Time to rewrite the rule for the Supreme Court and bring them in line with the rest of the judiciary. Our trust in them has been misplaced and now that we know they are not to be trusted need to be put on a very short leash. And do away with lifetime appointments. This has proven to be an invitation to a distinct failure.
He’s referring to the Supreme Court we should have, not the one we have. He’s smart enough to throw sound bites about the SCOTUS being there to “protect rights” of “minorities” from “government.” But that’s not what he wants to do with his power. He wants to shape America to fit his twisted little view, not the will of the people, and not the settled laws of the land established by FAR more important and brilliant justices from the past. We need term limits and mandatory retirement for Congress and SCOTUS to ensure diversity and influx of new ideas and contemporary views. Mandatory retirement at 75, or even 70, and 15 years max for Congress and scotus would help usher in fresh minds.
“It’s there for the moments when the spotlight’s on you — when the government’s coming after you. And don’t you want a ferociously independent judge and a jury of your peers to make those decisions?”
When the government is coming after Americans, Gorsuch and the court give the government the greenlight. They let the government force women to die after getting pregnant. They let the government force women to have their lives ruined for having sex. They let the government get away with doing anything they want... ...as long as it makes America greatly authoritarian.
You have to understand exactly who he bins into the category of persecuted minority who must be protected from government overreach.
You know: multinational corporations, billionaires, conservative white Christians , cisgender men...
Their suffering under the current liberal hegemony really is a cause for weeping. I mean...having to pay taxes, acknowledge the existence of other religions, having to see movie trailers that don't cater to their worldview, being unable to control women they've impregnated....really it's been awful.
any judge that wanted to be taken seriously would have never taken the job under the sketchy-AF circumstances that Gorsuch and Corny-Barrett did.
they will FOREVER have that cloud of illegitimacy hanging over them for that decision and it will never ever ever ever go away no matter what they do. that is their legacy and it always will be.
Alito too, for that matter, since he was chosen by Bush the Lesser, who will always have that asterisk next to his name in the history books. Talk about a cloud of illegitimacy.
"Be careful"?? Really?? From one of the fuckfaces who upturned one of the core tenets of American government and voted that a would-be dictator is able to do what he likes? Sure thing Neil, we'll just pretend you're a sober and serious jurist who isn't actively trying to destroy this republic.
There is some serious misinformation all over the place, no doubt started and/or encouraged by SCOTUS and abetted, as always, by the hysterical left, who apparently got too much of a break from handwringing with Kamala's candidacy. SCOTUS didn't make the President a King. They remain the sole and final arbiter of what is or isn't an official act, determined after the fact. It's a Sword of Damocles having over the Resolution Desk.
And the majority in this SCOTUS would likely find the most egregious acts taken by one particular former (and they hope, future) President to be legal and "official". They're power mad themselves, and bought and sold by even more power-hungry oligarchs. I think hand-wringing is, AT THE VERY LEAST, warranted.
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but haven't I seen that you don't reside in the US?
Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas just said that Missouri had standing to stop rage yam's sentencing in New York city. Let that sink in. Gorsuch might enjoy pretending that they are "independent," but the rest of us don't have that luxury. You don't get to make partisan rulings and then claim you're not partisan. I mean you can, nothing is stopping you, but nobody is going to take you seriously except Fox which is why you were there.
They claimed that the New York gag order prevented the citizens of Missouri from hearing everything they need to hear from candidate trump to make a decision about the election. Talk about a reach. 7 out of 9 said, yeah, fuck no.
I expect it from any red state w/a red AG but it felt just like that person across the room who interrupts your conversation with another person to tell you what you should both be thinking
Monkey see, monkey do? What's amusing is that the US calls for reform in the courts are following the ones in Mexico, when usually reform calls go the opposite direction.
Mexico already has 18 year term limits for the Supreme Court, but judicial ethics is a huge issue, and among the reforms sought is an independent tribunal with the power to sanction, or even remove, judges for misconduct, bribery and the like. Also, maybe less an issue in the US, a crackdown on nepotism in hiring court personnel,and judicial salaries and perks.
Reforms here would go much further, potentially including popular election of federal judges (as is done in several US states). Pushing what was called "Plan C" in the recent elections revolved around judicial reform, calling for voters to elect not just a president supporting the consistutional chages needed, but enough legislators to have a supermajority in both houses (pretty close, short only two senators as a result, and easy enough to get changes thru) and enough state legisstlators and goverors to confirm the constituional shanges (Mexico's cosntitutional change process is the same as in the US) and with the new legislature taking office in a couple weeks (1 September), looks like we're gonna see the changes the US will just be dicking around about for the next 20 or so years.
If our current SCOTUS had been in place in 1860, the Civil War could have been avoided. They would have opined that Slavery was an issue which should be decided by the individual States
The Heritage Foundation is a bad joke. People calling themselves "Federalists" are actually taking an "Anti-Federalist" position. That argument was settled rather decisively in 1865. In case they haven't heard, the Federalists won.
"Republicans want 10-year-olds to have babies. Gov Walz wants them to have BREAKFAST and LUNCH." - Joy Reid
https://x.com/thereidout/status/1821004092551970821?t=S21T8rblMZcfFd2BcujY0w&s=19
Time to rewrite the rule for the Supreme Court and bring them in line with the rest of the judiciary. Our trust in them has been misplaced and now that we know they are not to be trusted need to be put on a very short leash. And do away with lifetime appointments. This has proven to be an invitation to a distinct failure.
He’s referring to the Supreme Court we should have, not the one we have. He’s smart enough to throw sound bites about the SCOTUS being there to “protect rights” of “minorities” from “government.” But that’s not what he wants to do with his power. He wants to shape America to fit his twisted little view, not the will of the people, and not the settled laws of the land established by FAR more important and brilliant justices from the past. We need term limits and mandatory retirement for Congress and SCOTUS to ensure diversity and influx of new ideas and contemporary views. Mandatory retirement at 75, or even 70, and 15 years max for Congress and scotus would help usher in fresh minds.
“It’s there for the moments when the spotlight’s on you — when the government’s coming after you. And don’t you want a ferociously independent judge and a jury of your peers to make those decisions?”
When the government is coming after Americans, Gorsuch and the court give the government the greenlight. They let the government force women to die after getting pregnant. They let the government force women to have their lives ruined for having sex. They let the government get away with doing anything they want... ...as long as it makes America greatly authoritarian.
You have to understand exactly who he bins into the category of persecuted minority who must be protected from government overreach.
You know: multinational corporations, billionaires, conservative white Christians , cisgender men...
Their suffering under the current liberal hegemony really is a cause for weeping. I mean...having to pay taxes, acknowledge the existence of other religions, having to see movie trailers that don't cater to their worldview, being unable to control women they've impregnated....really it's been awful.
Oh okay Suchgore, fine, have it your way, we'll restore justice to the justices the old fashioned way: INPEEEEEEEEEEEEEECCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
I was hoping for GUILLATINE!!!!
Ta, Gary. Gorsuch is lucky he's not dragged off the bench by the hair and tossed into the dustbin of history.
Maybe Scalia and Thomas are serious about cashing out, sure seems like he's auditioning for lead heel
jesus christ.
any judge that wanted to be taken seriously would have never taken the job under the sketchy-AF circumstances that Gorsuch and Corny-Barrett did.
they will FOREVER have that cloud of illegitimacy hanging over them for that decision and it will never ever ever ever go away no matter what they do. that is their legacy and it always will be.
old enough to remember pubes on a coke
Alito too, for that matter, since he was chosen by Bush the Lesser, who will always have that asterisk next to his name in the history books. Talk about a cloud of illegitimacy.
Though I suppose he's arguably marginally more legit having gotten thru in Shrub's 2d term, where he did I guess win the popular vote (sigh).
Well, there are still plenty of questions about that election,too.
https://www.citybeat.com/news/ken-blackwell-s-disgraceful-election-machinations-12229108
They think they will be celebrated in the annals of the New American Dominion
"celebrated in the annals" you added an extra letter no doubt by accident
Love y'all 💙💙💙
mutual love right back atchya
What he calls "independence of the judicial system," others of us call "right-wing judges running amok."
All in the agreed-upon definitions of the terms
pretty wild that the "activist judges" conservatives have been screaming about for decades were in their house in the entire time!
The call is coming from inside the house!
"Be careful"?? Really?? From one of the fuckfaces who upturned one of the core tenets of American government and voted that a would-be dictator is able to do what he likes? Sure thing Neil, we'll just pretend you're a sober and serious jurist who isn't actively trying to destroy this republic.
There is some serious misinformation all over the place, no doubt started and/or encouraged by SCOTUS and abetted, as always, by the hysterical left, who apparently got too much of a break from handwringing with Kamala's candidacy. SCOTUS didn't make the President a King. They remain the sole and final arbiter of what is or isn't an official act, determined after the fact. It's a Sword of Damocles having over the Resolution Desk.
And the majority in this SCOTUS would likely find the most egregious acts taken by one particular former (and they hope, future) President to be legal and "official". They're power mad themselves, and bought and sold by even more power-hungry oligarchs. I think hand-wringing is, AT THE VERY LEAST, warranted.
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but haven't I seen that you don't reside in the US?
I be 'Murican.
OK, sorry. I've been in some interesting arguments with people here who were perhaps not the people they represented themselves to be.
👆👆👆
WOW!
I know, right??
t "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" .. andrew jackson
Eh, Andrew Jackson was one of worst Presidents. Let's not follow that particular lead.
Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas just said that Missouri had standing to stop rage yam's sentencing in New York city. Let that sink in. Gorsuch might enjoy pretending that they are "independent," but the rest of us don't have that luxury. You don't get to make partisan rulings and then claim you're not partisan. I mean you can, nothing is stopping you, but nobody is going to take you seriously except Fox which is why you were there.
Missouri the state? Why would the state of Missouri—is this my usual problem where I start trying to understand what isn’t meant to make sense?
Grandpa Simpson said it best, “I’ll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missourah!”
They claimed that the New York gag order prevented the citizens of Missouri from hearing everything they need to hear from candidate trump to make a decision about the election. Talk about a reach. 7 out of 9 said, yeah, fuck no.
That was a serious reach
I expect it from any red state w/a red AG but it felt just like that person across the room who interrupts your conversation with another person to tell you what you should both be thinking
Wasn’t the gag order to get Trump to stop talking smack about the judge and his family? How is that relevant to— i’m doing it again.
Watch out! Rabbit hole ahead.
Yes, you are doing it again. :D
Because he's DONALD TRUMP
Honestly that should be an argument against taking him seriously.
"1st Amendment something something States' rights something something Presidential immunity something something federal preemption.
AMERICA!! Fuck YEAH"
Justice Samuel Alito
Justice Clarence Thomas
Monkey see, monkey do? What's amusing is that the US calls for reform in the courts are following the ones in Mexico, when usually reform calls go the opposite direction.
Mexico already has 18 year term limits for the Supreme Court, but judicial ethics is a huge issue, and among the reforms sought is an independent tribunal with the power to sanction, or even remove, judges for misconduct, bribery and the like. Also, maybe less an issue in the US, a crackdown on nepotism in hiring court personnel,and judicial salaries and perks.
Reforms here would go much further, potentially including popular election of federal judges (as is done in several US states). Pushing what was called "Plan C" in the recent elections revolved around judicial reform, calling for voters to elect not just a president supporting the consistutional chages needed, but enough legislators to have a supermajority in both houses (pretty close, short only two senators as a result, and easy enough to get changes thru) and enough state legisstlators and goverors to confirm the constituional shanges (Mexico's cosntitutional change process is the same as in the US) and with the new legislature taking office in a couple weeks (1 September), looks like we're gonna see the changes the US will just be dicking around about for the next 20 or so years.
If our current SCOTUS had been in place in 1860, the Civil War could have been avoided. They would have opined that Slavery was an issue which should be decided by the individual States
The Heritage Foundation is a bad joke. People calling themselves "Federalists" are actually taking an "Anti-Federalist" position. That argument was settled rather decisively in 1865. In case they haven't heard, the Federalists won.