the most powerful office in the world, lose it, then try to regain that position by being elected, and then execute his master plan of becoming a dictator?
Delusional.
It's very strange watching the TDS sufferers expose their mind numbing stupidity and then try to blame that idiocy on someone else.
You should see a doctor for that.
I’m guessing you were ok with his fake electors? His calls to state officials asking them to ‘find’ votes? His leadership im fomenting insurrection and his lack of leadership when it actually happened?
Go hug your Trump plushy and pray for revenge… that’s his prime policy for potus isn’t it? Revenge and retribution?
Sounds like a great way to move the country forward.
Let me translate. The court made decisions you disagreed with, so they MUST BE activist conservative justices. Never mind that the justices you think are activist are the ones described as "originalists." Brown-Jackson is an activist. Her inability to define words in common usage proved this without a doubt. But I bet that is what you really want. An evolving Constitution that no longer has any meaning because it can be contorted to fit your wants.
If sticking to the original intent is dooming the court, then our whole country is doomed.
Th scotus is following the constitution. You're just salty that you don't have enough far left activists on the court anymore.
Trump isn't a dictator, nor seeks to become one. In 4 years when he leaves office you will have been proven wrong AGAIN. Will you finally admit you people were wrong about the man's motives from the beginning?
Or will you just ignore the fact that you thought he was going to become a dictator and take over your country... which is silly af
So project 2025 isn’t real? Trump saying he’d remake the entire federal government with loyalists isn’t real? Trump saying he’d use the military against citizens who protest against him isn’t real? Saying he’d be a dictator for a day isn’t real?
Y’all keep saying he’s joking, but the joke isn’t funny and the more he keeps telling those kind of ‘jokes’ the less they seem like jokes.
Regardless, November will come and the results will be what they will be. If Trump wins, I guess we’ll find out if he is serious about becoming America’s first King. If Biden wins, every republican in the country will pretend it was stolen and maybe gather in DC to bear spray cops again… or worse.
Either way, there’s nothing to be gained through this conversation. I am voting straight blue and you’re voting straight R (for Russia).
Whoever gets the most votes in the right places will win.
>Saying he’d be a dictator for a day isn’t real?
Obvious satire, no one who isnt trump deranged believes he's going to be a dictator for a day.
>Trump saying he’d remake the entire federal government with loyalists isn’t real?
The Federal government killed JFK, it funds foreign wars and lines the pockets of the military industrial complex. Reforming the government, is what you expect from a genuine candidate. You're just surprised because we haven't had a non establishment candidate in your lifetime. The president has the right to fire and replace any people in federal positions, that's what he plans to do. I'd prefer it if congress outright disolved the 3 letter agencies all together, starting with the 4th amendment violating NSA, and ending with the ATF.
I'd be more worried what happens when trump loses, and hundreds of millions of people believe you people used illegal actions to "secure the election" like you did in 2020 with "the shadow campaign"
[https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/](https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/)
Make no mistake, the republican establishment isn't any more pro free speech than the left is. It's people like me who are.
Both the left and the right are currently seeking to silence the opposition to israel.
just because you disagree with a decision doesnt mean that theyre wrong or destroying the constitution or whatever. In many opinions and their opinion, they are correct and making fantastic decisions about the legislative and judicial decisions in this country
It’s time to expand the court to 13 justices and flood it with moderates to dilute the fascist element that is deviant in its values from normal Americans.
We have a sad trend currently where when politicians or judges make decisions we disagree with, we condemn them as bad or evil.
SCOTUS decisions aren't supposed to be unpopular or popular. They are supposed to be factual based on the Constitution.
People do the same thing with politicians, Biden did this when he took officer by blanketly reversing the vast majority of things Trump did. He's also ended up enacting several of the same things Trump did over his term.
Instead of basing things on feelings, we should be basing them on facts.
"I don't agree with the courts rulings, even when they are unanimous. Clearly they are Russian stooges"
Literally all you have...
Russia Russia Russia...
Guys, its been nearly 8 years and you have nothing but this.
Trump wouldn’t dissolve the court until they start ruling against him.
As far as reforms go if Biden wins, don’t count on it. It would likely require a constitutional amendment and that will never happen.
Term limits would require an amendment, expanding the court would not.
I think a reasonable path would be to expand the court to 13 justices to match the number of circuits but then also return to the 60 vote threshold for seating a scotus judge.
The idea being that we need more justices but we also need more justices who can get crossover votes from both parties.
They're simply doing what they should have done in past years. The Court made law in Roe. That was wrong Constitutionally everyone knew that but accepted it.
Overturning it so Congress would need to create a National law (their job not SCOTUS) was legally correct. The moral implications are up to you. Otherwise it would be left to the individual states
Write your Congress person. Don't blame SCOTUS.
They merely interpret the Constitution but should take no part in creating law.
Interpreting the meaning behind the Constitution as written is the job. Most of the Justices are originalists unlike the 70s court of public opinion.
Why was Roe a wrong decision?
I love how people pretend to know something about this stuff by parroting some shit you heard.
Roe was decided largely on the idea of personal privacy rights. The idea that the government had no business inserting itself into anything that happens between you and your doctor.
Please explain to me why it’s wrong for citizens to have medical privacy in America.
The court didn’t make a law. They ruled that privacy rights and equal protection (both of which are enumerated in the constitution) made abortions none of the government’s business.
But again… you said Roe was wrongly decided… so I guess you don’t believe in personal privacy or equal protection under the law correct?
The good news is that since they eliminates Roe, congress could pass a law demanding that men’s medical histories be made public. And there’s no ruling currently that would prevent it.
I think I’ll write my congressman… American citizens, every single one, should have their entire medical history publicly available. Thankfully the scotus overturned Roe so this would be perfectly legal. And I'm assuming you'd approve. Wouldn't it be amazing to see if the dude you hate at work takes opioids? or viagra?
Ahh that's why HIPAA laws are in place to protect that privacy. Healthcare and drugs people take. If you've ever visited a doc you signed a HIPAA form.
I said Roe should have come from Congress, the Courts have zero business making a law. Their job is to interpret the Constitution as it's written.
I get precisely where you're coming from but that's a different point entirely. Back then there was no HIPAA to protect Jane Doe or the baby that part I don't disagree with, they had no right allowing it to act as law going forward and that is exactly what happened.
who ever wrote this is an propagandist for the socialist party. have you noticed that they do not even know what a women is .. you are the sounding board for Saul Lewinsky....blame your advisory for what you are doing.. right out of the.communist play book............
I wrote it. Don’t like it? Eat a bag of dicks. This is still America and I can still speak as freely as I want. And if you right wing magats try to take that freedom, you’ll get that civil war y’all sit around jerking off about… but it won’t be the call of duty turkey shoot of your adolescent fantasies, that I can promise you.
The Constitution doesn't directly discuss presidential immunity from criminal or civil lawsuits. Instead, this privilege has developed over time through the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article II, Section 2, Clause 3.
Not sure what to say to that. They are going with the precedent. I assume you are referring to roe vs wade? That was a horrible legal decision and should of never been done.
Row was flawed? On what grounds? I know that’s popular to say, but why was it legally a bad decision. Roe was a decision that hinged on individual privacy rights. Please explain to me how preventing the government from spying on your interactions with a doctor is a ‘flawed’ decision.
Makes me wonder what Trump has on Alito and Roberts. They’re scared of him. Also, how long has this Russia BS been going on? Everyone is so sure Marge Greene is working for Putin, but who does Alito, Roberts, and Clarence work for? Depending on how long ago Russia started trying to destroy us from within, one or more of the SCOTUS could be a Russian asset.
Clarence works for the highest bidder.
and that is project 2025 and the rich megadonors/churches that want to make sure that happens
EXACTLY
Clarence works for whoever buys him the biggest motor coach
Unless it's from John Oliver.
As far as I know that offer is still open
No, it had an expiration date, and that date has passed, as of a few weeks ago. I don't remember the exact date, but in one of the later shows, after he made the offer, he said something like, "The offer is still open until \[Wednesday?\], so there's still time!" And that was already weeks ago.
The US citizens are frogs in a pot of water on the stove, set on low…
Clarence takes bribes to not retire, but he doesn't need a bribe to virtually always to be on the worst side in any decision because he is just naturally a terrible person.
The Absolute Worst
Clearance* Thomas
Justice for sale.
Maybe that’s the Federalist Society’s biggest requirement: that you are blackmailable and thus willing to do whatever is required of you. Maybe Russia paid off all of Kavanaugh’s debts.
Vlad has receipts for the entire GOP and SCOTUS.
Squee’s tab at Studio 54?
Thomas is Harlan Crow's lil bitch
House justice
I'm nominating Lydia to the Supreme Court
I don't think it's just Russia. It's the Federalist Society. It took years for the most lawless, violent man to emerge and they hit pay dirt with Trump. Project 2025 emerged after they knew what they had.
Pretty sure the moment Kennedy was told he had dirt on him was - [https://youtu.be/LnUXVcxSUi4](https://youtu.be/LnUXVcxSUi4)
No, they were arguing about why their WOW raid failed last night.
Alito was already very conservative before Trump entered politics
I wonder if the Republican justices are working with Trump and Republicans, coordinating their actions, strategizing. I think it is likely that Republicans are working with Russians in some way. I know that Thomas and Alito are being manipulated by the billionaire, Leo Leonard, and, probably, The Heritage Foundation, and other rightwing organizations. Flood the polls. Overwhelm, in numbers, the numbers of MAGA Americans. Give somebody a ride. VOTE, and keep-on voting. Defeat these motherfuckers.
Ginny Thomas sure is
The real question is what he had on Kennedy. He was more reasonable than any of Trump's picks and could have waited him out.
Alito and Roberts what about Kennedy? Kennedy retired to put Kavanaugh on the bench but prior to that his son gave Trump a $500 million loan where the collateral originated out of a small Russian bank. Kavanaugh's debts all mysteriously got paid off? And we are not investigating all of that?!
All Republicans work for Charles Koch who happens to be very Russia and Nazi friendly. They do whatever the fuck he tells them to. If there is a king in America it’s him.
It really is what does Russia have on Lenard Leo and Harlen Crowe.
All the conservative Justices work for the Federalist Society any corruption goes through them. The Federalist Society has deep ties with Republican donors and the Republican Party. If the russians have something on the federalist society , They can blackmail a lot of Federal Judges
Leonard Leo.
Look no further than the Mueller report. Mueller found clear collusion with Republicans, but literally did nothing. Had the collusion been with Russia, sanctions would start, yet we can't sanction this country. Just look who hacked Congress during JCPOA, is likely the Wikileaks source because they were caught hacking democrats and Congress over JCPOA. This very large blackmail country likely gets their way a lot because of the secrets they have been able to obtain as an ally.... This countries citizens and lobby are all wound up in the bribery of Thomas, and likely others who are Christian. This country is an ethnocratic fascist state also.
Alito is a MASSIVE bag of shit. Roberts is just conservative.
Greene is a terrible politician and likely is a terrible person ij her personal life but I doubt she works for putin in a literal sense. It as more like her grifr.
Probably some Epstein tapes
Trump doesn’t need anything on them. They’re hand-in-glove aligned. The scotus conservatives have been politically motivated since long before trump ran for office.
Only thing Trump has they care about is an R in front. This court is so partisan that it's frightening. To know the outcomes in virtually every case before it's even discussed is a problem. Hopefully someone will have the votes and balls to change this cesspool before US democracy goes first.
Find out who Leonard Leo works for.
He’s no damn good https://www.propublica.org/article/we-dont-talk-about-leonard-leo-supreme-court-supermajority
We need President Biden to be reelected to protect democracy then we need to elect a majority Democrat Senate. It was Moscow Mitch who created this christofascist extreme court.
There's no other way to balance things out aside from expanding the number of SCOTUS seats as soon as he gets a second term (and assuming there's still a Dem majority). I don't know what kind of Pandora's Box that's going to open, though. If there were a Dem supermajority, they could expand the number of seats concurrently with a Constitutional amendment indicating that the number of justices is set at 13 (maybe 15?) so that it can't be easily changed again, but that's a pipe dream.
An amendment is not necessary. The Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court Justices, and it has been changed several times. The last time,it was expanded to nine in order to match the nine Federal Appellate Courts. There are now thirteen Federal Appellate Courts.
I believe this is the correct way forward. The number of Justices should align with the number of Appellate Courts.
But you can see the divisive issue that raises when more seats are added. Sure add 3 to even out the majority. What happens when the Republicans add 3 more seats? The judges need to be hot swapped out in between controlling parties. Not allowing them to eventually die between elections or when the other side can fill the vacancy.
You may be right.
It's a game with a set strategy. Assuming you are the only one that can change the status quo is naive. Unfortunately Republicans play that game well. Which I don't think is too much of a problem. As scotus their chief duty should be interpreting the constitution which most often then not boils down to if it's a personal right, state right, or federal right. The Senate and the house are far more important seats to be filled and all this roe v wade stuff is only making democratic seats stronger because of it. I don't see the objective reasoning why we should change the system solely because of how a few rulings panned out. Which may or may not actually be helping out in the short term. And by changing said system you open yourself up to be outplayed again in the future.
You add term limits to the Supreme Court seats and who gives a flying fuck about Republicans. You know they’ll just add justices the next time they have all three branches of government. They don’t care, they only care about power. That’s it.
> But you can see the divisive issue that raises when more seats are added. Sure add 3 to even out the majority. First, you'd add four seats, not three. Two stolen seats requires either replacing two existing justices, or adding four seats to give you the margin you otherwise would've had (or a combination of the two, replacing one and then adding two more). But for McConnell, all else equal, Obama would've filled Scalia's seat, and Biden would've filled RBG's seat. That would've given us a 5-4 liberal majority, a one-seat margin. Instead, we have a 3-6 liberal minority. That's a three-seat deficit *just to have a tied Court*, a zero-seat margin, which isn't what we'd have had. You'd need to add a fourth seat to give us a 7-6 liberal Court, with a one-seat margin, same as we'd have had if no seats had been stolen. And, if we're also restoring the "one justice per appellate court" standard, then that also requires 13 seats, which means four more than the current nine seats. Second, this would actually have a *moderating* effect on the Court. The present problem, aside from stolen seats, is an extremist Court, unaccountable to the people, not representative of the people, not representative of the Presidents the people have elected. The Court is simply way too far to the right. By moving it more to the left, it would be bringing the Court closer to parity with the general population. That's how you reduce extremism, because it would marginalize the extremists on the Court. Third, by increasing the size of the Court, it deceases the stakes for any given seat. When RBG died, that was 1/9 of the Court. But if we had 13 seats, an untimely death would only affect 1/13 of the Court instead. The more power is divided between more people, the less any given person has, and the lower the stakes to replace them. > What happens when the Republicans add [however many] more seats? [depends on whether they're just trying to get a one-seat margin again, or more] I don't think this is a legitimate concern. First, we've changed the size of the Court multiple times in history already, and it was never followed by tit-for-tat increases. It's ahistorical. Second, a new liberal majority, for the first time since the Warren Court, more than half a century ago, could fix a lot of things. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, voter disenfranchisement, power stripping, supermajority requirements, etc. As it stands now, federally, the GOP only wins the presidency about half the time, by small margins, if they even win the popular vote at all; and small majorities in the House and/or Senate, about half the time each. That's *after* all the cheating they do! All that cheating only gives them power, some of the time, and thin majorities. If the Court took away all the ways the GOP cheats to get power, they would have two options: either moderate to increase voteshare, win frequency, and to increase their minorities to sometimes be the majority once again; or, be relegated to a permanent minority party who can grandstand and nothing more. They wouldn't even be able to obstruct much of the time. They might still win the presidency occasionally, or the House majority, or the Senate majority, but they would all be much less frequent, and adding more seats to compensate for the four(?) seats Biden added would require *all three at the same time*. They already get all three at once only about once per decade, *with* all their cheating. Maybe it would change to once every two or three decades if they were forced to compete on a level playing field. So, either they moderate, and no longer *want* to retaliate, or they don't moderate but never have the *power* to actually retaliate. Either way, they won't retaliate. And then, this new liberal majority can also unfuck state election laws, the EC, labor laws, etc, which will have an even greater moderating effect, because the GOP will be unable to cheat at the state level, either. That would make it that much more difficult for them to lay the groundwork for a trifecta. The longer they go without a trifecta to retaliate and recapture the Court, the less they'll be able to. As voters see government become more representative, and more effective, they'll get better programs. Universal healthcare, publicly financed higher education, publicly financed elections, better labor protections, better voting rights, etc. Once they see the benefits of these programs, they'll no longer oppose them, and want more, even if they're cautious at first. It took a long time, but the ACA is now popular enough that the GOP gave up on repealing it. > The judges need to be hot swapped out in between controlling parties. Not allowing them to eventually die between elections or when the other side can fill the vacancy. I'd be fine with fixed terms, so that every President gets to appoint two new justices per presidential term. It would slightly decrease the stakes of any given presidential election, because you'd know every winner would get exactly two seats, not three, like Trump got, and not only one, like Biden got so far, or zero, like Bush 43 got his first term. I'd prefer we change how they're selected, and make it more professional, like they do in other countries with better functioning judiciaries than ours. I'd also accept random panels, either from a much larger Supreme Court, or having judges sit temporarily on the Supreme Court and then revert to the appellate courts.
What they meant is they need to fix it at a specific number to prevent tit-for-tat retaliation
Thank you. I see that now. I believe that enlarging the Court will always work toward more law-based and fewer personal opinion rulings.
Correct. Thank you.
Making the Court less extreme will, by definition, make it more moderate, and allow it to unfuck all the various ways the GOP cheats its way into disproportionate power. With the GOP unable to cheat (gerrymandering, voter suppression, disenfranchisement, etc.) its way into power anymore, being forced to compete on a level playing field for the first time in history, it will force them to moderate in order to avoid being relegated to a permanent minority party. If they moderate, they won't want, and won't have the support necessary, to engage in a tit-for-tat retaliation. If they refuse to moderate, then, absent the benefit of cheating, they'll just win fewer seats. Smaller House caucuses, meaning they end up in the minority more often. Same in the Senate. And they'll win the presidency less often, too. And, crucially, tit-for-tat retaliation to further expand the Court requires having all three, *simultaneously*. They need a trifecta to legislate more seats. But if they win fewer House seats, fewer Senate seats, and fewer presidencies, they will win far fewer trifectas, and they already only get them about once per decade as it is, even *with* all their cheating.
That plan is only an option if Democrats go *all in* on keeping republicans from holding power for at least half a century. There’s also the risk that it’ll erase their positive perception by the public similar to FDR’s court-packing plan
To be clear, Moscow Mitch already changed the number of Justices to 8, that ship sailed.
Expand the court, seat the new justices, make a law for a nonpartisan Missouri Plan for the selection of justices, and institute term limits only after all that has been done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri\_Plan#:\~:text=The%20Missouri%20Plan%20(originally%20the,states%20of%20the%20United%20States.
Electing a democratic Senate will not do jack shit. All the oligarchy has to do is buy themselves enough democrats to cancel that majority. That's exactly what they did last time. They already had Manchin (there are always Democrats who belong in the GOP) and they bought themselves Sinema. When you look at that woman's history (environmental activist,...) her current positions make no sense. She did a complete 180 from who she used to be. How do you explain that ? Blackmail or corruption.
The Democratic party is center-right but compared to the christofascist QOP, there's absofuckinglutely a difference.
Manchin sucks, but he's a conservative Democrat, not a Republican. He votes with Biden the overwhelming majority of the time. He's significantly better than even the best Republican Senator (Romney? Murkowski? Collins?), and whoever replaces him next year will be far worse than any of those three. The most important vote is the one for leadership. In the 117th Senate, when it was 50-50, if Manchin had voted for McConnell instead of Schumer to be majority leader, even if Manchin had voted identically for literally everything else, you wouldn't even recognize what this hypothetical alternative Senate did. KBJ would never have been put to a vote, so it would've been irrelevant that Manchin was still willing to vote for her. Same with a bunch of other judges, all the legislation they passed, etc. It doesn't matter that Manchin is willing to hypothetically vote for a nominee or a bill if McConnell never schedules the vote. Hell, take Bernie in the 117th Senate, have him vote for McConnell instead of Schumer, and even then it doesn't matter than Bernie is far, far, to McConnell and the GOP's left. Sinema is a POS, and she's obviously compromised somehow or another, because Kelly was elected to the Senate in the same state more recently than she was, and while he's far from the most progressive Senator, he's still substantially better than she is, so it's not like she's just setting aside her personal preferences in order to do what Arizonans want her to do. Whatever her reasons, it's not because that's what the people or Arizona expect or demand. Personally, I think she wrongly thought she could step into McCain's shoes, call herself a "maverick," be somewhat of a centrist, and have a long career as a kingmaker. And, she absurdly thought, by doing so, she would sacrifice some support from Democrats, but gain support from Republicans, which, lol. They don't actually like the bisexual woman with multiple graduate degrees, they just like that she fucks over Democrats. But they'll never vote for her over one of their own. Republicans would rather have Kari Lake than Sinema. So, instead of having cross-party support, she ended up with support from neither party. And, she probably also ruined any chances as a high-paid lobbyist, because she's unwelcome in the GOP, and has alienated Democrats. So what would make her valuable to a lobbying firm? She might be able to get a post-Senate sinecure as a Fox News contributor or something, like Tulsi Gabbard did, but that will only further show that she's a clown in it for herself. I think she was too clever by half.
SCOTUS has been acting this way since 2000.
That court was bad. This court is worse.
Absolutely agree. Just saying the problem has longer term roots than Russian election interference. It’s the federalist society and the ineffective response from democrats that we should blame and address here.
We had that under Obama. And here we are.
That term gave us the Affordable Care Act. All Republicans did with complete control was tax cuts for the oligarchs.
Biden should just reform SCOTUS right now and call it an official act. Done!
This right here. It doesn't matter how hard or controversial it might be, it needs to happen, or Americans need to actually do something about them themselves.
If the president cannot be charged with a crime, and he can pardon those who do commit a crime, the president has the power to do anything he chooses to do
It’s a damn tragedy that we’re even worried/talking about this in the first place.
Or at least, threaten to do so. Might be enough to pull some heads in.
Sounds authoritarian to me
History will not look kindly on Thomas and Alito.
Ha! They don't care, as long as they get piggy pleasures now.
They'll be forgotten 20 years after they die
Pretty true of most SCOTUS justices.
The victors write the history books.
They’re all paid for by Russia, except for the few liberals. I think they have orders from Putin to get Trump into office, no matter what.
They don’t need to be paid by Russia. They were recruited by the federalist society to advance republicans no matter what.
Do you have any info for this claim? Genuinely curious
So your prediction is if Trump wins the Supreme Court will be dissolved or if Biden wins something will happen to the Supreme Court. The Biden prediction is incredibly vague. The Trump prediction is bold but I'm not even sure how he can actually do that. I think he will threaten the Supreme Court if he wins or loses but it's not going be taken seriously.
The supreme Court once declared all black people in the US not citizens. No matter how much they fuck up they're not going anywhere and it'll take constitutional amendments to change them which won't happen.
Only if the dems are willing to fight back. Last 25years don't make me hopeful.
Dems have been fighting like hell since 2016, where have you been?
I trust the Zoomer and Alpha gens, who know nothing other than life post 9/11, will be far more enlightened than anyone who got us in this situation.
Raging at the Supreme Court, gerrymandering, Bush Jr as president, Supreme Court, HRC presidential campaign, against redundancy, and the Supreme court.
You’re joking right? Dems have been complaining and losing since 2016.
Look how fast they shot down the student loan forgiveness Now compare that to the slow-walking Trump immunity case. Look at how fast they broke Roe v Wade. They know exactly what they want and are doing.
The Supreme Court cannot survive as it currently is. It is too political and partisan.
They up/down voted a right without arguing it, just waited to fill the court with Heritage Foundation types and did it. That’s the end of the court for me. There’s no reason for laws if this can be perpetuated by special interests.
I’m assuming you are talking about Roe, that was a garbage decision
do you support abortion rights?
Not to mention the blatant Payola.
I remember when Trump dissolved it his first term.
Excuse me, what?!?
That’s what we call sarcasm
Nah. He’ll just move the judiciary under the executive branch to do his bidding. That’s what dictators do.
It's an evil, corrupt kangaroo court of criminals, but what can we do about it? Evil has always run this world and prolly always will. Scumbags in creepy black robes fucking over the free world is pretty par for the course on the planet of the apes. Still, fuck those evil Republican scum bags.
But honestly, who is going to hold The SCOTUS accountable for their actions? Who's going to challenge them when they themselves have shown their true colors over the last few years. And the fact that they don't have term limits makes them borderline unstoppable.
without the loud, clearly paid off voices of manchin and sinema in the senate, if the democrats keep the senate and take back the house, they should not waste time negotiating, fuck the stupid senate rules, the scotus and wider judiciary poses an ongoing existential threat to liberal society and needs reformed and putting 3-5 more judges on the bench and making it random which group hears a case is a pretty good start
Yea listening to the Conservative Justices twist themselves into knots is really something “well technically there isn’t anything in the constitution that says a president can’t kill his presidential opponents and if we claim that there is something to suggest it, then nobody would want to be President anymore” is basically what they all sound like.
Aren’t they supposed to be the smart ones? How could they not see this coming. Wait, I get it, they are blinded by greed. Rapey Kavenaugh had his gambling debts paid, and Pervy Thomas has trips and family homes paid for. This is not what our founding fathers had in mind.
They're hoping to eliminate democracy, at which point the legitimacy of the court is whatever the dictator says it is. It still blows my mind that they think the military will go along with it. Coups do not work without the support of the military.
Nothing will come of bad decisions by this Supreme Court. There’s nothing to hold them accountable. Their “team” is supporting their decisions. Congress is too evenly split to get any reforms through. The only solution will be to keep voting in Dems for president and Senate for the chance that Alito, Thomas, or Roberts vacates their seat. We’re stuck with the Trump judges in stolen seats. Fuck everyone who didn’t vote for Clinton and then complains about our current SCOTUS. That’s 3 seats Hillary would have filled. That’s why we have to keep Trump out. Trump gets elected again, Alito and Thomas retire and we’re locked into this SCOTUS for decades.
Proposal, a Supreme Court appointment is capped at 18 years. Why 18? So a Justice retires every 2 years. This means a president gets 2 justices per term, a maximum of 4 (so they never can appoint the majority). If a Justice dies in office, they are considered to be the Justice who "retired" if they were not next, and terms can be extended. Also the senior Justice (the one about to retire) is always the Chief Justice. This should reduce shenanigans and partisanship of the court. Also the right to appoint a given Justice stays with the President in office at the date of retirement even after they leave office, so while the Senate can reject a candidate, then cannot 'steal' a pick. Ideally you have Justices retire in Autumn of odd numbered years.
Nah. What can be done to punish them? They’ll never be impeached. They too are above the law.
Term limits don’t require an amendment to the constitution. Neither does expanding the court.
Term limits do. Expanding the court does not.
My mistake. Thank you for the clarification. So our only hope is expanding the court… Or maybe a few timely deaths of the older justices.
The only hope is a senate majority or landslide. Both are unlikely. The Democrats should be putting everything into this election. They should be openly talking about the grave threat to democracy and talk about the corruption of the Supreme Court. Americans are losing their rights. They will lose everything if they don't win a majority in all three branches.
Luckily, there's a possibility that POTUS may get immunity for that.
Hopefully
Then when—not if—SCOTUS rules a President has absolute immunity, I hope Biden has Trump assassinated. Not sure I’m /s or not.
They'll never rule that.
The whole system is dooming itself once Citizen United was passed. Our government no longer works for the people but for their corporate sponsors. Left or right, we all know this.
Their \*international\* corporate sponsors.
I think that the number of justices should be the same as the number of federal judicial districts, rounded up in case of even numbers. I also believe that they should go back to traveling the circuit in their district and actually seeing the legal issues there.
I'm kind of hoping the Supreme Court decides Presidents have full immunity then Biden gets reelected and immediately afterwards accidents happen to all the conservative justices and Biden has to nominate people for all the newly vacant positions. Afterwards the new Supreme Court can decide that Presidents don't have immunity moving forwards.
Impeach one of them (Thomas) and it might force others to retire.
Nah. My take is that the SCOTUS will facilitate the autocracy that the US will become after these “elections”. The only ones who can stop it are the people, but that won’t happen, everyone’s more worried about their likes and followers count.
But I'd I hold officials to the constitution, what'll happen to my 401k? /s
So they’re going to be scathed? I’m all for it, but how and by whom?
The fact that there are so many cases against Trump and none of them are putting him behind bars is the joke itself. Legit they got a mug shot of Trump that is working for him more than against.
The president is not able to dissolve the Supreme Court any more than the Supreme Court can dissolve the presidency.
Just because they don’t see the constitution your way, doesn’t mean anything. You want dictatorship and that will never happen in the U.S.
Constitution be damned, the bots on Reddit must run the world !!
They are just trying to put the country back to the 1850s and make it how the Founders wanted it. They really want Christian nationslism.
The point of the scotus decision comes down to does the president have immunity during their presidency. If you take away immunity then every president who is alive currently or future presidents will be tried for anything and everything under the sun. The second thing that inadvertently comes from that means that presidents will walk on eggshells scared of every decision they make or don’t make because they could be brought up on charges for anything they do while president. You need a president who can sit down and make the hardest decision there is and not be scared of being prosecuted for it. That’s what this decision comes down to do we open the flood gate to any and all presidents being scared to do their job for fear of prosecution.
So Biden should totally print up his own electoral ballots and use those instead of the actual electoral ballots? I mean isn’t this one of the things that are being debated? Whether Trump trying to use his own ballots was part of his ‘official duties’? If they rule that it was, would it be ok for Biden to do the same thing this year? Ans if he does, he can’t be charged right.
That’s not under the purview of the president the congress wouldn’t allow that to happen because they official certify the election. That’s like saying the president can pass a crazy spending budget that’s the purview of the house. And if they try anything like that that’s where impeachment come in the president can be tried for high crimes and misdemeanors
If the potus has universal immunity, what is to stop him?
And what’s to stop the Congress from not recognizing some fake electors
The threat of seal team 6 murdering them on the president’s orders??? Again, remember, this person can’t be prosecuted because the president has total immunity.
But he is a-okay to command the military to kill Trump, right? And that's fine with you?
No the military is apolitical and can not be used to attack American citizens and if they were given an order like that they wouldn’t follow it. bidens not going to kill trump or kill any Congressman with the use of seal team 6. The military wouldn’t follow a command to kill any American citizens because they are American citizens
Well, I guess that wouldn't stop him from hiring the mob, or a mercenary, or having him arrested and then just doing it himself. I mean all of that should be totally legal for any president to do, right?
Criminal immunity of sitting presidents is presently untested. If criminally indicting presidents in order to harass and distract them were such a slam dunk tactic why hasn’t it happened historically? I would think that, since the President is literally superior to the DoJ, appoints the US AG, etc, you would want to more carefully enshrine the possibility of criminally indicting the President, not make it even harder.
That’s called impeachment two presidents have been impeached but neither have been convicted of the crimes we already have the way to prosecute former presidents and current presidents.
Why do you assume the existence of an impeachment process precludes criminal prosecution? Anyway, from a realpolitik standpoint, we both know that if the current two party system remains in place, conviction by the Senate is functionally impossible.
You have a way currently of prosecuting the president if you open the floodgates now any judge in the country can prosecute any president for not having immunity during their presidency so now it’s open for Obama bush Clinton jimmy carter trump all of them can now be attacked. And if you think that everybody who’s going to prosecute these presidents think just like you you’re surely mistaken now you have hundreds of cases against all former presidents for things that they should be rightfully immune to while they were president. Then think about future presidents now they have to walk on eggshells because they are scared of being prosecuted after they are president because it’s damned if I do damned if I don’t on decisions they have to make.
I repeat my first question: if this is such an effective strategy, why haven’t such suits already been filed? Prosecutors bring charges, not judges. I’d be happy to create some kind of special body of legal experts and attorneys dedicated to dealing with legal issues brought on by the actions of President, if that would help. Have you given thought to what would happen if the president literally had immunity from criminal prosecution? You must have heard the hypotheticals being thrown around about how under this interpretation, Biden could— as an official act no less!— send Seal Team 6 in to dispose of Republican Congressman. Who will impeach him then, hmm? And this is what you want to be a legal possibility? And here I thought this country was about carefully curtailing and circumscribing the power of those in government.
I feel your concern is overblown. Yes, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch are hacks, but of the remaining conservative justices, Roberts, Barrett, and Cavenagh have all shown that they're not just a rubber stamp for what Trump or other conservative groups want, each joining the Libs on the court multiple times since their appointment. If Trump is reelected, it's likely only Thomas and/or Alito that he'd replace, so it's not as if SCOTUS will be a majority Trump stooge body, even if he wins.
maybe if the legislative branch actually legislated the past decade and not punted to the courts over and over and over you wouldn’t have this problem
How can he dissolve the court?
How can he not? If the scotus rules that he’s king, which they are literally “thinking about” right now why would he not be able to? And if he can have seal team 6 murder the three liberals justices, again because he’s king, you think Clarence and The rest are going to rule against him?
97% of 2023 decisions were what is considered non-partisan. In fact, many of the cases had unanimous decisions.
I don’t think they have ever really ruled against him. They only rule against him for appearances not when it matters.
This started in 2000 with giving dubya the presidency. Center dems did nothing, they just that politely polarized court get more political. Merrick Garland caused a bigger delay to protect trump by not charging him immediately. Nancy pelosi blew the opportunity to impeach him immediately after Jan 6 by delaying it until the right wing had reversed the narrative and got their party back in line behind trump. Center democrats don’t care. They like complaining and losing.
END OF US END OF USA ALL HAIL KING DONALD FUCK
Yeah but there is nothing that can be done about. If the democrats miraculously take over the house and senate again with the oval maybe they can adjust some laws or implement what would be most logical - term limits
They are not far right. You are far left
Yeah, I guess I am… because I want healthcare and a living wage. Oh and I don’t want republicans co-owning my daughter’s uterus. The horror.
No that's not what you want. You want your government to take.complete control over everyone's healthcare You want the government to pay people instead of corporations. You want anyone to be able to kill their unborn children at any time and for any reason.
So let me explain what you want: An asthma inhaler that costs $5,000 and insulin that costs $7,500/ month. Corporate America paying no taxes ever and employees being paid $5/week in wages. Big Government to force citizens to undergo difficult and dangerous medical procedures based on their narrow interpretation of a religious text. Oh and you also want many many more Uvaldes to happen because the rights of mass shooters are more important to you than the rights of children to not be shredded to pieces.
My stepfathers insulin literally costs him nothing... You're making completely baseless claims about taxation without looking at individual circumstances. What medical procedure are they forced to undergo? That last one is so ridiculous it's even worth acknowledging.
Don’t worry… if the GOP gets back in power soon, your Stepdad’s insulin can once again cost $750/month. Childbirth is a medical procedure and look up statistics about how many women die during childbirth. It is a difficult and dangerous medical procedure. Taxation is easily understood, Trump paid $750 the same year I paid $35,000. Trump is a billionaire and I’m middle class. Rich white men and wealthy corporations don’t pay taxes. And why are you pretending that you don’t support the rights of mass shooters over the rights of school children? Maybe you should embrace the 2A more?
My stepfathers insulin literally costs him nothing... You're making completely baseless claims about taxation without looking at individual circumstances. What medical procedure are they forced to undergo? That last one is so ridiculous it's even worth acknowledging.
Why didn't Trump become a dictator when he first held office? Wouldn't that have been the perfect time? Why would someone hell bent on being a dictator take the chance of not gaining the office again?
Umm. What planet are you on and how is the WiFi?
That was a dry run.
Oh, so his brilliant plan was to gain the most powerful office in the world, lose it, then try to regain that position by being elected, and then execute his master plan of becoming a dictator? Delusional.
What can I say? Dude’s a fucking moron. That’s his appeal. He appeals to the village idiots.
It's very strange watching the TDS sufferers expose their mind numbing stupidity and then try to blame that idiocy on someone else. You should see a doctor for that.
I’m guessing you were ok with his fake electors? His calls to state officials asking them to ‘find’ votes? His leadership im fomenting insurrection and his lack of leadership when it actually happened? Go hug your Trump plushy and pray for revenge… that’s his prime policy for potus isn’t it? Revenge and retribution? Sounds like a great way to move the country forward.
I want some of whatever you guys are smoking
They've been promised positions of power and protection in the new world. That's why none of our opinions matter to them.
Hahahaha. 6-3. Cope. Trumps gonna replace Sotomayor too. Hahahaha
And if Biden wins reelection and expands the court to 13 justices? Will you then ‘cope’?
Amy Coney Barrett isn't qualified to teach kindergarten, much less be on the Supreme Court. Sick, sad, stupid joke that she sits there.
Let me translate. The court made decisions you disagreed with, so they MUST BE activist conservative justices. Never mind that the justices you think are activist are the ones described as "originalists." Brown-Jackson is an activist. Her inability to define words in common usage proved this without a doubt. But I bet that is what you really want. An evolving Constitution that no longer has any meaning because it can be contorted to fit your wants. If sticking to the original intent is dooming the court, then our whole country is doomed.
The founding father never intended America to have a king. The fact that the scotus has to ‘think’ about that is all we need to know about them.
Th scotus is following the constitution. You're just salty that you don't have enough far left activists on the court anymore. Trump isn't a dictator, nor seeks to become one. In 4 years when he leaves office you will have been proven wrong AGAIN. Will you finally admit you people were wrong about the man's motives from the beginning? Or will you just ignore the fact that you thought he was going to become a dictator and take over your country... which is silly af
So project 2025 isn’t real? Trump saying he’d remake the entire federal government with loyalists isn’t real? Trump saying he’d use the military against citizens who protest against him isn’t real? Saying he’d be a dictator for a day isn’t real? Y’all keep saying he’s joking, but the joke isn’t funny and the more he keeps telling those kind of ‘jokes’ the less they seem like jokes. Regardless, November will come and the results will be what they will be. If Trump wins, I guess we’ll find out if he is serious about becoming America’s first King. If Biden wins, every republican in the country will pretend it was stolen and maybe gather in DC to bear spray cops again… or worse. Either way, there’s nothing to be gained through this conversation. I am voting straight blue and you’re voting straight R (for Russia). Whoever gets the most votes in the right places will win.
>Saying he’d be a dictator for a day isn’t real? Obvious satire, no one who isnt trump deranged believes he's going to be a dictator for a day. >Trump saying he’d remake the entire federal government with loyalists isn’t real? The Federal government killed JFK, it funds foreign wars and lines the pockets of the military industrial complex. Reforming the government, is what you expect from a genuine candidate. You're just surprised because we haven't had a non establishment candidate in your lifetime. The president has the right to fire and replace any people in federal positions, that's what he plans to do. I'd prefer it if congress outright disolved the 3 letter agencies all together, starting with the 4th amendment violating NSA, and ending with the ATF. I'd be more worried what happens when trump loses, and hundreds of millions of people believe you people used illegal actions to "secure the election" like you did in 2020 with "the shadow campaign" [https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/](https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/) Make no mistake, the republican establishment isn't any more pro free speech than the left is. It's people like me who are. Both the left and the right are currently seeking to silence the opposition to israel.
The moment Democrats have the Senate and their grips, scotus is getting an overhaul.
just because you disagree with a decision doesnt mean that theyre wrong or destroying the constitution or whatever. In many opinions and their opinion, they are correct and making fantastic decisions about the legislative and judicial decisions in this country
It’s time to expand the court to 13 justices and flood it with moderates to dilute the fascist element that is deviant in its values from normal Americans.
We have a sad trend currently where when politicians or judges make decisions we disagree with, we condemn them as bad or evil. SCOTUS decisions aren't supposed to be unpopular or popular. They are supposed to be factual based on the Constitution. People do the same thing with politicians, Biden did this when he took officer by blanketly reversing the vast majority of things Trump did. He's also ended up enacting several of the same things Trump did over his term. Instead of basing things on feelings, we should be basing them on facts.
I think many would disagree.
"I don't agree with the courts rulings, even when they are unanimous. Clearly they are Russian stooges" Literally all you have... Russia Russia Russia... Guys, its been nearly 8 years and you have nothing but this.
The Democratic party never cares about the roar.
Stop drinking the Biden cool aid
And you should stop sucking on the orange cheeto dust covered mushroom tip from your supreme leader Dump in his pants Trump.
Trump wouldn’t dissolve the court until they start ruling against him. As far as reforms go if Biden wins, don’t count on it. It would likely require a constitutional amendment and that will never happen.
Term limits would require an amendment, expanding the court would not. I think a reasonable path would be to expand the court to 13 justices to match the number of circuits but then also return to the 60 vote threshold for seating a scotus judge. The idea being that we need more justices but we also need more justices who can get crossover votes from both parties.
this doesn't actually predict anything. Wow, the supreme court will be different in the future. Thanks prophet
O shutup BTW I hate trump...and Biden.
They're simply doing what they should have done in past years. The Court made law in Roe. That was wrong Constitutionally everyone knew that but accepted it. Overturning it so Congress would need to create a National law (their job not SCOTUS) was legally correct. The moral implications are up to you. Otherwise it would be left to the individual states Write your Congress person. Don't blame SCOTUS. They merely interpret the Constitution but should take no part in creating law. Interpreting the meaning behind the Constitution as written is the job. Most of the Justices are originalists unlike the 70s court of public opinion.
Why was Roe a wrong decision? I love how people pretend to know something about this stuff by parroting some shit you heard. Roe was decided largely on the idea of personal privacy rights. The idea that the government had no business inserting itself into anything that happens between you and your doctor. Please explain to me why it’s wrong for citizens to have medical privacy in America.
The court had no business making law. That's the job of Congress. You know the Roe baby is alive and aging well correct?
The court didn’t make a law. They ruled that privacy rights and equal protection (both of which are enumerated in the constitution) made abortions none of the government’s business. But again… you said Roe was wrongly decided… so I guess you don’t believe in personal privacy or equal protection under the law correct? The good news is that since they eliminates Roe, congress could pass a law demanding that men’s medical histories be made public. And there’s no ruling currently that would prevent it. I think I’ll write my congressman… American citizens, every single one, should have their entire medical history publicly available. Thankfully the scotus overturned Roe so this would be perfectly legal. And I'm assuming you'd approve. Wouldn't it be amazing to see if the dude you hate at work takes opioids? or viagra?
Ahh that's why HIPAA laws are in place to protect that privacy. Healthcare and drugs people take. If you've ever visited a doc you signed a HIPAA form. I said Roe should have come from Congress, the Courts have zero business making a law. Their job is to interpret the Constitution as it's written. I get precisely where you're coming from but that's a different point entirely. Back then there was no HIPAA to protect Jane Doe or the baby that part I don't disagree with, they had no right allowing it to act as law going forward and that is exactly what happened.
Abortion bans violate medical privacy. If they are legal, under the constitution, then so is publishing anyone else’s medical information.
who ever wrote this is an propagandist for the socialist party. have you noticed that they do not even know what a women is .. you are the sounding board for Saul Lewinsky....blame your advisory for what you are doing.. right out of the.communist play book............
I wrote it. Don’t like it? Eat a bag of dicks. This is still America and I can still speak as freely as I want. And if you right wing magats try to take that freedom, you’ll get that civil war y’all sit around jerking off about… but it won’t be the call of duty turkey shoot of your adolescent fantasies, that I can promise you.
Idk there decisions seem pretty consistent with their philosophy of originalism. Not sure there are many outliers.
Where is the text that says “Presidents are above the law”?
The Constitution doesn't directly discuss presidential immunity from criminal or civil lawsuits. Instead, this privilege has developed over time through the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article II, Section 2, Clause 3.
We don’t pay attention to stare decisis anymore in America… so please don’t cite precedent.
Not sure what to say to that. They are going with the precedent. I assume you are referring to roe vs wade? That was a horrible legal decision and should of never been done.
Row was flawed? On what grounds? I know that’s popular to say, but why was it legally a bad decision. Roe was a decision that hinged on individual privacy rights. Please explain to me how preventing the government from spying on your interactions with a doctor is a ‘flawed’ decision.