SCOTUS is an unelected and basically ungoverned / ungovernable body at this point. The facade is gone. They're going to reinterpret our laws as they see fit until our country resembles the hellhole they want it to be.
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
203 points (99.0% liked)
politics
19089 readers
3857 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin has refused calls to bring Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts in for a formal hearing on the issue. Instead, he and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, another senior Democrat on the panel, merely asked Roberts to push Alito to recuse himself on cases related to the 2020 election and to come in for a meeting. According to White House aides, President Joe Biden is reluctant to engage on the controversy because he fears that criticizing the conservative justices will undermine the court’s legitimacy as well as the president’s claim to be a supporter of the country’s democratic institutions and norms
We need some politicians with spines in charge
It doesn’t matter what he says. It would just be actionless criticism.
POTUS oversees the Executive Branch, not the Legislative Branch. He can’t remove a Justice. He can’t even seat one without a vacancy and congressional approval. Only Congress can try a Justice for impeachment. The last time that happened was 1805, and the Justice remained seated until his death.
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-chase.htm
This article is throwing tons of shade for not expanding SCOTUS, like it’s the wave of the President’s magic wand. That also requires approval from Congress. There’s been a stalled bill in the House for over a year.
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/democrats-introduce-bill-to-expand-u-s-supreme-court/
I expect ignorant President finger-pointing from the average citizen, but I’m terribly disappointed in the ignorance of that article from Politico.
Oh no.
Not undermine the legitimacy of the Court!
Those fucksticks did it themselves. Anything the Executive does to put it back on course is an improvement.
Then you'll have people complaining that politics is directly interfering with justice which isn't supposed to happen.
People so often forget about the actual politics of politics. Everyone seems to want their guy to be a tyrant but a cuddlier and friendlier tyrant than the other side's tyrant.
Yep, Democrats intervening would just prove Republicans right
Best they can do is let fascism win.
So you would be ok with Republican politicians intervening in the juristic world? If Democrats can do it, so can Republicans.
We've heard this bullshit so many times. You know what happens? They do it anyway.
Damn right
Want to open the door for Republicans to do the same thing?
Hold judges to account when they are biased and refuse to recuse themselves? Yes, obviously.
Interfere in the juristic system when it's supposed to be separate from the political system?
Yeah, want to prove Trump right? That's exactly how you do it.
The jurist system that has been irreparably corrupted by bribery from the wealthy who heavily support far-right politicians? The ones making rulings that conflict with the wording and clear intent of the US Constitution, citing case law predating the country by a century, and mysteriously being in line with far-right political leaders' biases 9/10 times? That one?