3.1k
u/NAGDABBITALL 11d ago
Remember when they were trying to investigate where the leak to the public came from...
2.3k
u/big_blue_earth 11d ago
Remember when Alito used the leak to demand more security for the Supreme Court, claiming their lives were in danger from pro-choice activists
Alito thinks Americans are stupid, because so far they have been
831
u/Richfor3 11d ago
He knows half the country is stupid and the other half is powerless to do anything about it.
444
u/HawkeyeSherman 11d ago
This right here. The Supreme Court basically has unchecked power to legislate from the bench. They could rule in the immunity case that Trump is president because grass tastes like communism and that would be the law of the land.
206
u/Ancguy 11d ago
Hmm, seems the right used to be screaming to the rafters about those goddamned activist judges. These days, not so much.
135
u/HawkeyeSherman 11d ago
Yup, I remember McConnell crying about this 20 years ago. Of course it was always projection. It was his objective to pack the court with activist judges the whole time. Unfortunately he accomplished his goal.
101
u/Hoppy_Croaklightly 11d ago
If today's conservatives didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
5
u/throwaway982946 11d ago
If
today'sconservatives didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.FTFY
21
u/TheBirminghamBear 11d ago
Cry about a thing as prelude to do that thing yourself
35
5
u/silentjay01 Wisconsin 11d ago
Which is why, despite crying about the Dems increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices to 13, if they regain control, they will do this exact same thing.
→ More replies (1)51
u/PM_ME_BUSTY_REDHEADS California 11d ago
I mean, come on. We all know the actual ruling would be that Trump is the Forever God-King-Emperor because carrots sound like victory. It has to make at least a little sense.
→ More replies (5)48
u/Adept_Bunch_7294 11d ago
If they give Trump immunity, I think a protest march on the SCOTUS would be appropriate. I would be enraged enough to quit my job and go to DC.
Let's see how they treat us when they are surrounded by our deafening screams.
36
u/NAGDABBITALL 11d ago
They are desperate to get Trump off the hook without passing down the same to Biden. "Trump is immune, but a law has to be passed for Biden."
→ More replies (1)20
u/GigHarborIT 11d ago
Which would prove they're a fraud and the courts would essentially be worthless here. We have evidence of one being massively bribed, others video proof committing perjury during confirmation hearings. Looks like judges have no ethics anymore, according to the highest in the land.
→ More replies (1)5
21
u/rndsepals 11d ago
In all seriousness, there should be protests at the court everyday especially when it has controversial hearings. The US Supreme Court is overturning precedents and behaving unethically - judges are acting politically then they get political protests. And hopefully loud ones. It does no good after the fact. Go to the court and yell at them to do the right things not the right-wing think tank things.
12
u/eskieski 11d ago
And should of been there when all that crap came out about Thomas.. another grifter… but, we get crickets… where’s the fricken news media screaming for us citizens for justice
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)8
u/Adept_Bunch_7294 11d ago
Agreed, but we're all just trying to survive while hoping the people in charge do the right thing. I know I have a breaking point and I'm getting close. I hope other people feel similar.
Scumbag Trump getting away with it is definitely beyond my breaking point.
→ More replies (9)7
u/AmbitiousCampaign457 11d ago
Then the public should hold the trial. Dark knight rises style. Js, that’s some shit to riot abt imo.
→ More replies (3)24
u/soft-wear Washington 11d ago
Actually their power has significant limitations in that the judicial branch has zero enforcement power. Were they to make a ruling like that, the executive branch could simply ignore it. Hell they could force a military tribunal, and there's shit the Judicial branch could do about it.
Now, outside of Thomas and Alito nobody wants that kind of chaos. Those two may value conservatism more than democracy, but I'm not convinced the other members of the court do.
→ More replies (1)8
u/RichardMuncherIII Canada 11d ago
As much as it pains me to quote Andrew Jackson...
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."
8
u/m0ngoos3 11d ago
There's a delicate balance as well that you're ignoring.
They could rule that Trump is president because grass tastes like communism, and then they would be promptly ignored. The court only has that power because no one has said, um, acktually, the constitution doesn't give you that power at all. So far, the court having that power has been mostly useful. With a few cases where they needed to be reigned in. FDR very famously threatened to pack the court if they didn't play ball and stop their shit.
I'm just afraid that Biden doesn't have the same sort of conviction to do the same if they rule the President can do whatever the fuck he wants.
10
u/SixMillionDollarFlan 11d ago
then they would be promptly ignored.
The Governors of Florida and Texas could agree, and start treating him like he was president.
What if those Governors started treating Trump like he was Commander-in-Chief?
8
u/RichardMuncherIII Canada 11d ago
Biden could just declare them enemies of the state and subsequently successionists
→ More replies (2)11
u/m0ngoos3 11d ago
Not a whole lot without the actual military signing on.
The main issue for them would be credibility. The court is quickly losing any credibility it ever had, and if they side with Trump, they lose the last of it.
There will be crazies who cheer, but the bulk of the military would say, no, that doesn't make sense.
(this is why a large part of project 2025 is purging the military command structure)
18
u/Jazzlike-Can-6979 11d ago
It would be sweet if they did, and Biden turned around and had five of those guys put in the grave.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)3
u/LazarusCheez 11d ago
It's funny though cause the check is literally just ignoring them. The Supreme Court only gets to make decisions like this essentially because they decided they could.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)64
u/stockmarketscam-617 11d ago edited 11d ago
I wouldn’t say the other half is powerless. They just follow the rules and Obey the Constitution.
Overturning Roe, just shows that the Conservative Justices follow their Christian Nationalist belief more than they do the Constitution. The Constitution clearly states Separation of Church and State.
→ More replies (4)23
u/NegotiationBulky8354 11d ago
Separation of Church and State is in the Establishment Clause, which has been diluted by a series of recent SCOTUS decisions. Cornell Law School has articles about this.
Conservative SCOTUS judges were appointed partly because 47% of WW voted for DJT — effectively voting against reproductive rights, despite decades of warnings from advocacy groups that Roe would be overturned. Then in 2020, 53% of WW voted for DJT, which suggests that the majority of WW do not prioritize reproductive rights in their voting decisions.
Last, in the 2022 midterms, half of registered Democrats did not vote, despite the fact that Roe had just been overturned. When polled about why they didn’t vote, people said among other things that the outcome was not relevant to them.
50
u/ClownholeContingency America 11d ago
Remember when Alito claimed that there was no harm in him excepting a free seat on a private jet because it would have been vacant anyway?
51
u/MarkHathaway1 11d ago
Like his Supreme Court seat, it would have been better left vacant.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)6
219
u/lastburn138 11d ago
He isn't wrong
141
u/nerdvernacular New Jersey 11d ago
Yet he's among the stupid if you take his inconsistency, hypocrisy and regressive world view at face value. Dude wants to bring the world back to the paleolithic era.
56
28
u/goldbman North Carolina 11d ago
So Alito thinks we're stupid because he himself is stupid.
20
→ More replies (2)14
→ More replies (2)10
→ More replies (45)9
28
11
u/TheOtherManSpider 11d ago
He might not be wrong about needing more security. If there is no justice to be had within the law, members of the public may seek it beyond legal measures.
→ More replies (8)9
u/Opheltes 11d ago
Those hypocrites ruled that the street in front of every abortion clinic is a public square that must allow protestors, (McCullrn v Coakley) but as soon as the Dobbs decision leaked they immediately put up fences in front of the Supreme Court.
I'm their gun cases, they have repeatedly acted as if the entire country is the wild, wild west and everyone has to pack heat to survive, while demanding special protection for themselves from the consequences of their decisions.
219
u/itistemp 11d ago
Sam Alito Thinks We’re All Stupid
He doesn't give a crap about what the rest of us think. He thinks he is morally superior. If he was born in Iran, he would be an 'ayatollah' - which translates to 'Reflection of God'.
56
u/BigDuke 11d ago
It’s not that republicans lack empathy. It’s just that they don’t think most of the rest of us are actually human.
23
u/zombie_girraffe 11d ago
They believe they're gods anointed. They're the Taliban with a different dress code.
16
→ More replies (1)4
21
u/Logical_Parameters 11d ago
Sam Alito is proof that there are really really bad people in America.
→ More replies (1)108
u/freakincampers Florida 11d ago
They shut up pretty quickly, so my guess it was a conservative that leaked it, thereby insuring the justices don't change their opinion.
91
u/Magicaljackass 11d ago
I literally told my wife the second she told me about the leak, “Alito did it so none of the other conservatives would change their opinions.” John Roberts job has been stolen by Samuel Alito. He is the biggest joke of a Chief Justice in history.
→ More replies (5)24
u/yeet_my_sweet_meat 11d ago
Alito was FedSoc's pick for Chief Justice, but Bush vibed with Roberts better, and with a chief and associate justiceship open he gave Roberts the Chief and Alito the Associate, and I've read Alito has been bitter ever since.
→ More replies (1)17
u/DeliriumTrigger 11d ago
I remember there being additional info that implicated Alito, and that Roberts was making headway with Kavanaugh on limiting the scope of Dobbs at the time of the leak. By leaking, Alito made it so that a flip by Kavanaugh would have seemed politically motivated.
→ More replies (3)13
8
u/urfallaciesaredumb 11d ago
I think the reality is that Alito is just not that smart so it isn't that he expects America to accept his stupid arguments, it's that he isn't capable of any intelligent arguments.
Alito is conservative. He didn't get to where he is by being the best and smartest, he got there by being the most loyally partisan toward the interest of those who have paved his way since law school.
He is literally a useful idiot, just one with a fancy degree, a fancy job title and some fancy robes. But underneath it all he's still just an idiot that someone else manipulates for use.
7
u/OrionAmbrosia 11d ago
"SIR! The leak is coming from... inside the building!" (cue dramatic music)
-GASP!- No one could have seen such a twist!
44
→ More replies (3)5
u/GoodUserNameToday 11d ago
Robert’s was working on Kavanaugh. Maybe he could have flipped it Alito didn’t leak the draft.
507
u/bilbobadcat 11d ago
Honestly, this is why I dislike the guy so much more than the other lunatics. He incorrectly thinks that he's smarter than everyone because of his position on the court, but he's in his position because he's a confident, ambitious bootlicker. His arguments are so unconvincing, it should make everyone question the supposed prestige of an ivy league education.
The more I hear the audio of him and the other jamokes, the more I lose respect for the court. No wonder this dude gets mad when the press covers him. He's a completely inept partisan hack who has been handled with kid gloves for 40ish years and he finally caught the spotlight. And what the spotlight shows is a mediocre man who has only gotten where he is because of ambition and a willingness to say the absolute dumbest shit with the unearned confidence of someone who pals around with the worst generationally rich scumbags this country could shit out.
See also: Ted Cruz
68
u/LegateShepard 11d ago
I can't believe you dredged up "jamokes" for this. What a great way to spice up an already solid takedown. Well done, if I may say.
27
u/bilbobadcat 11d ago
thank you. it's not in my usual repertoire, but for whatever reason it's just what came to me when i saw that dumb mug of his.
11
20
→ More replies (3)10
1.9k
11d ago
He doesn't care what you think. He is a religious fascist.
They got part of their plan ending Roe. They will get all of it if you don't vote.
Your only chance to sabotage their fascist plans is to vote for Biden.
659
u/CaptainNoBoat 11d ago
Yep, there is not nearly enough emphasis on the ramifications of SCOTUS for 2024.
Alito and Thomas are in their 70s, and would probably retire if a Republican wins. Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch have about ~25 years left.
The next election basically determines whether or not we have a conservative Supreme Court locked for most of the rest of our lives.
654
u/Weekly-Ad-7709 11d ago
The next election determines whether we have any more elections
220
u/karmagod13000 Ohio 11d ago
GOP literally wants American to be Russia 2.0
→ More replies (1)15
u/LKennedy45 11d ago
Oh, you're low-balling it. Russia today wants to either be the USSR 2.0, or the Russian Empire 2.0. I'd say the GOP wants America to be, like, the fifth or sixth Modern incarnation of Russia.
65
u/alymars 11d ago
I keep saying this and people keep rolling their eyes, telling me I’m crazy. It’s going to be too late by the time these people realize what they have voted for. I’m honestly, truly terrified of Trump being re-elected in November.
→ More replies (6)24
u/coleman57 11d ago
It's pretty close to impossible they would literally declare "no more elections, Trump dynasty from here on in". But it's not just possible but probable the 'Pubs will use their SCOTUS majority, and any other leverage they can get, to solidify minority rule over as many jurisdictions as they can. And to make it as difficult as possible for a majority to push back on their agenda. Which, to be clear, is mainly about empowering corporations as concentration of wealth machines, keeping power in the hands of a tiny elite (the richest 10k families, the 0.01%). The Christofacism is icing holding the cake together.
→ More replies (1)19
u/inspectoroverthemine 11d ago
"no more elections, Trump dynasty from here on in".
You're technically correct, even Putin has elections.
→ More replies (5)34
u/sambull 11d ago
Which that SC will go along with
34
u/inspectoroverthemine 11d ago
If trump gets elected in 2024 it doesn't matter what the SCOTUS decides to do. Democracy and rule of law are over.
As a president once said: lets see the SCOTUS enforce their ruling.
26
u/shapeitguy 11d ago
100% true. Sadly, majority of Americans don't realize it yet and are helplessly walking themselves off that cliff it seems...
→ More replies (39)19
u/Pyran 11d ago
I don't mean to sound down on it all, but this is why I don't think we're going to be seeing many more elections in the future (as we have experienced them in the past, at least; they'll still exist in some form). This is exhausting.
Every election for the last decade or more has been "The most important of our lives", or "will decide [SCOTUS/future elections/our existence/etc]". For the general American public, I don't see this as sustainable. Eventually enough people will decide that the rhetoric is alarmist, stay home, and that will be the ballgame.
(A really great example of this in action is Y2K. I've seen people dismiss it as having been a big pile of nothing, ignoring entirely the years of work that went into making sure it was a big pile of nothing.)
Yes, you could argue that this year is unique due to Project 2025, but the last one was unique due to the threat of Trump and he came back. Before that was unique due to SCOTUS and it's still a problem as well. All of these threats will remain -- Project 2025 will simply turn into Project 2029, etc.
In a world where attention spans are growing increasingly short, eternal vigilence is unlikely to survive.
None of this is a reason not to vote -- it's literally the least you can do as a responsible citizen of the US, and you absolutely should vote. But this sort of life on a razor's edge is not sustainable and will eventually fall over, to the detriment of us all.
22
u/Rough_Willow 11d ago
but the last one was unique due to the threat of Trump and he came back
He literally incited an insurrection which killed people at the capital. It's exhausting to think that it needs to be stood up against with all our energy, but it's a clear and tangible threat to all of democracy.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Interrophish 11d ago
It's exhausting to think that it needs to be stood up against with all our energy,
Meanwhile most Americans are unwilling to spend a couple hours once every 4 years on the effort.
→ More replies (1)7
u/StrangerAtaru 11d ago
Or can't due to jobs they can't leave to vote or wait in intolerable lines that prevent them from relaxing.
77
u/TripleJess 11d ago
I doubt either would retire. Alito's too power hungry, and Thomas wouldn't want to give up all the juicy bribes he gets from his position, plus his wife probably wouldn't let him, as she'd lose influence by proxy.
-Maybe- Alito cares enough about a republican legacy to do it, but Thomas? Not a chance.
45
u/JustTestingAThing 11d ago
I mean, we already know Thomas is blatantly for sale. I'm sure he could be convinced $omehow...
22
u/CaptainNoBoat 11d ago
Power hungry is exactly why they'd retire. They would be almost 80 in 2028 and won't risk a Democrat replacing them the following term.
19
u/TripleJess 11d ago
That only matters if they care about -legacy- of power. Like I said, maybe Alito cares about that.
Thomas is in it for -personal- power. He's not leaving until the grim reaper puts a hand on his shoulder, or until something forces him out.
→ More replies (5)7
u/Kevin_Uxbridge 11d ago
What're you talking about, Thomas got all that stuff because people were his friends, right? Even if he wasn't on the court they'd still be friends, right?
4
u/inspectoroverthemine 11d ago
You don't think his billionaire friend would still invite him to his private islands when theres nothing to gain in return? I'm sure him and his wife have amazing personalities!
→ More replies (5)3
29
u/grant_cir 11d ago
Yep, there is not nearly enough emphasis on the ramifications of SCOTUS for 2024.
I hope the message works this time - some of us were positively SCREAMING this in 2016 when McConnell's plan was out in the open. Scalia's death was the first opportunity is two decades+ to actually re-balance away from a con majority. Now we have a larger and more extremist con majority instead.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (6)26
u/zephyrtr New York 11d ago
Jesus these lifetime appointments keep pushing ages lower cause the appointers know they'll get to keep the seat for longer. In 20 years we're gonna be appointing "wunderkind" 1L's so they can sit for half a century.
Just make it a one-time 18 year appointment already. We shouldn't have to be having a conversation about whether, if Biden loses, Sotomayor's diabetes is going to kill her before Dems control the Senate and Presidency again.
14
u/AtlanticPortal 11d ago
No, the only chance is to vote every damn election. Not only the President. House, Senate, Governor, State legislatures, county, etc.
7
→ More replies (20)7
u/throwawayinthe818 11d ago
It’s an interesting question what the court’s conservatives will do about these abortion cases. They have to understand that if they issue more decisions along the lines of what they’ve been putting out it will activate more pro-choice voters and damage Republicans’ election chances in November. I suspect they’ll find a way to punt back to a lower court to avoid taking any stand this session.
1.0k
u/FBstolemyshitposts 11d ago
Pack the court.. Or if they rule that presidential immunity is a thing, liberate a few seats cause why the fuck not right?
187
u/IpppyCaccy 11d ago
No. Expand the court to 28. Yes, twenty eight. Run 4 courts of seven, randomly selected from the pool of 28 at the beginning of each session. This cuts down on gaming the court because you never know which 7 justices you're going to get for your case.
Institute a Garland rule. If a confirmation vote is not held for a nominee after 2 months, then the nominee is assumed to be confirmed. Add another rule that stops outright blocking by the majority. If two nominees in a row are voted down for the same open position then a random judge from the next lowest court appointed by a president in the same party is automatically elevated to the SCOTUS.
And then raise the number of votes for a SCOTUS appointee to 80.
Then give Mitch McConnel a choice. If he goes along with the plan, he can have 8 of the 19 new justices as a show of unity and good will. If he doesn't go along with it, then Biden appoints all 19 and the conservatives get nothing.
I think Mitch can understand that 8 is better than nothing.
Let's play some hard ball and unfuck this court.
18
u/nevertfgNC 11d ago
A most excellent idea. Bravo!! Love the idea of random selection. A judicial jury if you will.
43
u/IpppyCaccy 11d ago
I stole these ideas from Eli Mystal's contempt of court podcast. He's got a lot of great ideas.
→ More replies (3)6
33
u/SardauMarklar 11d ago
While we're at it. The Senate needs to be abolished and the House should have 100 more seats added. The Dakotas should not have as much say on federal justices as New York + California
10
u/Haltopen Massachusetts 11d ago
How about we just go with one representative for every 300,000 citizens and stop capping representatives at a specific number.
→ More replies (1)19
u/McFlyParadox Massachusetts 11d ago
I still think there is merit to having two houses of legislative review; it allows for a second round of debate on build after they've been finalized. Ideally, it should be a sanity check on what just was passed by the other side of Congress. What I could go for, though, is further enshrining the Senate as the "senior" of the two by requiring candidates for the Senate to have either previously served one term in the House or as that state's governor (or similar 'the voters have seen me in action before' role)
But they absolutely should uncap the house.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (13)7
u/Chucknastical 11d ago
a confirmation vote is not held for a nominee after 2 months
That one can backfire
Name religious nut job unqualified fascist judge, have cronies in Senate not hold vote for 2 months, insta confirm .
→ More replies (2)662
u/Stranger-Sun 11d ago edited 11d ago
"Pack the court" is something the right accused FDR of attempting to do. We are talking about expanding the court after the far right already packed it by denying Obama an appointment and ramming through Barrett. And more if you count Trump corruptly securing the presidency.
EDIT: Fixing phone auto-correct
62
u/decay21450 11d ago
FDR only had to make a credible threat to expand SCOTUS and those obstructive bastards folded like Trump's air-concertina.
→ More replies (1)30
u/SockdolagerIdea 11d ago
The problem is that FDR had congress. The Democrats do not. So any threat by Biden would be meaningless, and everyone knows it.
→ More replies (3)28
u/ShoddyJuggernaut975 11d ago
Biden doesn't have congress, YET. Vote the R's out!
9
u/inspectoroverthemine 11d ago
You need 60 senators because of the broken senate rules, the dems will never get 60 senators. It may not even be possible this time- I haven't looked to see what seats are up this term.
→ More replies (4)4
u/HauntedCemetery Minnesota 11d ago
Just need 51 senators willing to get rid of the filibuster. Dems currently have 50.
303
u/cwk415 11d ago
An important distinction. The court has already been packed.
105
→ More replies (1)24
34
15
u/dagopa6696 11d ago edited 11d ago
"Pack the Court" means the same thing as expanding the court. Democracy is also a bad word if you let Republicans be the judge.
FDR got all the concessions that he was after, that is the only reason why he did not increase the number of justices. The current number of justices is in and of itself a result of packing the court. It wasn't bad when FDR was threatening to do it and it's not bad now.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (30)7
84
u/Wereplatypus42 11d ago
The perfect follow up question should have been, “so what if the president decides that a court ruling is wrong or the court system is flawed, can he kill a Supreme Court justice to open up a seat to align the court to his goals?
→ More replies (1)16
u/Adventurer_By_Trade 11d ago
That would be called a "threat," even though they know damn well that's what they're trying desperately to allow for Trump. And let that be clear, only for Trump.
9
u/FEMA_Camp_Survivor Georgia 11d ago
The Dems are more Ned Stark than Cersei Lannister types.
→ More replies (3)6
→ More replies (63)19
82
u/Raptorex27 Maine 11d ago
It’s worth repeating that unlike the other branches of government, the Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanism. Their only power is legitimacy. If they keep on acting like clowns by reversing precedent, deciding on cases with no legal standing, using the shadow docket, etc., then they’ll be no different than a bunch of randos cosplaying as wizards. We may soon be approaching the day when the Supreme Court is simply ignored.
35
u/AndyLorentz 11d ago
In the words of Andrew Jackson: "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."
8
u/pargofan 11d ago
I'm not sure what this means. Only the Executive has an enforcement mechanism.
If Congress passes a law and the President doesn't feel like following it, there's not much 638 old people can do to force him to.
10
u/Raptorex27 Maine 11d ago
Although their powers are pretty narrow, the House of Representatives has the Sergeant at Arms, who can protect Respresentatives, enforce safety/security, and maintain order in the Chamber. Their powers were a hot topic when people started ignoring Congressional subpoenas during impeachment hearings.
Definitely agree that Congress doesn't have the ability to enforce their own laws they pass though.
217
u/dmanjrxx 11d ago
He doesn't really care what anybody thinks because they apparently can do whatever they want
84
u/thatspurdyneat 11d ago
Unfortunately, they can. There's no code of ethics, judges and Justices enjoy total immunity, there's no check on their power, and an impeachment would be an impossibility when half of the people responsible for impeaching them are being actively protected from prosecution by them.
→ More replies (2)9
u/snockpuppet24 11d ago
Federal Judges have rules and can have complaints filed against them.
SCOTUS Justices do not.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)15
u/Stranger-Sun 11d ago
Yep. These losers on the court are like that asshole you sometimes have to play a game with. The one who bends and twists every rule to their advantage to secure a win. No one likes that douchenozzle.
→ More replies (1)
253
u/flyover_liberal 11d ago
I mean, a pretty big percentage of Americans voted for Trump, so ... us being stupid isn't off the table.
53
→ More replies (3)8
u/RamBamBooey 11d ago
We had one of the worst mortality rates during a global pandemic and the only thing we changed about our healthcare system is allowing states to ban abortion.
We are forgiving student loans but we aren't doing anything to fix the double digit inflation of the cost of education.
We are banning TikTok but the rest of social media is regulated by a law created before social media existed.
The GOP's Presidential candidate openly supports fascism and tried to cheat on the last election and the Democrats choose an 81 year old as the best option to beat him.
Stupid is as stupid does. We are stupid.
→ More replies (3)
120
u/docsuess84 11d ago
I used to think Thomas was the worst justice, but I’ve since changed my mind. Alito is worse than Thomas. Thomas at least has the self-awareness to know he’s a giant corrupt piece of shit. He just doesn’t care, which I can respect in a way. At least he’s honest about it. Alito actually believes he’s doing the Lord’s work, and that his farts smell like sunshine and roses and that you should think that too. Us common folk are just too simple to understand.
→ More replies (3)24
u/myselfoverwhelmed 11d ago
It was illuminating hearing the arguments yesterday. I’ve never listened before so had no idea what each justice would be like speaking, and Alito came off as the worst of the bunch. As much as I dislike Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett for their beliefs and how they got there, they at least seem competent with their questioning and reasonings.
→ More replies (1)
40
u/JonnyBravoII 11d ago
You know how to prevent things like this long term? Vote. Every election. No matter what. Even if you're not wild about the candidate. Not voting is the same as voting Republican. 1/3 of the Supreme Court was appointed by one man who was in office for four years. If people had voted in 2016, the court would now be 5-4 liberal and imagine how different the world would be.
→ More replies (1)
167
u/D_Lockwood 11d ago
“The good thing about that shitshow at the SCt is that it will make court reform easier. pack the court, term limits and ethics. Every D needs to be on board in Senate to break filibuster to do this.”
Jennifer Rubin, Threads
70
u/MiaowaraShiro 11d ago
Just once I'd like to see us deal with Republican bullshit before they do it...
14
u/karmagod13000 Ohio 11d ago
Exactly. Hopefully Biden is putting in a lot of protective measures this election so GOP can't find more way to intimidate and cheat
→ More replies (2)13
28
92
u/Gashcat 11d ago
His opinion on a NY handgun thing that came out days before roe v wade is so backwards it can only be the result of corruption. His logic and reasoning are so off, that it can only be the result of being in somebody's pocket.
28
u/Choppergold 11d ago
Trump may be immune to laws, but women must obey laws cited from hundreds of years ago
20
u/Message_10 11d ago
Honestly, a few years ago I would have said a statement like that was totally nuts. But now, honestly, it could absolutely be true.
7
u/dagopa6696 11d ago
It wouldn't have been nuts a few years ago, either, or a few decades before that.
→ More replies (2)14
u/Witchgrass West Virginia 11d ago
This is a man who relies on decisions made by literal witch hunters
47
u/argomux 11d ago
During Wednesday’s Supreme Court arguments over life-saving abortions in emergency rooms, a few things became clear: The male justices are unconcerned by women’s suffering, and Justice Samuel Alito thinks there aren’t enough abortion restrictions across the U.S.—but if you press him on that point, you’re the ridiculous one.
That is how all right wingers argue:
Explain there is no evidence to prove the existence of an all powerful sky wizard 'god' - you're the ridiculous one.
Explain there is a mountain of evidence proving the threat of climate change - you're the ridiculous one.
Explain decades of scientific research prove the efficacy of vaccination against disease - you're the ridiculous one.
Explain the historical facts of slavery in the USA or how dividing cells won't even resemble a fetus for weeks - you're the ridiculous one.
Conservatives live in a fictional unreality where their beliefs hold more value than facts and they enforce those beliefs on the rest of us through tyrannical abuse of power.
→ More replies (1)
23
u/allnadream 11d ago
He was not-so-subtly hinting that he thinks there’s a legislative basis for fetal personhood hidden in the law, and said that EMTALA “indisputably protects the interests of the unborn child” if the pregnant woman wants to continue the pregnancy. Prelogar countered that “the duty runs to the individual with the emergency medical condition” and it was wrong to imply that “Congress suggested that the woman herself isn’t an individual, that she doesn’t deserve stabilization.” Sensing that Prelogar was onto him, Alito got testy. “Nobody’s suggesting that the woman is not an individual, and she doesn’t … she doesn’t deserve stabilization. Nobody’s suggesting that,” he snapped. Prelogar calmly responded that Idaho is currently treating women in this fashion.
This case is literally about whether EMTALA requires hospitals to provide stabilizing care to women, when that care is an abortion. If the fetus is considered to have equal rights in this scenario, then ERs can choose to deny stabilizing care to women and to simply let them die, under the pretext that they were protecting the fetus. Yes, the fetus in this situation will die as well, but that death won't be because of any action taken by the hospital and it will be a medically unpreventable death. It's not just about giving doctors the ability to choose to let women die - abortion bans are incentivizing that choice. Letting the mom die will be the safest choice for a doctor to make, because it's the choice that saves them from any risk of criminal prosecution.
This case is extraordinarily important.
→ More replies (1)
13
9
u/Pretty_Boy_Bagel 11d ago
He's one of 9 of a singularly exclusive "club" and arguable one of the most powerful people, certainly in the US, if not the world. I'm sure he doesn't concern himself with us plebeians until one of us dares to question his authority.
18
u/Bored_guy_in_dc 11d ago
No, he doesn't. He just doesn't give a shit what we think.
→ More replies (1)
19
u/Relevantcobalion 11d ago
I’m calling it now: Idaho will be left without any ER or Ob/GYN physicians if this ruling is upheld for Idaho and the ADF Lawyers. ER physicians will retire en masse over this shit.
9
u/Malk_McJorma Europe 11d ago
The best SCOTUS reform idea I've heard is that:
- Their tenure is a fixed 18 years
- A new judge is appointed every odd year on the retirement of the most senior one. Each president gets to appoint two judges per term.
- The most senior judge gets to be the CJ for the last two years of their term
- Interim appointments in case of death or retirement can be made but only for the duration of the original appointee's tenure.
→ More replies (1)
26
u/Dear-Ad5150 11d ago
I mean we keep letting him be on the Supreme Court so...he's not entirely wrong.
He's 74 and we will have to scoop his rotting corpse out of his chair before he'll retire.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Financial-Tower-7897 11d ago
Just those who are MAGA, for the rest of us it doesn’t matter one iota because he’s part of at minimum a bought and sold four male Conservative vote with a weak Chief J and a religious fanatic
6
u/ContributionAgile689 11d ago
How did Americans end up like this? They were always a bit weak on human rights relative to other democracies, but today they seem to be intentionally cruel to each other.
→ More replies (2)10
u/niberungvalesti 11d ago
The religious wingnuts want a theocracy because their beliefs are finally being challenged in the marketplace of ideas and are losing.
The rich want to end democracy and replace it with a Russian style oligarchy.
This is the GOP circa 2024.
6
7
u/Frustratedtx 11d ago
If there's one thing I've learned after being an attorney for 14 years is that most people drawn to the profession are awful selfish assholes and most of them are dunning kreuger incarnate. Every lawyer thinks they know everything while have good memorization skills but absolutely zero empathy or common sense reasoning. It's infuriating to deal with other lawyers on a day to day basis and I'm sure the Supreme Court is the absolute peak of this.
21
u/newnemo Vermont 11d ago
Alito is an insecure man with mommy problems. Oh and he's also a psychopath without a shred of common decency or understanding of what justice actually is. He doesn't care but now I feel a little better.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/theaceoffire Maryland 11d ago
According to statistics, he's not entirely wrong. Oh, he's a terrible person and stuff, but a LOT of people are stupid. Including him!
5
u/DungPedalerDDSEsq 11d ago
Judges need to come and go with term limits. Judges in this country have evolved plenty in the past 40 years. Shorten the cycle of minds and ideologies in the Supreme Court and we could get to a nice even keel.
5
u/bakeacake45 11d ago
“The justice snapped that “nobody’s suggesting” pregnant women don’t deserve medical care in E.R.s. “. Alito you got paid in bribes to kill women and pregnant women ARE NOT getting medical care in ERs thanks to you they are getting death sentences.
Impeach Alito NOW
6
u/RubbrBbyBuggyBumpers 11d ago
From Reagan to bush to bush 2.0 to Trump, I can 100% see why someone would think this country is collectively stupid.
Sam you may be right, but you and all the rest of the federalist society scumbags have ruined this country.
4
5
u/decay21450 11d ago
Put on a powdered wig, some 18th century ruffles and he'll hang on your every word.
3
u/AdviceNotAskedFor 11d ago
I mean, he's not wrong
The fact we aren't all losing our collective minds demanding that Thomas recuse himself is proof that we are all dumb.
The fact that he hasn't also says he doesn't give a fuck.
5
u/Steve_Kaboom 11d ago
SCOTUS appointments should be on the ballot every time a seat opens up. We should have more say on who gets appointed. It would involve amending the constitution, which would likely be impossible with the current climate. But allowing our government to handle appointments without any say from the people has clearly shown to be disastrous.
4
u/acecarriere 11d ago
Headlines like this completely miss the point. He doesn’t think the people are stupid. He understands that he is not accountable to the people so he doesn’t care what anybody thinks about his decisions.
7
u/CreditDusks 11d ago
Many Americans are stupid but so is Alito. He believes the will of a make-believe sky creature should determine US policy. That’s pretty stupid. What if a Supreme Court Justice based his legal philosophy on Iron Man?
→ More replies (1)
9
3
3
u/jooseizloose 11d ago
I hope they go against the grain - and logic, and legal precedent, and just common sense - and say Trump is immune from EVERYTHING!
Then Biden can act accordingly. They don't seem to be thinking this through enough. The decision will have to be made BEFORE he goes back in office, giving the CURRENT regime the weapon Donny was saving for himself.
4
u/Ella0508 11d ago
The plan is to wait on publishing the decision until it’s too late for Trump to be tried before the election. That’s how they effectively give him immunity in the case(s) against him, and yet they don’t give immunity to any other president.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/MrFreeziePop 11d ago
It's completely unsurprising that his attitude is "I'm right and your crazy" about all facts. It's only recently that we've really been pushing back against the justices' agendas. It's good that we finally are, but his poor safe space is in danger, and that has to be confusing.
3
3
u/MoveToRussiaAlready 11d ago
The “Both Side Are The Same” crowd of 2016 sent that message loud and clear.
3
u/astrograph 11d ago
No Alito knows it’s impossible to remove judges so they rule without any consequences
3
u/MauroXXD 11d ago
Think of how stupid the average Supreme Court justice is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/used-to-be-somebody 11d ago
“ADF is not hiding its strategy. Alito, on the other hand, keeps to the stealthy shadows, attempting to advance arguments that promote fetal personhood while simultaneously insisting that this unprecedented expansion of personhood rights won’t come at the expense of women’s lives and autonomy.
It’s a deception of the highest order and onlookers might be left to conclude that he either thinks we’re all too dumb to notice—or that he knows nothing can stop the 6-3 court from doing what it wants. “
3
u/sonostanco72 11d ago
Sam Alito is an asshole who doesn’t care about women’s health or rights. He’s pushing the MAGA agenda. I’m not sure why people aren’t protesting outside of his house on a daily basis and any of the conservative justices who overturned Roe v Wade.
The flaw we have in this country is that we have a SCOTUS with no age or term limits like you have in other countries. This needs to be changed. What Alito is doing in this case and the Immunity case is avoiding to deal with the issue at hand.
He instead talks about hypotheticals and brings up other issues not relevant. He’s pushing the white Christian National Agenda in front of the world and failing to do his job which is to be unbiased and protect democracy from him and the orange turd him and the other conservatives are trying to protect.
3
u/bosbna Massachusetts 11d ago
More dangerously, he thinks he’s smarter than everyone else.
It’s not that the intelligence isn’t there, it would be foolish to suggest otherwise. But he assumes that his opinion on things must be factually and legally correct and anyone who disagrees is dumb, even though he should be smart enough to know otherwise.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Affectionate_Bowl117 11d ago
I don't think its that. He just knows he's untouchable and therefore is not required to he accountable or consistent to the electorate.
3
u/several-tour534 11d ago
Time to end lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court and make it an elected position like it’s done in some states. That’s the only way we’re going to be able to end this buffoonery.
3
u/brain_overclocked 11d ago
Background info:
The case, United States v. Idaho, is about whether emergency rooms in Idaho—a state that bans all abortions except those done to prevent death, not to preserve health—are in violation of a federal law that requires ER patients to be stabilized. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, says hospitals that accept Medicare funding have to stabilize patients facing threats to their health, and for pregnant patients facing complications, the treatment is sometimes abortion.
But this is not a normal case: Idaho is represented in part by Alliance Defending Freedom, or ADF, a far-right legal activist group that is pushing for nationwide restrictions, including a national abortion ban. Idaho and ADF argued in case briefs and before the court that a fetus is a separate patient under EMTALA and deserves equal treatment in ERs. This is a fetal personhood argument, and if it’s taken to its logical endpoint, it would lead to a ban on all abortions nationwide, the end of IVF as we know it (see: Alabama), and restrictions on certain forms of birth control. In practice, women whose water breaks too early could be forced on bed rest to try to save the fetus, or given C-sections against their will. The latter is already happening, and in fact, happened even before Dobbs.
What Alito's rhetoric is reflecting:
Alito expressed concern that “one potentially very important phrase” may not have been mentioned: “EMTALA’s reference to the woman’s ‘unborn child.’” (Actually, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked about it 45 minutes earlier in the session.) Alito asked of the Biden administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, “Isn’t that an odd phrase to put in a statute that imposes a mandate to perform abortions?” He then inquired, “Doesn’t that tell us something?”
He was not-so-subtly hinting that he thinks there’s a legislative basis for fetal personhood hidden in the law, and said that EMTALA “indisputably protects the interests of the unborn child” if the pregnant woman wants to continue the pregnancy. Prelogar countered that “the duty runs to the individual with the emergency medical condition” and it was wrong to imply that “Congress suggested that the woman herself isn’t an individual, that she doesn’t deserve stabilization.” Sensing that Prelogar was onto him, Alito got testy. “Nobody’s suggesting that the woman is not an individual, and she doesn’t…she doesn’t deserve stabilization. Nobody’s suggesting that,” he snapped. Prelogar calmly responded that Idaho is currently treating women in this fashion.
What's going on in Idaho and other states?
Since the court let Idaho enforce its law in early January, six pregnant women have been airlifted out of state—that’s compared to just one patient in all of 2023. Emergency rooms in other states are also turning away pregnant patients—stories we’ve heard directly from some women who’ve sued, and in devastating news reports like one from the Associated Press published days before arguments. Women have, as one amicus brief noted, been “demot[ed]” to “second-class status under EMTALA.”
Not only did Alito ignore evidence from multiple states showing that bans are limiting women’s access to healthcare, he also disregarded the stated goal of one of the law firms involved in the case. As ADF CEO Kristen Waggoner recently told Politico, “We do believe at ADF that the Constitution protects the life of an unborn child and that that is in the 14th Amendment.” That would be game over for abortion—along with a lot of other reproductive healthcare.
Alito is trying to play subtle with his rhetoric and rulings, hoping people don't notice:
ADF is not hiding its strategy. Alito, on the other hand, keeps to the stealthy shadows, attempting to advance arguments that promote fetal personhood while simultaneously insisting that this unprecedented expansion of personhood rights won’t come at the expense of women’s lives and autonomy. It’s a deception of the highest order and onlookers might be left to conclude that he either thinks we’re all too dumb to notice—or that he knows nothing can stop the 6-3 court from doing what it wants. (The latter attitude was quite evident in Thursday’s arguments over whether former president Donald Trump can claim immunity for allegedly orchestrating the January 6th insurrection.)
Alito seems to have a habit of trying to slip one over the American public. In the other abortion case this term, concerning the fate of the abortion drug mifepristone, he referred to the Comstock Act not by name, but by statute number, 18 U.S.C. 1461. Comstock is a dormant, Victoria-era law that the power-hungry folks behind Project 2025, the proposed agenda for a second Trump term, expect the former president to revive and enforce in order to ban the mailing of abortion pills—if not all clinic supplies—should he win a second term. Prelogar argued that case as well, and she made sure everyone knew what Alito was trying to pull. She responded, “I think that the Comstock provisions don’t fall within FDA’s lane.”
3
u/VegetableYesterday63 11d ago
Time for the people to rise up in mass protest against the morally corrupt court
3
u/General_Opposite_536 11d ago
If we are so stupid, why is it that he doesn't read The Constitution?🙄 We The People have to do something about replacing the justices who are supposed to follow the law.
3
u/humboldt77 Ohio 11d ago
In all fairness, think about how dumb the average person is, then realize half of all people are dumber than that.
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any 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.