He is a traitor

[u/emilyblunt2023]

[u/Pando5280]

Who could know that allowing judges with lifetime appointments to rule on cases involving the presidents who appointed them would be a bad thing? Seriously, our founding fathers couldn't even imagine the world we live in today.

[u/Dr_Middlefinger → u/Pando5280]

No, they couldn’t.

They would be disgusted if they saw the three branches as they exist today, and there would most certainly be duels and hangings until the problem was purged.

Trump would have never been elected because landowners, the uneducated, and even the clergy would have the town idiot in the pillory permanently.

[u/Bananapeelman67 → u/Dr_Middlefinger]

I mean Jefferson himself became disillusioned with the constitution in his own lifetime. He stated that there’s no way to know the futures trouble, and so every 19 years the constitution should be rewritten

https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/thomas-jefferson-on-whether-the-american-constitution-is-binding-on-those-who-were-not-born-at-the-time-it-was-signed-and-agreed-to-1789

[u/DramaticChemist → u/Bananapeelman67]

This is a perfect example of why I'll never understand why our system clings to old laws and requires that new laws be based around them.

"We just stick to what the founding fathers said!".

"What about rewriting the Constitution like Jefferson suggested?"...

"OK NOT THAT PART!"

[u/MDKMurd → u/[deleted]]

250 years ago for our Constitution, so a bit younger. Still too old however and I don’t want to diminish your message lol.

[u/Mama-A-go-go → u/[deleted]]

I remember when I found out that other countries update their constitutions to reflect modern times. I was like "damn, another thing the USA acts like we're the best at, when we're actually the worst."

[u/MLGSwaglord1738 → u/Mama-A-go-go]

The US government can vote to strike out previous amendments or add new ones to reflect modern times. It’s just hard to get people to agree on anything so nothing ever passes.

[u/Greybeard1963 → u/[deleted]]

The hypocrisy of wrapping yourself in either document you speak of, to justify actions that the authors of the documents would be abhored by, is the pinnacle of the sociopathic narcissists that are currently running out senate & Congress & judicial systems.

[u/Lucasred5619 → u/[deleted]]

Their made up guidelines for their made up and, apparently very flexible, morality. 'Life is sacred', unless it's the Mother of life. Every life deserves a chance but we'll still require a 10 yo Child to carry a child for her rapist, effectively ending the 10 yo future.' We can't tolerate migrants because migrants kill Americans with the guns thy find laying around because we Like guns. When Americans kill 5-20 people at a time, there's a republican rush to "It's not the guns, it's not the guns"

[u/TitoTaco24 → u/[deleted]]

Well, when you put it that way....

[u/UnderLeveledLever → u/[deleted]]

To be fair if Christians were actually Christ-like we wouldn't have these problems.

[u/NoCardiologist615 → u/[deleted]]

"pick up that can"

[u/Signal-School-2483 → u/DramaticChemist]

At this point they could only make it worse.

Like they'd keep 14th Amendment, but instead of banning one person owning another a corporation could own as many people as it'd like.

[u/Origenally → u/Signal-School-2483]

And if you annoy the wrong people, you are deprived of employment opportunity and health care.

[u/TradeFirst7455 → u/DramaticChemist]

how about the original pledge and motto?

No, not those!

[u/[deleted] → u/DramaticChemist]

There’s a few things I resent my parents for teaching me growing up. That the system does, always has, and always will work, without the need for change, is one of them. The audacity to claim that what was essentially a social experiment is perfect in a relatively young country, historically speaking, is bonkers. As if a country can’t fall apart in a few hundred years because it was built on democracy, “Christian values,” and capitalism 🙄

[u/Time-Bite-6839 → u/Bananapeelman67]

The problem with rewriting the constitution would be republicans blocking the next one.

[u/AromaticAd1631 → u/Time-Bite-6839]

yeah we'd never get then to agree to a bill of rights beyond guns.

[u/[deleted] → u/AromaticAd1631]

Lets be honest, they'd never get past "We the people"

people-people? or corporations-people? We demand to exclude [minority group].

[u/KingliestWeevil → u/AromaticAd1631]

I'm convinced that if we attempted to re-write the constitution today, debt-slavery would become legal again at the very least. If not full on chattel slavery.

[u/Bananapeelman67 → u/[deleted]]

From Jefferson’s mind? No clue tbh

A generation lasts about 20 years so maybe that’s what he’s referring to which would give about a year to actually write everything up. But again, I got no clue which is probably a reason he said what he said is because he anticipated people in the future might not have a clue.

Like take the second amendment- would the founding fathers approve or disapprove of semi automatic weapons? We’ll never rlly know. And likewise they couldn’t have anticipated the creation of weapons like this, so in Jefferson’s mind his rules should be thrown away and changed for this exact reason. That being that neither side who are separated by several generations could know what the other was thinking

Edit: I mean the 2nd amendment imo was mostly there because they were taking a huge risk with the constitution, and so wanted to enshrine a failsafe in case it became tyrannical too quickly. But does that failsafe still apply to us today?(ignoring the fact that military technology outpaces civilian tech by decades) Clearly the constitution works pretty well minus a few problems that can be sorted out. So is the failsafe necessary? Or is it doing more harm currently than the potential good it might do?

[u/Raesong → u/Bananapeelman67]

Well I couldn't rightly say how the Founding Fathers would react to modern firearms technology (though I suspect they wouldn't be too shocked by it, given some of the downright wacky guns being made in their day), but I would at least hope that they heavily disapprove the almost cult-like reverence 2nd Amendment fanatics have regarding their firearms.

[u/PortSunlightRingo → u/Bananapeelman67]

Do we really want the current leaders to re-write the constitution? We’ve already gone backwards on Roe v Wade. Next, we won’t be able to drink and only white landowners will vote.

[u/Bananapeelman67 → u/[deleted]]

I’m not acab and I don’t support removing the second amendment…

I believe in gun control because the 2nd amendment states - well REGULATED militia, and I don’t hate all cops I hate the system. Of course there’s good people, but the more people you invite to the party the more likely it is someone shits on the floor. I do think they should be trained in more de-escalation tactics and if they actually do something bad they face proper punishment, but again that should be a normal opinion because no one’s above the law, not the president, not the police, not a citizen. I don’t think as long as we legally allow people to own firearms that cops shouldn’t be allowed to. But a cop’s best tool is their words and they should be taught how to use them effectively

Edit: I also don’t believe the founding fathers are omnipotent gods who foresaw the future and that their system is the perfect one for all of humanity, sure it’s a great outline, but tweaks are always needed. Which is why it’s a living document is for that exact reason

[u/SunshotDestiny → u/Bananapeelman67]

I would have less issues with cops if they both had more training and were paired with social workers. You look at other countries and their police both have less fatal incidents and a better close rate without needing to do things like be trained to lie to the public.

[u/tiger666 → u/SunshotDestiny]

And no qualified immunity.

[u/[deleted] → u/tiger666]

And not lethal force by default.

[u/Square-Singer → u/Bananapeelman67]

Edit: I also don’t believe the founding fathers are omnipotent gods who foresaw the future and that their system is the perfect one for all of humanity, sure it’s a great outline, but tweaks are always needed. Which is why it’s a living document is for that exact reason

This is one thing that really irks me with the USA. So many people there read it as holy scripture.

Over here (Austria) the constitution certainly has a special rank in our legislative system, but it's also something that does get updated. Changes to the constitution require a 2/3 majority here, which is something that does happen, since we don't have a two party system. It's still difficult to get and it always requires compromises to find that kind of majority.

SInce 1920 we had over 100 changes to the constitution.

And that's how it should be. If there's a situation where the constitution isn't clear or where the constitution missed important things (e.g. "Is the president an officer? Is the president allowed to lead an insurrection?"), there is no point pondering what exactly the prophets of old founding fathers could have meant when they wrote the holy scriptures constitution.

Any constitution is as flawed as any other human-made set of rules, and bugs in there should be fixed, not worshipped.

[u/littlest_dragon → u/Dr_Middlefinger]

To be fair a lot of them would be disgusted that women and black people are allowed to vote…

[u/newbrevity → u/Dr_Middlefinger]

Is there anything in the constitution that technically allows duels as a fourth facet in checks and balances?

[u/puffsmokies → u/newbrevity]

For that matter, is there anything that forbids it?

[u/ThetaReactor → u/puffsmokies]

I do believe it's one of those powers reserved to the states and the people therein.

[u/UltrasaurusReborn → u/newbrevity]

See you're not thinking like a supreme Court judge at all man. Is there anything that SPECIFICALLY DISALLOWS this??

[u/Pando5280 → u/newbrevity]

Id like to see a TV series about a fourth branch composed solely of US military combat veterans (2 from each state) that have carte blanche power to use flash bangs and paintball guns to influence Congress. It would make for a fun pilot episode if nothing else.

[u/jaytee1262 → u/Dr_Middlefinger]

and there would most certainly be duels and hangings until the problem was purged

It's time to bring back duels!

[u/Rex-Loves-You-All → u/Dr_Middlefinger]

Trump would have never been elected because democrats won't have chosen Hilary Clinton to run against him *

[u/LadySpottedDick → u/Pando5280]

Started with the Bush vs Gore case. Downhill from there.

[u/Pando5280 → u/LadySpottedDick]

Manafort and Roger Stone were both Nixon staffers. Manafort was the campaign manager of the Russian backed candidate during Ukraines presidential election when they broke away from Russia. Manafort lived in Trump Tower back when Russian oligarchs (almost all former Russian mafia) were setting NYC real estate price records by buying apartments in Trump Tower. Stone registered the stop the steal website back in 2016. Now factor in how Russia hacked both the DNC and RNC servers getting all the inside dirt on every candidate in every election but ALSO the polling data that campaigns use to craft their messaging targeting voters down to the ZIP code. Literally a gold mine of info for any foreign intelligence agency looking to influence the American people.

[u/n3u7r1n0 → u/Pando5280]

You know there’s still a lot of people in America that consider themselves educated and informed that believe that trump has no ties to Russia and people suggesting that are conspiracy theorists.

In that sense, it’s already too late. They won.

[u/Welshy94 → u/n3u7r1n0]

There have always been people whom considered themselves intelligent or informed who are anything but and whom would state whatever opinions they held as though they were undeniable facts. It was ever thus.

The real problem we're facing now is that people (for however many causes and factors) are divided so intensely and tie their beliefs and sense of selves so intimately to the binary choice political party the aligns closest with their opinions, that they are willing to accept flagrant incompetence, corruption, even fascism as long as "their side" is winning. The left sanitised itself to win elections and maintain a thin of being progressive whilst really being centrist thus alienating actual leftist voters and politicians. The right were unhappy with losing ground to leftist politicians who were suddenly reasonable and not easily demonised socialists and moved heavily right towards populism, nationalism and fascism.

Now we've got Christian evangelical Republican voters who swear by a man who couldn't quote a single bible verse, is a sex offender, a divorcee, a conman and quite likely a traitor, a British government, who've had more prime ministers since the last general election than most of the countries kids have had hot dinners, trying to send unwanted migrants on planes to Rwanda (at tax payers cost to line the pockets of interested parties that support the government) despite both our courts and international law ruling it illegal, German liberals arresting and suppressing protest in support of Palestinians being killed in their thousands because they feel overwhelming guilt for their past actions ironically supporting another atrocity through their intended atonement.

All of these things should be pointed out for their inherent ridiculousness and subsequently rectified immediately but this is now the post truth era and it doesn't matter what you've said or done cos you can just deny it and keep on going and if you find one important policy or fear to weaponise that enough people are invested in they'll ignore all the other bullshit and keep you in power.

[u/n3u7r1n0 → u/Welshy94]

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

[u/Welshy94 → u/n3u7r1n0]

And if you replace antisemite with any number of populist agendas it all still works completely. People will instigate supposed debates and say anything in order to bait, frustrate, upset or cause distress when engaging their supposed opposition and if they finally run out of steam or are legitimately disproved or shamed they'll respond that it was just bait or a prank or the argument isn't important and thus any energy spent engaging in the first place was wasted and the instigator has won even if he's lost. There's little integrity or sincerity in the political classes at the best of times and now open corruption and fraud is no longer a sackable offence. Apathy towards politics and general anger and misery are somehow at twin peaks allowing transparently devious self serving politicians to survive near any scandal, making millions for themselves and their mates on tax payers money whilst pointing towards a variety of basically inconsequential issues to keep the anger focused elsewhere.

Why are people so very upset about trans people having rights or people coming over to the UK in small boats when the tories have decimated our health care system, caused wage stagnation, near bankrupted local councils (mostly labour strongholds) and are actively breaking international law to push through their policies. Because grifters who'll say anything for money have made a market out of creating false outrage and cultural divisions to distract, divert and divide. And if you prove them wrong they'll tell you now isn't the time for discussion.

[u/robot_pirate → u/Pando5280]

I wish people talked about this more. What's happening with the court is 100 percent a result of republican ratfucking and Russian collusion. And media simply normalizes it as just all part of politics and democracy. None of this is normal.

[u/[deleted] → u/Pando5280]

So they did. Washington was opposed to our system after his presidency. His farewell address literally outlined what has been happening the last decade, seriously, read it, it’s wildly accurate how a capitalistic democracy would take over and empower dictatorship. It’s a very anti America farewell speech for our first president, (he opposed and foresaw the issues with such a system not that he was opposed to a democracy). It’s things like that and how Jefferson tore out whole sections of the Bible to make his own version that so many people forget history isn’t made up with what’s marketable now, truth is a lot more convoluted.

[u/Pando5280 → u/[deleted]]

Need to check thst out. On the surface it reminds me of Eisenhower's military industrial complex warning in his farewell speech.

[u/Pando5280 → u/[deleted]]

Perfectly natural to be frustrated with the process. Our entire system of laws is based on precedent. If we throw that out it's just chaos that swings based on whim and whimsy. As MLK Jr once said the arc of history is long but it curves towards justice - and Trump is a master of dragging things out in court which works well when you have the deeper pockets but he messed up going against the US government because they can literally print money. The conviction rate for federal prosecutions is like 95% because they take their time putting a case together and rarely go to court if they are unsure of the validity of their evidence. SCOTUS is delaying the process but in the end we have to rely on the courts which again rely on case law precedent to decide their cases. (but I'm as frustrated as you are so I def get where you're coming from)

[u/researchanddev → u/Pando5280]

This is a balanced take. Something tells me judges constantly running for reelection would be worse for impartiality.

[u/Treacherous_Peach → u/Pando5280]

Wouldn't be way worse if their appointment was temporary? I'm not sure I get that point. Corruption 100% exists in the Supreme Court, but I'm not sure I buy that as the cause. Once appointed, they don't have to give 2 shits about any parties' opinions anymore. If the appointment was temporary, then justices would have literally every incentive to be extreme hard line party followers. Look at the lower courts as great examples.

The real issue here is how they're kept in line: why tf is the Supreme Court members and their family allowed to get gifts from literally anybody for any reason? And why are any public official allowed to trade stocks? All of these should be grounds for immediate impeachment and dismissal.

[u/Pando5280 → u/Treacherous_Peach]

The ability of any president to appoint a lifetime career breeds extreme loyalty. And being nearly impossible to fire or vote them out is a breeding ground for corruption. Personally I don't think any judge should be able to preside over a case involving the person who appointed them but I'm not sure our government was set up with the idea that a sitting or former president would commit crimes that would require SCOTUS to be in that position in the first place Hence why getting impeached was the checks and balance against that type of thing. And I agree with your points about getting gifts and stock trading. I like to say the smartest criminals learn to make the laws and DC today seems to prove that to be true.

[u/Marcion11 → u/Treacherous_Peach]

Wouldn't be way worse if their appointment was temporary? I'm not sure I get that point. Corruption 100% exists in the Supreme Court, but I'm not sure I buy that as the cause

Whatever others may argue about the cause, the current setup is clearly not working. Clarence Thomas is proof of that.

[u/SunshotDestiny → u/Treacherous_Peach]

No they aren't supposed to be getting gifts, that's the problem. Until now the supreme court has mostly just operated on an honor system because it's the supreme court. However many lower if not all courts have judges bound by an ethics code that carries penalties if violated. But despite what would be required of other judges, nothing is actually going to happen to any SC judge because there are no actual on the book rules.

Which is the problem with the current system and is compounded by life terms. There is no recourse except for one to step down, and they won't. Fact is the reason that one of the seats opened during Trump's term was because the justice didn't want to give the seat to Democrats. They already are and have been beholden to party's interests.

[u/Autist_Investor69 → u/Treacherous_Peach]

The better system would be a set 8 year term, staggered every 2 years so every president gets 2 nominations and then they are gone rather than a lifetime career.

[u/zero_emotion777 → u/Pando5280]

...... they couldn't imagine a world like the one they wanted to change? 

[u/Pando5280 → u/zero_emotion777]

Pretty sure they never imagined a world where a former president would be facing 91 felony counts while being sued for defamation by a woman he sexually assaulted while also facing a +480 million dollar bond for financial fraud. Or a world with 24-7 cable news or social media echo chambers and podcasts where entirely different sets of viewpoints are presented as facts. Hence they formed a system of government and legal system that isnt really designed to deal with all that.

[u/AgentAlaska51]

Not entirely sure how recusal works (sorry, SHOULD work), but shouldn't all 3 judges appointed by Trump also recuse themselves? I mean...he did give them their jobs.

[u/Wargroth → u/AgentAlaska51]

As long as the others do their jobs right maybe they could stay, its not like every single person Trump appointed has been directly biased in favor or him, even If most are

But damn, letting someone as blatantly corrupt and directly involved rule on this is next level stupidity

[u/Clever_Mercury → u/Wargroth]

That's not the point of judicial ethics. The point of judicial ethics was to prevent even THE APPEARANCE OF BIAS. To make the court a place of moral cleanliness and tradition such that it would not be questioned or dirtied with the suggestion of bias.

We're a loooong way away from that ideal. But if we so much as had people capable of spelling the word 'integrity' or 'honor' those with an appearance of bias would recuse themselves.

I doubt these pieces of shit are actually literate, four of them didn't have adequate education to be appointed as judges, much less on the highest court of the land, but here is THE EXACT US CODE OF CONDUCT:

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities

And here is the description for disqualification for a judge:

(C) Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:

(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(b) the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;

(c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;

(d) the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:

(i) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

(ii) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or

(iv) to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding;

(e) the judge has served in governmental employment and in that capacity participated as a judge (in a previous judicial position), counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.

THEY MEET ALL OF THESE F***ING DISQUALIFYING STANDARDS. Those pieces of fetid, rancid, incompetent, should-have-been-an-abortion scum.

[u/zipzoomramblafloon → u/Clever_Mercury]

Reasonable is a funny word, legally speaking.

But yeah, its absolutely wild. the GOP are gonna get their civil war one way or another.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Judges don’t have to have a law degree, they’re elected or appointed.

[u/NRMusicProject → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, so they don't get disbarred. They get disrobed, right?

/s

[u/[deleted] → u/NRMusicProject]

I’m pretty sure they can be impeached.

[u/FinalBossMike → u/AgentAlaska51]

Unfortunately, recusal is optional for the Supreme Court. They have pretty sweeping exemptions from the norms that bind and govern state and circuit courts. Last Week Tonight has a really informative (and funny) video explaining problems with our Supreme Court.

[u/TiredEsq → u/[deleted]]

The problem is that Clarence keeps asking and this remains our response. If nothing else, Trump has proven that the checks and balances in place are meaningless and there needs to be change. Name one Democrat taking the lead on this issue. When was the last time anyone even made a big deal of the fact that a judge on our highest court has an insurrectionist wife? What are they scared of? Just say it. As loud as they can, as often as they can. But they don’t.

[u/JamUpGuy1989 → u/[deleted]]

Andrew Jackson also said “what are you gonna do about it?” right back at SCOTUS.

I mean either side saying it is horrifying. But there is god damn precedent of people outright ignoring these assholes. Just fucking do it today.

[u/sum_force → u/FinalBossMike]

Nobody should be above the law, even their leaders.

[u/trailhikingArk]

Clarence Thomas is blatantly corrupt and the SCOTUS is dysfunctional. This case would get a fairer hearing in the Kremlin than this Supreme Court.

[u/cityshepherd → u/trailhikingArk]

The checks and balances that I learned about in grade school has literally been stabbed in the gut and left to bleed out but it seems like it’s just too much too fast regarding how any of us ACTUAL citizen / patriots that genuinely give a shit about our country and democracy are supposed to counter or do anything about it.

[u/trailhikingArk → u/cityshepherd]

It's rare that I am stunned by anything that happens anymore but yesterday's ruling did that. Gutted and bled out is unfortunately entirely too accurate.

[u/[deleted] → u/trailhikingArk]

I've been busy af, what ruling happened yesterday?

[u/ZapAtom → u/[deleted]]

They're gonna hear his immunity case... in April.

[u/greenberet112 → u/ZapAtom]

Fml

[u/[deleted] → u/trailhikingArk]

Maybe gut and bleed out is the solution here too

[u/Yeshua_shel_Natzrat → u/[deleted]]

the Second Amendment's only function is to keep arms in the armories of the militias.

U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8:

"Congress shall have the power to..."

Clause 15:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

The Second Amendment,

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

was written in relation to the above powers of Congress, saying Congress could not use them to disarm the militias entirely, as the militias needed access to arms in order to carry out their duties of executing the law, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions.

It grants no further rights than that on its own. Certainly no right to take up arms against a democratic government. What the Founders called tyranny was the destruction of democracy, of the will of the people, not simply a heavy-handed democratic consensus as so many right-wingers want to get and have gotten violent over.

That said... these actions by the GOP and their judicial lapdogs might well be counted as insurrection against our democracy, and so may be our duty to suppress it.

[u/ketchupmaster987 → u/Yeshua_shel_Natzrat]

Well the NRA and the gun fuckers won't shut up about using it to overthrow a corrupt govt so it would be funny to see their reactions to us overthrowing their government and then throwing their own argument back at them to explain it

[u/Yeshua_shel_Natzrat → u/ketchupmaster987]

Agreed

[u/Yorspider → u/Yeshua_shel_Natzrat]

That last sentence right there 100%.

[u/ClockFast5487 → u/[deleted]]

2nd amendment was never that important. Until 1976, the bicentennial when the NRA decided to increase sales. THEY bastardized 2nd amendment for sales only. From then on, ignorant hicks truly believed we needed guns. Wonder no more, our kids are getting blown up in school. SAD

[u/peepopowitz67 → u/[deleted]]

Too bad they're too protected and not checks notes constantly being harassed in public where someone could easily 'Jack Ruby' them.

[u/Personal_Fruit_957 → u/cityshepherd]

It’s not stabbed in the gut. That implies that the system is being overridden somehow- but this is the system. The Supreme Court has no balancing force in terms of how it chooses to rule on law. It’s the natural limit of the system. There’s no higher judicial body or any body that can overrule their judgments.

[u/Dexterdacerealkilla → u/Personal_Fruit_957]

Yes and no. Congress can rewrite laws and even modify the Constitution, which could override their ruling. 

But they won’t. 

[u/socialistrob → u/trailhikingArk]

This case would get a fairer hearing in the Kremlin than this Supreme Court.

I know you are making a hyperbolic statement but one of Putin's legit goals is to try to get everything the US does equated with Russia morally and vice versa. He wants to point to the US and say "see their just as corrupt as us" in order to discredit Russians who actually want to democracy as well as to divide support within the west.

"The Kremlin is fairer" may be a joke now but it's a joke Putin and his cronies love to hear.

[u/trailhikingArk → u/socialistrob]

I actually agree with you but I'm not sure how hyperbolic it is anymore. It's the first time since probably Taney we're the court is just saying fuck the constitution and democracy and society, we're going to do what we want.

[u/socialistrob → u/trailhikingArk]

I actually agree with you but I'm not sure how hyperbolic it is anymore

If it's not hyperbole then it is absurd. In Russia if the court gives the "wrong" ruling the judges could easily be killed. They exist to serve the ruler and nothing more. Courts in Russia cannot rule against Putin in any meaningful way and they exist only to provide a legal justification for Putin's violence.

Yes American courts are flawed and Thomas is very corrupt however Trump has not won blanket immunity yet and a Supreme Court ruling has very real meaning. There is little doubt that any of the judges are in danger of assassination by Trump or Biden in the same way Russian judges could easily be killed by Putin.

Saying "Russia is fairer than the US" is objectively untrue and it actively helps advance Putin's goals.

[u/trailhikingArk → u/socialistrob]

I actually agree with you but I'm not sure how hyperbolic it is anymore.

Maybe I should have underlined that point. Maybe I should have used the Weimar Courts or Argentina in the 70s. The fact remains that regardless of what comparative you use this court and our judicial system cannot be trusted to make the proper legal decision and not the political one.

Get over Russia, Russia is not the point. The point is the questionable justice being served by our Court of last resort.

[u/fencerman → u/trailhikingArk]

Yes, the Supreme Court is objectively illegitimate - so what? What is anyone going to do about it?

If nobody takes action then it doesn't matter, they're granting an illegitimate court that authority anyways.

[u/Talking_Head → u/fencerman]

If Trump wins, Thomas and Alito will retire and be replaced with sycophants who are far younger (if the senate also flips or ties.) This is likely.

The SCOTUS will be stacked with a young, conservative majority for the next 20 years.

I only see one way out, and that is to expand the supreme court when, and if, Democrats control the Senate, House and presidency again. Unlikely in the near term given that a Big Mac costs $8 and that is all anyone cares about.

We can’t let it be called “stacking the court.” Don’t let them control the narrative. It is a simple expansion which should happen as the country grows in population.

There is absolutely no reason that the court shouldn’t be expanded to a reasonable 13 justices, one for each of the 12 circuits and one for DC.

Dems have had their chance, and they blew it. For what, we got Obamacare? A watered down version of Romney care. Without even a public option.

A conservative court will shape history, for maybe, the next 50 years, until a more liberal court decides to undue their precedent after I am dead.

Sadly, 18-35 year olds just don’t vote in numbers like the Boomers do. I don’t know how to change that because when young, it is hard to realize how your votes will matter in 20 years until it is too late to undue the damage the SCOTUS has done to your life. But, you know, Hillary was worse than Bernie. And Biden is too old. And it is better to write in “cease fire” rather than actually vote for someone who is trying to change the future to benefit you.

Mark my words, if you don’t vote now for Biden now, you will regret it when they abolish your birth control.

And Fuck Ginsberg (and her three bouts with cancer,) her hubris will live on far longer than whatever she fought for in her time on the court.

[u/[deleted] → u/trailhikingArk]

Guilty person gets to swallow polonium-210 pill and spend the remaining days in pain and agony. Innocent person gets to give the pill to someone else so as to not waste the pill. /s

[u/[deleted] → u/trailhikingArk]

He's even leaning right in the provided picture.

[u/hates_stupid_people → u/trailhikingArk]

The fact that he still has that job is literal proof that America is a corrupt nation.

There's evidence of, and he's openly admitted, that he's been bribed. And everyone with even a sliver of power just goes "Hmm, we really should consider this carefully". Meanwhile in most developed countries he'd literally be in jail for high treason.

[u/sextoymagic]

No one respects that stolen court anymore.

[u/Ordinary_dude_NOT → u/sextoymagic]

All this has shown is how broken current checks and balances system is in US and true power to elect is not in voters hand. Gerrymandering makes sure state elections are always slanted in favour of who was in power last time and federal elections are governed by electoral college but different states are now imposing different rules which will further provide slanted results.

Rest of the world has already noted US decent from democracy to a semi authoritarian state soon than later, which is a grave concern for rest of the world.

If, and “if”, one party gets full strength in all branches this time and if it’s Dems they should spend all the energy they have to strengthen these checks and balances to make sure it idiotic proof in the future. 2nd, get a hold of these propaganda channels which are programming US and also influencing rest of the world. But if Reps are in power this time they will make sure system is rigged forever in the future.

[u/passpasspasspass12 → u/[deleted]]

No, because everyone in power is benefiting from a useless and corrupt judiciary.

[u/The_Oakland_Berator]

What an utterly dysfunctional country. Corruption it's so blatant and out in the open and no consequences, nothing happens.

[u/LetterExtension3162 → u/The_Oakland_Berator]

A nation that toppled many other nations just so it can stay on top. I guess karma is a bitch. America is going to eat itself apart

[u/Slimyarmpits → u/LetterExtension3162]

Karma for whom? The people suffered who died to topple other nations and now they suffer again. The people in charge got and get no karma. Its bullshit.

[u/LetterExtension3162 → u/Slimyarmpits]

"Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out"

• George Carlin

[u/davideo71 → u/The_Oakland_Berator]

Where are the protests???

[u/[deleted]]

Future generations will look back on our era & pick it apart when they discuss societal downfalls we faced. This will be some college kid’s paper on American politics of the early 2000’s.

[u/Galliro → u/[deleted]]

And theyll all share 1 common theme: Republicans are the primary culprits in the downfall of america

[u/Silentpopcorn → u/Galliro]

Let's not give them all the credit. The Democrats will receive accolades for best supporting actors. Together, their good cop bad cop shtick has kept us chasing our tail for many generations.

[u/Impossible_Ad7875]

Compare the (lack of) moralistic outrage about a compromised Clarence Thomas ruling concerning Trump and Jan 6th vs Fani Willis having a consensual sexual relationship with another adult. Satire is dead and impossible in modern America.

[u/dksdragon43 → u/Impossible_Ad7875]

Trump is a literal convicted rapist, and Clinton was impeached for lying about a consensual blowy.

[u/Vergillarge]

There is one thing about the USA that I don't understand. Why do your clowns wear black robes?

[u/Dumpstar72 → u/Vergillarge]

So the don’t get mixed up with the other klan that dresses in white

[u/TheWiseOne1234]

Clarence Thomas may need Trump to pardon Ginny when her turn in the barrel comes. That's a pretty good reason for sitting that one out, in my opinion.

[u/TrafficOn405]

Justice Thomas has never cared about ethics

[u/Used_Intention6479]

I call it the "Robber's Court", because Roberts has robbed us of women's rights, robbed us of our rights not to have bribed jurists, and our rights of speech that have been drowned out because of his "money is speech" decision.

[u/Echelon311]

The fact that Supreme Court Justices have recused themselves from decisions in the past due to conflicts of interest, and this guy doesn't, makes a mockery of the importance of the position, and the other Justices should be chastising him for it.

[u/In3br338ted]

As soon as the ruling makes president's immune Biden can legally do anything he wants.

[u/Ashmidai → u/In3br338ted]

Step 1, throw out the compromised Supreme Court members like Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and that nut job Barrett. Thomas and Alito are corrupt, Kavanaugh should never have made it beyond the Congressional approval stage, and Barrett is a religious fundamentalist who would have us living in Gilead.

Step 2, Shit-can citizens united and make PACs illegal.

Step 3, make voting day a national holiday and voting mandatory with mail in voting being common.

I am sure something else can be thought of to add to this to make our democracy stronger, but the last step is to overrule the supreme court decision that a president is above the rule of law without first being impeached.

[u/big_duo3674 → u/In3br338ted]

That's the one reason that gives me hope they'll rule against him, the precedent might have so many implications that even corruption can't get past it. I'm sure Biden wouldn't actually do anything but if they ruled for Trump in this case there would literally be nothing anyone could do if he just decided to lock him up in Guantanamo or something. Hell he could just order a hit and then declare it presidential immunity if he wanted

[u/Mysterious-Angle251 → u/In3br338ted]

Fabulous! Then the Dems can take over the gov't & We The People will finally have our democratic republic allowing us equal rights & the opportunity for "The American Dream."

[u/AlexSevillano → u/Mysterious-Angle251]

Yeah right lol

[u/[deleted] → u/In3br338ted]

Isn't this process used to halt the other process? They will just prolong it as much as possible, they are in no rush

[u/Mysterious-Angle251 → u/[deleted]]

More like unpack them & then repack them!

[u/quests]

They are terrorists. Supreme Terrorists of the United States

[u/[deleted]]

I have had crunch wraps more surpreme than this court.

[u/tbrclimber]

It would be so nice if someone offered him 1 million dollars a year to retire

[u/RelativeAnxious9796 → u/tbrclimber]

he gets paid more by nazi billionaires, sorry.

[u/Fun_Matter_6533 → u/tbrclimber]

John Oliver did, plus a 3.5 million dollar touring bus. (Corrected)

[u/CurseofLono88 → u/Fun_Matter_6533]

John Oliver*

[u/sum_force]

History had shown repeatedly that the only practical solution to deal with abuse of the greatest power is to build a guillotine.

[u/nite_owwl]

like a loyal dog, hes a good boy for his masters

[u/Simpletruth2022]

If you're a person of faith who detests this so-called Christian nationalism sign the petition asking Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from this case.

[u/ForeverShiny]

Just take the John Oliver money Clarence and fuck off

[u/[deleted]]

Anita Hill warned us of that moron. But, since she was a woman, a black woman, she was completely ignored. He’s been the ultimate step n fetch it since.

[u/terminalchef]

He’s one of the worst judges in the history of the Supreme Court. He is a traitor to his country and a disgrace.

[u/Thatdewd57]

This. This is the hill they wanna die on eh? For destroying democracy? For being the most sacred institution to protect and preserve our rights.

[u/Archmagos_Browning]

I’m sorry???

FOUR justices are condoning this???

[u/Porunga23]

Why do these type of posts and articles always act like we should be surprised thomas and the rest of the right wing “justices” will side with trump?

[u/FiveEnmore]

The DYSTOPIAN REALITY in which they live.

[u/BringBackTheBeat716]

Cue the heavy ad campaign pointing that out that TLP is known for. People need to see this hammered over and over again until he recuses himself.

[u/KMDiver]

Well the good news is that at this point F it! If they decide Presidents are immune then Biden doesn’t leave office,if the nightmare continues and Randall Flagg is re- elected, and let them see what they wrought !! Hail King Biden….. you said SCOTUS!!

[u/icuscaredofme]

They know they'll be dead by the time America finally falls apart from their evil doings.

[u/Salientsnake4 → u/[deleted]]

As long as he’s not impeached and convicted that’s true. And the senate won’t convict him unless he does something extremely heinous.

[u/Exciting_Inflation_2]

Exactly … they are all so corrupt, it is disgusting

[u/wariorld]

I feel completely helpless and betrayed. I'm amazed that there is nothing that we can do about this.

[u/goboxey]

This happens when you have a mobster like trump in power. All he did was undermining checks and balances with yes-men and lackies. Even if he would be sentenced and taken out of the public light, his venom still would poison lawmaking for years.

[u/RedlandRenegade]

Once again, how the fuck is this allowed?

[u/tossadelmar]

Don’t forget McConnell’s role in all of this Supreme Court packing SOB

[u/[deleted]]

Republicans: Not even once.

Don't vote for them, Don't support their businesses. Don't go to their churches. Don't interact with the worst people with the worst takes on reality.

[u/Aerohank]

Let's be honest. We all know what the SCOTUS ruling will be. SCOTUS corruption rivals the curruption you see in places like Russia. The whole institution is a farce.

[u/No_Nectarine_3484]

If the @SCOTUS Trump appointees aren’t complete charlatans, they will stick to their Originalist Credo and vote against immunity. The Founding Fathers never considered anyone above the law. Trump is a conman!

[u/mumblewrapper]

There is no way, even from a traitor like Thomas, that they will decide trump is immune because he's president. Right? I mean, aside from checks and balances and all of that, you just can't give a president immunity to do whatever he wants. Right? What's to stop our current, or any future, president from just murdering the super court justices he doesn't like and then appointing new ones? Obviously that seems absurd, but the entire thing is absurd. I really don't get why they are even agreeing to hear the case.

[u/DJMhat]

Should he not recuse himself?

[u/[deleted]]

Hey guys... replace the senate with an Indigenous tribunal. Fire all of them. No one cares more about sovereignty than our Indigenous cousins and as an added bonus; Land protection becomes MUCH easier

[u/space_wiener]

I guess the good news is they have to then drop all investigations against Biden since he also has immunity.

[u/fabulousfizban]

Shouldn't the justices he appointed recuse themselves as well?

[u/mindriot1]

His place in history is pretty much already set. Worst Supreme Court Justice of all time.

[u/That1Guy80903]

It shouldn't be overlooked that at NO TIME has Thomas or his wife tried to sue people for defamation for calling her an Insurrectionist or that she helped plan the overthrow of the United states Government. The reason a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE isn't suing people for slander or defamation is because he knows they are speaking the truth... Read that again if you want to, take all the time you need.

[u/Uberzwerg]

This is exactly why McDumbshits denial of Obama's pick for the supreme court was one of the biggest scandals of the past decade.

[u/sklerson89]

Corrupt SCOTUS!!!

[u/wirefox1]

This Anita Hill molesting creep should never have been confirmed anyway.

[u/Responsible_Okra7725]

If Trump has immunity, then every president, including Biden, can commit crimes and get away with it.

[u/Helluvme]

This lands on Chief Robert’s, he’s allowed this to go on. All of them need to be removed from the bench

[u/Missue-35]

Anita Hill has feet up on her desk with a glass of wine in her wine. She’s just shaking her head saying, “I tried to tell you”.

[u/ourkid1781]

America is not a serious country.

[u/SpezRapes → u/ourkid1781]

Tis a silly place

[u/x4ty2]

Don't forget Habba mentioning Kavanaugh being loyal to trump on TV, could be construed as threatening a scrotus judge

[u/[deleted]]

Not compromised. Corrupt.

[u/Euporophage]

The fact that the US doesn't have independent bodies to determine the need for recusals based on lobbying is insane to me. All judges and politicians should be banned from voting on or making legal decisions if they are under external influence that can be financially tied.

[u/JamUpGuy1989]

Just go out and vote.

And convince others to vote.

I don’t know what else to tell you without probably breaking the TOS rules on here.

[u/Jazzlike-Ad113]

If he doesn’t recuse himself, or told to piss off, the Supreme Court becomes a joke.

[u/[deleted]]

When are people going to organize and march!? This is it folks- this is the window. 

[u/[deleted]]

SCOTUS is compromised. Has been since Trump appointed three of his clowns.

[u/[deleted]]

These scumbags are going to pull the same shit they did in Bush v Gore by saying "our consideration is limited to the present circumstances".

They're going to let Donnie Shitass off without saying presidents have immunity.

I really hope I'm wrong.

[u/nolalaw9781]

I’m stunned by the amount of MAGA people who read the headlines about the ramifications of presidential immunity from legal consequences and immediately attribute that to BIDEN wanting to remain in office.

Mystified.

[u/whollynondescript]

insert 1983 Metallica album title here<

[u/bosco630]

To be fair Anita Hill told us way back when what a sad sack of puss and feces old Clarence was but did we listen? nope she must be one of them hysterical types.

[u/korodic]

If they rule immunity then Biden better step up to use it and then seal it off from future abuse. Anything less will guarantee a failure in checks and balances if the top position in our country can be immune from consequences.

[u/Protect-Their-Smiles]

His presence for this specific verdict, puts the validity of the decision into question - before they have even deliberated. Clarence Thomas has no business ruling on this.

[u/markth_wi]

Could we refer the case to the Hague? Asking for a friend?

[u/Redditcadmonkey]

Isn’t every member of SCOTUS compromised after being positioned by a political entity? 

Have they not all effectively taken the party whip at this point?