r/politics • u/Brentin_Mock_DD • 11h ago
Registration Wall Supreme Court expansion is ‘a concerted effort to intimidate the court,' Justice Alito says
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/supreme-court-expansion-is-a-concerted-effort-to-intimidate-the-court-justice-alito-says/3.1k
u/thepartypantser 11h ago edited 11h ago
As opposed to the concerted effort by the GOP to stack the court in its favor?
Perhaps Alito should ask Mitch about that, except Mitch probably can't have a cohesive conversation anymore.
672
u/adorablefuzzykitten 10h ago
Alito is bought and paid for.
306
u/dfpratt09 10h ago
So is Mitch. He’s just a walking corpse now as well.
116
u/Gradicus 10h ago
*rolling corpse
33
•
64
→ More replies (3)4
121
u/rh1984va 10h ago
Republicans don’t have any credibility
23
u/Level_Investigator_1 10h ago
Republican voters in my extended family are ashamed… but they only voted for Trump once…
→ More replies (5)11
u/SecretMiddle1234 10h ago
I wish mine would show a bit of humility. Nope. Diehard Republicans that only think of themselves, their money and their white privilege. Who cares about the grandchildren and great grandchildren. We got ours and we earned it. These are my outlaws. My side of our family is dysfunctional as all hell but they have empathy.
10
u/New_Permission_817 10h ago
A large amount them belong to a deathcult. Its doesnt matter if anyone suffers or dies because heaven is eternal if you are worthy. Its batshit but thats what they believe.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)•
u/Fake_Account_69420 5h ago
Have they really won a modern election without cheating, Bush v Gore, now Trump... are they even doing anything for normal everyday working people?
109
u/councilmember 10h ago
Mitch’s refusal to seat a Justice during Obama’s term essentially mandated an expansion of the court. It’s mystifying why he wanted that but he took action and should welcome the proper response.
44
u/Zaggnut 8h ago
If any of the Conservative justices gave a damn about the Judicial branch they would have stepped up in protest.
Neil Gorsuch should have taken his seat and then immediately stepped down to protest this nonsense in order to make a strong statement backed by that action. Instead, they only care about power, not the legitimacy of the court.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)17
26
u/notasrelevant 9h ago
Beyond that - force him to go into more detail.
It weakens the power of any one individual, but brings more diverse views/interpretations and reduces the amount any one administration might reasonably influence the court.
If the only impact is your individual reduced power, that's not intimidating or forcing a particular viewpoint.
"I feel attacked" is not a good argument.
→ More replies (3)7
u/thepartypantser 9h ago
Yeah, unfortunately this was something he said on Fox News. I don't expect Fox News to push back on that narrative at all because they are, and were deliberately set up to be, the propaganda wing of the GOP.
•
u/projectx51 6h ago
The Government should fear it's People, The People should not fear their Government.
→ More replies (1)17
u/Loud-Storm2621 10h ago
They wonder why there is a call for change as this Supreme Court has become one of the most corrupt. They only want to police themselves and say they can but don’t.
Look all the clear ethical violations they have done and refuse to address such as taking gifts, trips etc from parties involved in cases they are ruling over at the time.
29
u/Mental-Back6028 10h ago
Democrats or most civilians aren’t trying to intimidate them but instead are trying to hold them accountable for the clear corruption going on within their own ranks which they refuse to address or ban.
Here are a few examples:
Major Concerns and Allegations
Undisclosed Gifts and Travel: Investigations by the Senate Judiciary Committee and watchdog groups highlighted luxury trips and unreported gifts given to Clarence Thomas (by billionaire Harlan Crow) and Samuel Alito.
Conflicts of Interest and Recusals: Critics and lawmakers cite instances where justices refused to recuse themselves from cases despite clear spousal or financial conflicts.
Political Symbols: Public controversy emerged after reports that Samuel Alito displayed controversial or partisan flags outside his residences.
The entire point of the Supreme Court is it’s supposed to be an independent judicial body without political affiliations or clear bias one way or the other.
11
u/BasvanS 9h ago
“We’ve investigated ourselves and we found no evidence of wrongdoing.”
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)8
u/thingsorfreedom 8h ago
Don't forgot...
Chief justice’s wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, has made millions in her career recruiting lawyers to prominent law firms, some of which have business before the court.
4
4
8
6
u/nyyanksfan81 11h ago
But he can throw up the ✌️sign
9
u/thepartypantser 10h ago
The irony of course was peace was never an option for Mitch. He's been at war with American democracy for decades.
3
3
u/Fionaelaine4 9h ago
Why would it be intimidation if they thought their votes were legal and morally sound?
→ More replies (22)•
u/TheDude-Esquire 7h ago
This is the outcome they sought. Instead of fairly balancing appointments across presidents McConnell fanned the system to every extreme to get his desired outcome. Stacking the court is the only path back to a court that even remotely reflects the will and conscious of the public.
451
u/DoesntMatterBrian Texas 11h ago
So uh
When the Republican Senate refuses to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat for 12.5% of a President's time in office because they don't want him to appoint a new Justice, yeah people are going to think the Court is politicized and lose faith in it as an institution, Alito.
Maybe talk to your friend Thomas about not accepting bribes from Harlan Crow if you're that concerned?
98
u/Present-Resolution23 10h ago
It's not just that. I could aaalmost concede it.. if they weren't so blatantly hypocritical that not even a couple years later the same group rushed to confirm Trumps justice before Biden took office. I may not agree with your stance, but if you're consistent I can at least respect it on some level.. But the hypocricy just kills me.
68
u/dudeaciously 8h ago
Justice Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in at night, a few days before the election that Trump lost.
https://www.axios.com/2020/10/27/amy-coney-barrett-sworn-in-as-supreme-court-justice
→ More replies (2)27
u/DudeCanNotAbide 10h ago
To them, it's just "smart" politics. So smart to create massive division in your country, genius even!
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)11
→ More replies (1)12
u/dispelthemyth 10h ago
deny one president for a reason that doesnt apply to the next cos.... checks notes.... reasons
11
1.1k
u/Crunchberry24 11h ago
The court that’s terrorizing the country? The most corrupt court in history?
348
u/akestral 10h ago edited 10h ago
A court that can be "intimidated" by another co-equal branch exercising its Constitutional power is a branch that thinks the Constitution shouldn't apply to it. Which we already knew you thought, Alito and the other six traitors, but always helpful when you go ahead and make the subtext textual. You're so fond of your texts, or profess to be, anyhow.
70
u/NelsonHawkinsGhost 10h ago
They have never been coequal.. this is a civics class myth. He's confessing that the Court's authority is fragile, contingent, and entirely dependent on the other branches playing along.. Congress has always been at the top of the pyramid.
19
u/buffalotrace 9h ago
You think right now congress is flexing, really dominating?
•
u/DefiantDung 7h ago edited 6h ago
IMHO, Speaker Mike Johnson, and his ilk, are getting everything they dreamed of in Trump. A Christian Nationalist culture war and a divided electorate. Trump is just the useful idiot getting played and paid by autocrats and right-wing oligarchs. When it all comes down, they will try and bury all the blame and culpability with him. And he's such a narcissist he's blind to it.
→ More replies (1)•
u/buffalotrace 6h ago
Donnie doesn’t care as long as he stacks up gold and can put his name on things.
8
u/BluePrintSpec 8h ago
Congress has been neutered by Citizens United. Step out of line and an oligarch will primary your ass.
4
u/NelsonHawkinsGhost 9h ago
Do you? Congress doesn't want the responsibility.. hence why they've delegated authority in many places and prefer useless platitudes like WPAs because many voters confuse rhetoric with action. They get to finger wag at the courts / executive.. even though, ultimately, they could rein either in if it wanted to.
→ More replies (2)9
u/vitalvisionary Connecticut 8h ago
As it should be, the legislative branch should always be the keys, the executive the car, and the judicial the backseat driver that tells the others to slow down.
Of course right now there's too many keys on the ring to figure out how to operate and the car is careening down a hill hitting pedestrians while the backseat driver is insisting everything is fine.
Expand the court and the House while eliminating the Senate. Both should be able to slap down the executive
4
→ More replies (1)13
u/thatguywhoiam Canada 10h ago
Thank you, yes, this.
Like, hey government branch, you are beholden to the people you serve? They are pissed? So, like, be afraid? Yes? Correct?
17
7
u/cogman10 Idaho 8h ago
The Locke era court was pretty close to this one in terms of corruption. And the thing that made them change their attitude was putting a socialist (FDR) into office. He threatened to expand the court which drastically changed how they ruled on things.
→ More replies (2)3
u/0o0o0o0o0o0z 8h ago
The court that’s terrorizing the country? The most corrupt court in history?
Would this be the court with the lowest Gallup poll approval and trust ratings in the modern political era?
→ More replies (2)5
495
u/truckaxle 11h ago
Supreme Court expansion is a concerted effort to reduce the influence of a few corrupt and overtly partisan judges
107
u/oldnjgal 11h ago
And to repair the actions of Congress to stack the court in their favor by refusing to seat a justice when their party is not in the White House.
•
u/Material-Heron6336 7h ago
This. This is the most pressing issue. That rules, procedure, and decorum are meant for some and not all.
10
u/Maleficent-Head9040 10h ago
No, you see, we can't politicize the court, which is a central and inherent part of our political institution. Why is that so hard to understand? Which is why I argue politics to line cooks who speak a language I don't!
→ More replies (1)•
u/OutlyingPlasma 6h ago
Why should the court feel intimidated? They could have 200 justices and feel nothing about it because they are deciding cases based on the merits of the case and laws passed by congress.
Right? Right???
141
u/B-Z_B-S Massachusetts 11h ago
What should people care as to what a crooked judge like Alito thinks?
48
u/applejuicerules 10h ago
I want these crooked fucks to feel intimidated, and apparently it’s working
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)17
u/Describing_Donkeys 10h ago
That's really the point of expansion. We know we can't convince them to be honest, so we aren't going to intimidate them. Just do what we can to make them irrelevant.
103
u/Closet-PowPow 11h ago
It’s not an effort to intimidate the court but rather compensate for the corruption and ongoing anti-constitutional rulings to favor Trump, Christian Nationalists and corporations over the interests of We the People. But Alito playing persecuted victim is on brand.
41
u/enjoycarrots Florida 11h ago
Intimidate them.. into not being partisan. I'm fine with that.
11
40
u/KidKilobyte 11h ago
Majority of this court appointed by presidents, not voted in by majority of the people. STFU.
20
u/Present-Resolution23 10h ago
I cite this statistic a lot actually.. And the impact of the votes they've made is just enormous.. Citizens United (corporations are people too and 1st amendment allows them to influence elections however they please,) Dobbs v Jackson (overturned Roe V Wade,) Trump v Slaughter (Presidents can remove heads of any agency they want,) and my personal favorite because it kind of sums up the last 10 years... Trump v United States (Presidents have absolute criminal immunity for official acts and their motives cannot be examined.)
All decided on party-line votes. All decisions that directly or indirectly have had enormous impacts on our country, and will continue to do so for decades to come.
→ More replies (1)19
u/StateYellingChampion 10h ago
It's even worse than that: Thanks to the malapportioned Senate, all of Trump’s Supreme Court nominees were confirmed by a Republican Senate "majority" that actually represented a minority of the population.
→ More replies (3)
35
u/lifelong-skeptic 11h ago
It’s not intimidation he’s worried about, but rather dilution of SCOTUS’s conservative majority
→ More replies (1)19
u/ItsTheEndOfDays Maryland 11h ago
And congress holding them accountable for their role in Jan 6th, bribery, and god knows what else.
→ More replies (3)
70
u/StateYellingChampion 10h ago
Before the New Deal, the Supreme Court and the rest of the judiciary routinely overturned democratically passed laws restricting child labor, setting minimum wages, and placing limits on hours worked. It took FDR threatening to pack the Court to get them to change their tune and start respecting social legislation passed by the federal government. If we have to do the same thing again to rein in the anti-democratic conduct of the current court, I'm all for it.
31
u/Trump_Russia 10h ago
It's not their court it's our court..
If we want 100 justices they'll say "Thank you voting public, we're happy to accommodate."
Who gives a shit what they think?
→ More replies (1)4
85
u/curiousthoughts20 America 10h ago
The problem with the Supreme Court is that they've become so clearly partisan and corrupt that it is forcing future administrations to find a solution to restore the nation's confidence.
I wish we could find a solution rhat doesn't involve growing the court - but I don't see one available
41
u/SeaWitch1031 10h ago
The court should be 13 at a minimum.
13
9
u/thavillain California 10h ago
Agreed. There are 13 Federal Circuit courts. 12 Regional and 1 Federal. At current present standing each is supposed to oversee a separate court.
1st : Brown-Jackson (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Puerto Rico)
2nd: Sotomayor (Connecticut, New York, Vermont)
3rd: Alito (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, U.S. Virgin Islands)
4th: Roberts (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia)
5th: Alito (Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas)
6th: Kavanaugh ( Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee)
7th: Coney Barret ( Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin)
8th: Kavanaugh (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota)
9th: Kagan (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands)
10th: Gorsuch (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming)
11th: Thomas (Alabama, Florida, Georgia)
12th: Roberts (D.C. Circuit Washington, D.C.)
13th Federal: Roberts
So currently:
- Roberts has 3
- Alito has 2
- Kavanaugh has 2
- Everyone else with 1
The ideal split would be everyone has 1, and the Chief Justice oversees Federal.
•
u/AlsoCommiePuddin 5h ago
With each justice serving a single 26-year term, with one seat replaced every two years so that a single president nominates at most 4 of the 13 seats (barring deaths or retirements, who are filled to finish an existing term).
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)8
u/noisymime 8h ago
My thinking is that it should go to something like 45.
Sounds crazy I know, but would allow you to run 5 cases concurrently (desperately needed given the courts backlog) with 9 justices chosen at random on each. It’s considerably more difficult to influence a decision when the judges are being chosen at random from a pool and would mean that appointments become a more regular thing with far less impact from each one.
→ More replies (1)8
u/justlurkshere 8h ago
The part with ‘9 justices at random’ is about as fool proof as things accidentally ending up on Aileen Cannon’s desk.
I support the intent, but there needs to be solid mechanisms and public accountability.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (18)6
u/NonGeneriComplaint 9h ago
adding more justices wont stop them from being corrupt or taking bribes. this country is running with half the government robbing it blind. This really would be the greatest nation on earth if the politics werent so over whelmingly corrupt its a joke.
24
u/KCGeezer 10h ago
One justice for each of the federal appeal courts. 20 yr term. You could tweak this I guess but let’s keep it simple.
7
u/steelhorizon 10h ago
No relections, also there should be some clause about what kind of work can be done after, to stop conflicts of interests.
→ More replies (1)5
u/thavillain California 9h ago
If it stays at 9 Justices, an 18 year term, would allow each presidency to appoint 1 Justice every 2 years. So every president would get 2 appointments (excluding deaths or retirement)
The legislative proposal for the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization (TERM) Act and the Supreme Court Biennial Appointments and Term Limits (BATL) Act, justices would not be removed from office entirely.
They would transition to senior status and would continue to draw their full salary. They could fill in on the Supreme Court if a temporary vacancy or recusal arose, or sit on lower federal appeals courts.
This structural loophole avoids the need for a Constitutional Amendment, as it preserves Article III's requirement that federal judges hold their offices during "good behavior".
So Sr. judges don't have to worry about losing their income when their tenure is up. They continue to draw their salary.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)4
u/Ok-Opposite2309 9h ago
expand SCOTUS to the entire appellate division, then have our new SCOTUS choose a member from each circuit to serve on a review board to decide cases for a one time 7 year term. stage it so that we are getting 1 or two new justices every year. The entire SCOTUS (140 plus judges) can meet once or twice a year, choose cases to be decided by the board, and overturn any decisions of the board with a majority vote.
This would not require any changes to the Constitution. Appellate Justices have already been appointed by a President, confirmed by Congress, and serve for life. Current Justices would remain members of SCOTUS, they would just be cycled back to their circuits to serve from there (see ‘riding circuit’ in SCOTUS history).
20
u/sulris 10h ago
In civics class we called that checks and balances. The court goes too far off the rails, Congress uses its power to rein it back in. I would expect a constitutional scholar to understand that basic concept of our government.
12
u/Jaded-Kangaroo569 10h ago
Alito is a pearl clutching hypocrite. Nothing that comes from his mouth is honest.
6
u/mechapoitier Florida 9h ago
Yeah he’s one of those “decide the verdict and work backward to the justification” kind of judges, and it’s never in favor of the people unless he is certain the will of the people will be circumvented by another impending means.
Everything he says comes from a place of absolute moral corruption.
8
u/PopBulky7023 9h ago
He absolutely understands it. But he's also a theocratic religious extremist. He operates entirely in bad faith. He's correct that a threat to expand is meant to intimidate. It should.
Criminals should fear enforcement of the law.
35
u/Aern 10h ago
Please explain to me how having more justices on the court would "intimidate" the justices already on the court.
23
u/kstargate-425 10h ago
Alito is worried that since the court polices themselves (for now) that the more Justices that are there will not allow him to continue being a corrupt piece of shit and will censor him holding him accountable
15
→ More replies (6)7
13
u/Dseltzer1313 10h ago
The supreme court is corrupt and extraordinary measures must be taken to overcome them and if it means increasing the number of justices to equalize the courts….so be it!
→ More replies (1)
11
u/Dracoson 9h ago
Expansion isn't about 'intimidating' the Court, it's about diluting a majority built through partisan hardball to restore institutional legitimacy.
It's also the only realistic legislative leverage available. Structural reforms like term limits or constitutional ethics oversight face massive legislative hurdles, whereas the size of the Court is dictated entirely by standard federal statute.
Beyond the legitimacy crisis, matching the size of the Court to the federal judicial circuits is basic structural logic. Historically, Congress repeatedly adjusted the size of the Supreme Court to match the number of circuit courts. Today, there are 13 federal judicial circuits, but only 9 justices, forcing several justices to oversee multiple circuits simultaneously. Expanding the Court to 13 isn't a radical departure, it's bringing the Court's administrative structure back in line with the federal judiciary/
→ More replies (1)3
u/PopBulky7023 9h ago
Counter argument, there is nothing wrong with being happy it intimidates them. They're bad faith actors and criminals who abuse their power and fear being checked by force of law. A lack of such fear is what has allowed them to engage in such open rebellion.
→ More replies (2)
9
u/SeminoleDVM Virginia 11h ago
It’s not much consolation here in the moment, but history is not going to be kind to him or any of the current crop of conservatives on the court.
9
8
u/Lollipopsaurus 10h ago
If the Supreme Court is apolitical as it claims to be, then its members would have no opinion on packing the court.
→ More replies (2)
•
13
u/Jorgen_G_Pakieto 10h ago
Justice Alito should be in jail for deliberately neglecting to do his job in favour of conservative politics.
4
6
u/DrunkAndHornyGuy 10h ago
The conservative justices believe they have an inherent right to rule over the country like some Guardian Council. Their power must be removed if we want to continue liberal self governance as a people.
6
u/lifelong-skeptic 10h ago
Fun fact: During ~6 years as president, Trump has invoked the “shadow docket” >3x more often than Bush, Obama and Biden combined — and has won the vast majority of those applications.
7
•
u/nav13eh Canada 7h ago
Alito should remember that he's not the victim and he's not a politician. Yet he behaves like both.
This court has illegitimatized itself. Do the not realize that the constitution says nothing about the size of the court? Do they not realize that a future court could wipe away their precedent under the guise of this court being overtly political and corrupt?
Of course they know these things. But they pretend they don't for their own gain.
•
u/sombertimber 3h ago
Tell him that he’s done enough for the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. He won’t have to pay back the bribes “gifts” he’s taken.
6
4
5
•
u/37Philly 6h ago
There are 13 federal courts of appeal. Makes sense to have 13 Supreme Court justices.
3
u/BrainJar Washington 11h ago
No Alito. Your court is intimidating the American people. You are a representative of the people, not the other way around.
4
u/squareplates 11h ago
Expand the court? How about perp walking your ass into jail for bribery? Because thats what we want to do.
4
u/reject_fascism New Jersey 10h ago
And when the POTUS lies about election integrity, what does that do, you foul wretched scumbag?
4
u/tucker_case 10h ago
If the people will that the court be expanded, how does that intimidate him? That's a rather treasonous statement for him to make iyam
Despite those concerns, Alito said he has not discussed court expansion or age and term limits with the other justices.
So what. No one's asking them what they think.
4
5
u/syynapt1k 9h ago
If it wasn't an illegitimate court that is also empowering a rogue president then we wouldn't have to do it.
•
•
u/To-Far-Away-Times 6h ago
After the McConnell flip flop on Obama’s pick, it would be wrong to leave things as is.
•
•
u/houstonyoureaproblem 4h ago
100% incorrect, as usual with Alito.
No one is trying to intimidate him or any of the other justices to change their votes or to proceed any differently than they have been. We all know what we're getting with the people who are already on the court.
We're just at the point where it has become blatantly obvious the institution isn't functioning correctly in its current form given its current composition. Expansion and/or reform is long overdue.
Sam just doesn't like it because his faction will lose unilateral control over everything the Court does. As they should. They've proven terrible stewards of the law and the Constitution.
8
u/Disintegration_007 10h ago
Perhaps the “court” should stop enacting Project 2025 fascist wet dream goals?
3
u/issuefree 11h ago
He's a lying sack of shit. Everything he says is a lie, especially his opinions.
3
3
u/torchwooddoctor 10h ago
How about we make their financial statements public and see who is really bankrolling them.
3
3
3
3
3
u/penny-wise California 10h ago
Alito is a corrupt self-dealer who is partial to his own interests. Impeach him.
3
3
u/InevitableAvalanche 10h ago
Dude will be remembered as one of the most corrupt justices on a corrupt court. Who cares what he says.
3
u/ChickpeaDemon 10h ago
If the men in the high castle see expansion as intimidation then they should be expanded. If it was a just world each one of these ghouls would be impeached by now.
3
u/LucidOndine 10h ago
If they were doing their job, we wouldn’t need to add people who were capable of enforcing the law as written.
They should be open to an expansion, if the law can be unequivocally enforced, as it means they would have less work.
Instead, the prospect seems a threat to them, because they would rather bend the rules in a way to subvert our law in a way that allows them to ingratiate themselves. They’re not afraid of more judges; they’re afraid that more judges will make it more difficult to get away with their own corruption.
3
u/kevendo 10h ago
It is our right as the governed to "intimidate" the Court via our representatives.
Congress is a check on the Court, that's how it works. We see a Court that no longer functions and we are strongly advocating for radical and overdue changes.
Expanding the Court is our right if we choose to.
3
3
u/Andurilthoughts California 10h ago
Packing the court by increasing the number of justices when you’re in charge is “intimidation” but withholding a nominee for a year when you control the senate is perfectly acceptable apparently.
3
3
3
u/iotashan 8h ago
No, it’s an effort to make it fair again. We don’t care what the guys who always vote one way say or do at this point.
•
u/ChicagoThrowaway422 7h ago
Turnabout is fair play. The court decided to become politically partisan. And they are experiencing political pressure as a result.
Fuck them.
•
•
•
u/banksy_h8r New York 6h ago
If the Democrats take the Senate in November Alito will attempt to immediately retire and have the Republican Senate push through a last-minute appointment between then and the new Congress in January.
And Democrats had better fight that shit tooth and nail.
•
•
•
•
•
20
u/PopularWar730 8h ago
Too many of the worst Supreme Court decisions were made by the Roberts court.
Citizens United, although it was really a series of decisions and not just one case will go down in history as the worst Supreme Court decision of all time, on par and maybe worse than “Separate but Equal” .
Another horrific decision was not to do the recount in Florida in 2000. We can go on and on, but there are few men in history that have done more damage to our nation and the American people than this court.
The Supreme Court should not be able to rule on laws passed by Congress. They are an authoritarian body and do not represent the people of the United States. They can keep ruling on executive orders but they shouldn’t have any say in overriding congressional law no matter how bad or good it is.
They should be elected on off presidential cycles to 4 year terms via the popular vote.
•
u/CanKaNoReyCropper 7h ago
The Supreme Court should not be able to rule on laws passed by Congress.
This makes the entirety of the US Constitution completely and utterly meaningless.
Are you absolutely certain you're thinking clearly about this? Or are you perhaps misspeaking?
•
u/Cloaked42m South Carolina 7h ago
Yes, the Supreme Court MUST rule on laws passed by Congress.
For the class. ANY law passed by ANY legislative body is by default, LEGAL. Congress says you must wear a MAGA hat in order to vote? LEGAL.
Judicial is the piece that says, No, it is Unconstitutional to require that.
→ More replies (2)•
u/Mr_P3anutbutter 6h ago
Roberts was not part of the Supreme Court for Bush V Gore in 2000. The chief justice at the time was William Rehnquist
→ More replies (8)•
u/Rich-Badger-7601 7h ago
Did you just pin Bush v Gore on the 2005 Bush-nominated Roberts?
•
u/Bdmnky_Survey 7h ago
Yeah, between that and wanting the Court to not be able to perform its constitutional job really make me think OP is speaking more out of passion than reason.
•
u/AlsoCommiePuddin 5h ago
Roberts was a key legal advisor for Bush in the 2000 case. It's a big part of why he was nominated to the bench.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Un1CornTowel 11h ago
You're right that it is a clear message that you fucking suck at your job and everyone hates you. That is true. If it intimidates you into actually reading the constitution and not literally making up contrary law in back to back cases in the same session, I'm not mad about it.
5
4
u/ballskindrapes 10h ago
They should be afraid.
They are participating in a slow rolling coup. That never ends well for the participants.
4
•
u/BeansAndBiscuit 3h ago
I see it more as a concerted effort to say, “you are way too corrupt and legally blind.”
3
2
2
u/MalevolentTapir 11h ago
I don't give a damn if he is intimidated or not. Pack the court so the fascist freaks that they've put on it can no longer enable a plainly criminal executive.
It's a joke so few people, for some reason chosen by executive, are handed that much power anyway. Most of these clowns are so publicly sponsored by billionaires they might as well wear their companies logo on their stupid robes like stock cars.
2
2
u/I_SLEEP_NORMALLY 10h ago
He's been one of the most effective conservative activists for decades, and is making up boogeymen to be afraid of. Relax, my guy, you are very good at overturning precedent.
2
2
2
2
u/imjustnotready 10h ago
That's not fair you want to change the rules we rigged! Okay, why don't you go make sure your flag is being flown right side up.
2
u/PowerResponsibility 10h ago
No intimidation intended, at all. It just needs fixing, obviously, because awful motherfuckers are running it.
2
2
•
u/AutoModerator 11h ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.