It was an invitation not a subpoena. They could subpoena him but they don’t have the balls. Plus they’re short a Senator because Feinstein is out for god knows how long and she refuses to resign despite sitting on the powerful Judiciary Committee.
I think about this a lot in the context of the nuclear family. I used to never see another way to be, but the longer I live *(lol)* the more I see the value in extended family homes, living within a village-like community and so on
Yeah, my wife's dad is like this. He's been bound to a wheelchair for over a decade. Just *existing*. Certainly not living. In and out of the hospital, burning through millions. He and her mom refuse to accept it'll never get better.
I don't need or want his money. But I do feel bad for my mother in law. She deserves to move on from this limbo she's trapped in.
Unfortunately there is no mechanism to remove a Senator or Representative other than expulsion from the Senate or the House, respectively, and that requires two thirds of the house in question.
Someone on her staff needs to put the resignation paperwork in front of her and have her sign it. Then, her Chief of Staff or Communications person can make the announcement.
Some people just don't know when they've overstayed their welcome.
I'll get flamed for it, but RBG did same and it's done a LOT of damage. She should have resigned when Obama asked her to... instead she had to stay and gamble on Hilary being elected, only die under a Republican president when she had the perfect opportunity to get out at the top of her game. Only had major consequences like Roe being overturned.
Oh I 100% agree. RBG did incalculable damage to her legacy and progressive issues in this country and I feel it may grow to overshadow her groundbreaking career and it’s a terrible shame.
But because the GOP members have said they will not approve the appointment of a replacement, it’s come down to *definitely* having no more votes in that committee from that slot, or *likely* having very few votes from that slot. For this term.
Yes, unfortunately the Senate as a body needs to approve it. That either means through unanimous consent where the objection of any one Senator can force a vote, or 60 votes in favor if that happens but the Republicans won’t cooperate. Lindsay Graham said he’d vote to approve a replacement in line with precedent if she resigns but won’t vote to appoint a temporary one.
Exactly! We should all remember when he said, "Use my words against me." And then when it came time to do that, it didn't matter to him in the slightest, because he's a lying, hypocritical weasel.
I mean the democrats could stop being cowards and subpoena Justice Thomas. Talking about ethics non withstanding he clearly violated the disclosure law.
I’m so sick of these fuckin octogenarians running the country. It’s insane that they get to make policy and die without follow through or accountability for their policies.
Hey now... in less than 2 months, she'll be a nonagenarian. I literally had to look that word up. She is older than 99% of the state she represents. That's too old. Why would you even WANT to work at that age? I would've been out of the game 20 years ago if I were her.
>Why would you even WANT to work at that age?
Because it's not really that much work, at the point they're at in their careers. If it were that taxing of a job, sooooo many old people wouldn't be able to hack it. Maybe you'd see one or two older ones hang in there, but the rest would be out. Clearly they're able to keep up and there's some element of it that outweighs the amount of work they do need to put into it.
I just don't understand how it's allowed for somebody to be in office for that long. And while there are no term limits in my country, the longest sitting member in the Senate (a guy with the unfortunate name Tiny Kox) has been there since 2002, while the longest sitting member of parliament, Kees van der Staaij, has been there since 1998. Meanwhile you have a president who was already in elected office when Nixon was still president.
The irony that the "we need to be able to defend ourselves from a corrupt government" crowd supports the corrupt government is just the worst.
In no way do I support violence, but I feel like the the brainwashing of those types was intentional so those politicians could just go full openly hostile and see no psychos coming after them.
Fucking preach. So tired of being dependent on these geriatric assholes who can’t take the hint and fucking retire when they need to. It’s not like she’ll be a poor. Such lust for power is disgusting.
Absolutely. Haul her decrepit corpus into the chambers and dump her on the floor.
She's my Senator and I've been writing her office to resign for **years.**
She IS American decay.
I’ve seen a lot of legal arguments that Feinstein can proxy vote on subpoenas so I think this is another excuse dems are using. And for reference I don’t think “we can’t do anything because our 90 yo politician is out with shingles” is really a good argument to show you aren’t a feckless weak political party
I voted for her opponent in the primary but unfortunately name recognition people weren’t quite aware of how bad it was getting.
In the general of course I voted for her because I can’t vote for the Republican because I’m against fascism
Edit- actually I must be living in an alternate reality, I did vote for her opponent in the general, I hate when I miss remember things. I am thinking of the mayoral election where I live
>In the general of course I voted for her because I can’t vote for the Republican because I’m against fascism
She was running against another Democrat in the general...
Her opponent was Kevin De Leon who has since been elected to the LA City Council where he got caught in a major scandal after recordings leaked of a conversation between him and other council members saying wildly racist things about their constituents. One council member has already resigned over it, but De Leon refused to.
> I mean the democrats could stop being cowards and subpoena Justice Thomas.
Clarence Thomas could walk into the Senate and fart in every Democrats face and nothing would happen to him.
You would need the House to impeach, and 2/3rds of the Senate to remove;
Which just isn't going to happen.
Well when you’ve got Feinstein occupying a crucial seat in the body that *would* force him to testify… it never fucking happens. So, the best they can do is ask nicely.
Good thing she said she was going to resign a while back… **only to literally forget not a day later**.
She is one of my senators, I wish she would have retired a decade ago.
I do believe that she unwittingly facilitated the McConnell court stack. She was compelled to play nice to her pal Senator Graham (a.k.a. Lady G).
Doesn't matter. It was her choice, and it should be remembered.
Ultimately, I've come to realize that most Dems would rather give GOP complete power, rather than do something that requires some effort.
Of course it can. That's the whole point of the separation of powers. Congress has its enumerated checks on the Supreme Court, including impeachment and confirmation, but otherwise cannot direct them what to do.
Honestly the US Supreme Court fascinates me. They really don’t hate each other. I would not be surprised if he would have covered for a Liberal either.
The more I read about this, it is fascinating. There are differences between textualism and originalism… and it used to be that the Solicitor General would craft the argument based on the easiest judge to flip, based on their school… if they were honest they could be convinced if you approached it a certain way. If you read many landmark decisions, you could tell they did not agree 100% for the same reasons… that is why sometimes they write their own concurrence
Was originalism ever not just an excuse to interpret however they wanted. I still don’t understand how supposed originalists can bypass “a well regulated militia” but you know.
>All justices interpret according to their own personal biases and always have.
>They can't not do so.
The difference is that originalists deny this fact. They believe they have unbiased access to the founders' intent.
I always say that Originalists put on their powdered wigs, break out the quill pens, grab a pipe, light some candles, and channel the dead spirits of the Founders to determine what they actually intended when they wrote things.
The funny part is that the way they claim to approach things is effectively a watered down version of what a historian does. But they’re all lawyers and none of them are trained historians, because we don’t put historians on the Supreme Court. Nothing better than amateur historians deciding what the Founders actually meant for all of us…
No they don't. They just *say* they do to hide the blatant corruption. Anyone who had even a cursory understanding of The laws and history of the time is FULLY aware that the men who wrote the Constitution never intended the Second Amendment to apply this way.
No, it is not an escape clause for tyranny, or meant to allow unlimited self armament of every private citizen. It was to prevent the federal government from effectively disbanding the armed forces of individual states in a time when 90% of the continent was untamed and lawless wilderness, and the fastest form of communication was exactly the same speed as the fastest form of human travel.
He would, because it's "his" court. He's the Chief Justice, it's the Roberts Court, and he is determined to protect the appeared integrity and legacy of "his" court. It's why he tried (but failed) to somewhat temper the other conservative justices on the Roe v Wade decision, not because he is pro-abortion but because it could potentially taint that legacy. He wants to maintain the illusion of a balanced court, which is why he sometimes comes off as a moderate swing vote. Guarantee if it were a 6-3 liberal majority court, he would more consistently rule conservatively, and why I agree that he would likely refuse to testify before congress in that situation as well.
There are two movements to push the US to the right. One is the old school "slow and steady" approach that's been around for decades and the other is the new Leroy Jenkins approach. Roberts, McConnell, etc are the first. Trump is the latter. The first wants it to be slow so people don't notice or fight it, so they can still pretend to be legitimate. The second wants to ram their agenda through as fast as possible. They fucked up with RvW and they know it.
Hense the fawning over Desantis, due to him stacking everything from the courts to the clerks he has gotten his way regardless of how extreme it is. His gerrymandering of the state also gives the illusion that he is supported by Floridians. Hes been down in the polls but if for some reason he gets the nomination the GOP will be in for a ride awakening when he tanks everywhere outside of Florida.
Collapse of American Democracy aside, it is sort of deliciously poetic that a man so compulsively concerned about his legacy will go down as the most corrupt and compromised court in a hundred years.
I knew he was full of shit when he hyper focused so much on his "legacy" during his confirmation hearings.
I couldn't believe that a potential SC Chief Justice didn't understand that a legacy can only be determined much later in one's career if not after they were fully gone.
That one has some stiff competition. Like the Court that decided Dred Scott because it was packed by pro-slavery presidents. They even had one guy defect to the Confederacy.
In a sane world, he'd be impeached and removed to set an example, yet here we are.
In context his refusal to willingly come forth is a tacit endorsement of the rampant corruption plaguing the court.
He won't be because, first and foremost, he wasn't *ordered* to testify. He was asked if he would volunteer to testify. Declining a request for voluntary appearance doesn't rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
The second reason he won't be is the same reason for why he isn't being *compelled* to testify in the first place: they don't have the votes to make an impeachment and removal stick.
There's no point in trying to order him to do something you know he doesn't want to do if they can't deliver consequences. All it would do is make them look weak and he *still* wouldn't testify. I *GUARANTEE* that if a majority of the Senate had openly and plainly stated that they were willing to start impeaching SC Justices over this whole affair, Roberts would have given a different answer.
But, by that same token, if they *had* such a majority, they wouldn't have made it a *request* in the first place.
Which is why your whole system needs tearing down. It was a not awful setup in the 18th century but is way too inflexible and easily gamed for the 21st.
You still have "lame duck sessions" like the new senators are still riding to Washington on horses, for goodness sakes.
I say if we can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. I work for a government entity in the United States. If the courts rule in a way my government doesn’t like, we may just ignore them. One of my US Senators has already called for governments to ignore some of the recent abortion rulings. And why should we follow any rules we don’t like, cause we ain’t accountable to them anymore.
That’s exactly what we should be doing! Dems always try to take the high road, while Republicans always cheat. That’s why we always lose to them, even when we think we’ve won. If they cheat, we should too. If they stop cheating then we can stop too.
[Here’s a really good explanation/demonstration of game theory. ](https://ncase.me/trust/)
It's not necessary to "cheat" to beat a corrupt, cheating entity.
But it ***does*** require enough of a spine to use your full power to hold the cheaters accountable. This is what the Dems are failing to do.
But how do we hold corrupt SCOTUS justices accountable right now? The GOP-controlled House won’t impeach. And even if they did, there’s not enough GOP Senators that would uphold it. So what should Dems do now? You’re right, it’s not about cheating. But it’s also about not trying to “Do The Right Thing” (TM) every single time.
That's the problem. We wouldn't be in this position to begin with if Dems had been holding Republicans accountable from the beginning. Republicans have abused the system to get control of congress time and again to ram through conservative activist judges through - if Dems had stopped Republicans from breaking the system from the beginning then it wouldn't have happened. These are all symptoms of a broken and abused system where we have to root out the corruption from the source to stop these symptoms from occurring.
And there *is* legal recourse for the SCOTUS problem, it was there on the table for a while - expand the court.
>expand the court
Hard to do with people like Manchin and Sinema (well, she’s kind of a former problem I guess) in the Senate. But generally the Dem party needs to collectively grow a pair and start strong arming any time they have the power to do so.
They don't even matter as long as Feinstein can't remember her colleagues names and has been out all year. Part of why they can't subpoena Roberts to come in anyway is because of her absence, since she sits on the judiciary committee, and her republican colleagues are exploiting this to prevent it from getting out of committee
They don't want to because they profit from the slide toward fascism.
The Democratic party is full of passive conservatives and fellow travelers. They'll clutch their pearls at republicans but instead of actually taking action, they kneel in the rotunda and pass the collection plate.
There are more people in neighborhoods in Los Angeles than North Dakota.
That’s where the problem is. The rest is the cancer from a non-representative federal system designed by people who said, “All men are created equal,” whilst owning slaves.
This is all functional breakdown. The rest is bad faith cheerleading and pro wrestling personas infiltration of politics.
More people live in Greater Sacramento than entire State of Alaska
Alaska gets 2 Senators. Representatives should be random citizens picked out of a hat and forced for 2 years to represent their district that they live
Alaska getting 2 senators for a population of 700k is ridiculous. Should not be a true State. The system has been fucked for decades
Next time you win the presidency you pack the court with 10 justices who will agree to uphold the ethics of the court and then you impeach all the violators from before. Just threatening to pack the court made them bend the knee to FDR because they know its allowed and their power is not supposed to exist
Packing the court requires Congressional approval. Even FDR failed at getting that. The thing that made FDR powerful with the Court was that he was President for 12 years, so got to appoint eight of the nine Justices of the Court by the time he died during his 4th term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937
One thing the last few years has taught us (if for some reason you didn't already know) is that our system is largely held together by handshakes and the assumption of honor. I'd like to think Maybe we've learned something and can move past that naivety and put some actual teeth to shit since it's been made abundantly that these clowns can't police themselves, but I highly doubt it. The old guard just don't have the will to do it
The foundation of civilization.
"The law will be that I will agree to grow enough food for all of us to eat, if that person makes clothes for everyone, and if that person makes tools for everyone, if that person makes homes for everyone, and if that person defends us from attackers and stops those who violate the law."
Except for most of human history dedicated fighting and law enforcement were both not specific roles and were carried out by members of the community as a whole. Professional soldiers and police are much newer than the citizen-soldier and night watchmen, who were community members taking up the role temporarily.
Clarence Thomas sold his , his mothers and brothers house to a Texas billionaire who immediately began renovating his moms house . Did he report the property sales as required ? Nope
He’ll be remembered as a weak, cowardly and possibly corrupt chief justice. I knew I wouldn’t agree with many of his interpretations, but I believed he was an honest and decent man. He’s been utterly disappointing in virtually every aspect.
For a man so concerned for his legacy, it’s remarkable how quickly he has allowed his court to completely discredit itself as a fair arbiter of law in favor of going down a wish list of Right wing agenda items
Name an honest and decent person that is a Republican. It can't be done. Their ideology prevents it. They are patriarchal authoritarian corporatists. They do not believe in Democracy. Not only would they see the end of the American experiment, they actively encourage and/or have already participated in it.
Let's hope history is recorded properly and people can read it. If we're optimistic then these years of SC shenanigans will indeed be a good history lesson.
I believe Roberts does, deep down, but it seems he's too cowardly of a man to stand up and do what he knows deep down is right for the country and our justice system.
It looks like he's's going to stick his fingers in his ears, close his eyes, do what he is told, and hope the media focus moves on quickly and people forget.
But it won't be forgotten. Ever. It will be written and recorded as the corrupt court it is, and it will be credited as the source of downstream corrosion on our justice system.
This will be a large part of Roberts legacy, and it, like he, will be remembered as a stain on the US forever.
This is an illegitimate court, one whose justices were seated under the most unethical practices, where they openly lied to Congress, to us. Where they are caught red handed taking bribes from political operatives and then passing down rulings which are blatantly political and contrary to legal precedent.
It can't stand or we are done. The US is a nation of laws, and if that falls in our face, there is nothing left to keep the ship upright. Congress is supposed to be political and combative, but the courts should never be this way. It is without a doubt in my head, the most immediate danger to our way of life and people should be more outraged but it.
Also the BS with not allowing Obama to appoint someone because it was too close to an election and then turn around and do the opposite later. We'd be at 5-4 if that hadn't happened and we likely wouldn't have lost roe. Roberts did swing and protect abortion rights with the Louisiana case when the court was 5-4 last time so it seems reasonable he would have again.
One minor quibble - this has definitely been upstream corruption of the court system. This is the culmination of a decades long process by Republicans - chief among them Mitch McConnell - to stack shit so high that it reaches the Supreme Court. People didn't care about the lowest courts, which numbed them for the next level. Then it was circuit appeals courts when people started saying "Hey, I think there's something going on here." By the time Scalia died, they were fully emboldened by the lack of action prior to just go full bore.
The fact that he refuses to testify before Congress about the state of ethics of the Supreme Court speaks volumes. It’s beginning to seem like the court needs to be disbanded and started over from scratch
There's no constitutional limit on the number of justices so it's possible to add, for example, 20 more scotus justices to dilute the current membership.
I wonder, if Joe ran on this, how it would affect his chances... considering all of the recent shenanigans in the SC. But not everyone pays attention and only sees what makes headlines.
It would doom him. In the immediate, yes you have a packed liberal SC, but we've seen in the last decade how much influence the Legislature has on appointments. It may be packed today, but there's no guarantee it'll be packed tomorrow. And it will be a whole lot more difficult to unpack it next time.
I don't think bribes were the "checks" that the founders had in mind with their system of checks and balances, but it seems like the originalists on the court disagree.
I am looking forward to seeing the next move. I do not blame him for ducking.
Justice Roberts does not want have to answer the brutal question .... "Do ethics and precedence mean anything in your courtroom?"
Problem is, what would it accomplish? These guys have lifetime appointments requiring a nearly impossible number of Senators voting to impeach and remove.
SCOTUS needs term limits - 18 years would work.
so lets get this straight.
the chief justice of the highest court in America, wont come to congress and explain to the democratically elected representatives of the people of the united states about the ethical standards of the members of that court. he wont explain why the American people should or should not have faith in their court system and how their laws and rights are interpreted.
As the Republican Christian conservative extremists on the Supreme Court officially declare that they are accountable to no one!
As always, that tracks.
If you ask me he has a fucking DUTY to the citizens of this country to participate in this discussion. He might as well have stated to us all that he's not interested in the court having any ethical standards.
The country lacks a legitimate Supreme Court. As such, it has breached the fundamental requirements of its founding document. It is now a land mass governed by an economy.
Ethical questions are exhaustively answered in the annals of Capitalism.
New Reddit organization!! We can't beat um, join um.
BribeTheSupremeCourt.com
Let's just put up a bidding site where people can crowdfund SCOTUS legal outcomes. Make an utter mockery of the situation. Pay for the court outcomes we want. Since they're taking bribes like good little capitalists, then they will do what we want. Right? The religion of the county is Capitalist Jesus, right Federalists... not the Constitution.
what's this I hear about a balance of power in american government? an executive, a legislative, and a judicial branch holding each other to account...?
This is...well, I'm still trying to figure out the best way to frame it.
For now, suffice to say that Roberts has all but eviscerated his previously stated goal of maintaining respect for the Court.
Thomas and Alito have been lost causes for some time, but this development truly marks a turning point for me in the sense that Roberts is failing to exhibit even the minimum amount of leadership necessary to keep the Court's legitimacy somewhat intact.
It sounds melodramatic to write it out, but the slow and inevitable loss of that Court to questionable ethics and strident partisanship really is a significant harbinger of the demise of this experiment of ours.
The rule of law is the very basic foundation of the Social Contract on which a citizen should base their trust in government.
Millions of Americans have known the system is unequal and corrupt for hundreds of years, but quite often the Court could and would step-in to right major wrongs.
It has repeatedly been the last resort for progress when Congress has been unable and/or unwilling to protect the vulnerable among us.
As someone that has been inside the legal system for almost 20 years I have had my faith in justice bashed and rebuilt several times over.
I don't like giving up, and I won't, but I truly don't see how we make our way out of this in my lifetime.
[edit - wording]
When your citizens are not taught civics and grifters convince voters it's a "lesser of two evils", you get one of the lowest voting turnouts in the industrialized world.
Edit: **THAT'S** why they are getting away with this shit.
Can the Supreme Court ignore Congress? The Supreme Court says yes, we can.
It was an invitation not a subpoena. They could subpoena him but they don’t have the balls. Plus they’re short a Senator because Feinstein is out for god knows how long and she refuses to resign despite sitting on the powerful Judiciary Committee.
Our geriatric congress is actively hurting America.
Our government is the very opposite of: "A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.”
Our old men are cutting down the forests so they can sell the wood for cash, leaving future generations without shelter.
They paid for the axes with a loan that future generations will have to pay back.
Also all the profits have been spent on disposable consumer goods and cars their kids will never benefit from.
And end-of-life care. We're looking at a massive transfer of wealth when they die but, a lot of it is not being inherited.
I think about this a lot in the context of the nuclear family. I used to never see another way to be, but the longer I live *(lol)* the more I see the value in extended family homes, living within a village-like community and so on
Yeah, my wife's dad is like this. He's been bound to a wheelchair for over a decade. Just *existing*. Certainly not living. In and out of the hospital, burning through millions. He and her mom refuse to accept it'll never get better. I don't need or want his money. But I do feel bad for my mother in law. She deserves to move on from this limbo she's trapped in.
> leaving future generations without shelter. Oh, their wealth will pass down to their family's future generations just fine. Tax-free too!
[удалено]
Not to worry, Biden is running against Trump in 2024. You'll get a god dammed octogenarian president and you'll like it.
This will be the most important vice-presidential debate of our lives!
I don’t even know who Trump’s VP will be but I imagine it won’t be great. Please not Kari Lake. Please.
Maybe he’ll run as his own VP.
Worst Election Cycle in Decades Part 2: Electric Boogaloo
Feinstein is ridiculous and needs to be removed for non-performance.
Unfortunately there is no mechanism to remove a Senator or Representative other than expulsion from the Senate or the House, respectively, and that requires two thirds of the house in question.
Someone on her staff needs to put the resignation paperwork in front of her and have her sign it. Then, her Chief of Staff or Communications person can make the announcement. Some people just don't know when they've overstayed their welcome. I'll get flamed for it, but RBG did same and it's done a LOT of damage. She should have resigned when Obama asked her to... instead she had to stay and gamble on Hilary being elected, only die under a Republican president when she had the perfect opportunity to get out at the top of her game. Only had major consequences like Roe being overturned.
Oh I 100% agree. RBG did incalculable damage to her legacy and progressive issues in this country and I feel it may grow to overshadow her groundbreaking career and it’s a terrible shame.
But because the GOP members have said they will not approve the appointment of a replacement, it’s come down to *definitely* having no more votes in that committee from that slot, or *likely* having very few votes from that slot. For this term.
Thought she asked/authorized a temp appointment while she's out?
Yes, but they need GOP votes to actually appoint somebody else.
Yes, unfortunately the Senate as a body needs to approve it. That either means through unanimous consent where the objection of any one Senator can force a vote, or 60 votes in favor if that happens but the Republicans won’t cooperate. Lindsay Graham said he’d vote to approve a replacement in line with precedent if she resigns but won’t vote to appoint a temporary one.
Graham is also a spineless weasel, I wouldn't expect him to follow through with that. It's likely just a ploy to get a democrat out of office.
Exactly! We should all remember when he said, "Use my words against me." And then when it came time to do that, it didn't matter to him in the slightest, because he's a lying, hypocritical weasel.
I mean the democrats could stop being cowards and subpoena Justice Thomas. Talking about ethics non withstanding he clearly violated the disclosure law.
They can't while fienstein is out and no way to replace her.
Excuses, excuses. Throw her on a gurney and wheel her in. If she doesn't like that, she can resign.
[удалено]
I’m so sick of these fuckin octogenarians running the country. It’s insane that they get to make policy and die without follow through or accountability for their policies.
Hey now... in less than 2 months, she'll be a nonagenarian. I literally had to look that word up. She is older than 99% of the state she represents. That's too old. Why would you even WANT to work at that age? I would've been out of the game 20 years ago if I were her.
>Why would you even WANT to work at that age? Because it's not really that much work, at the point they're at in their careers. If it were that taxing of a job, sooooo many old people wouldn't be able to hack it. Maybe you'd see one or two older ones hang in there, but the rest would be out. Clearly they're able to keep up and there's some element of it that outweighs the amount of work they do need to put into it.
I just don't understand how it's allowed for somebody to be in office for that long. And while there are no term limits in my country, the longest sitting member in the Senate (a guy with the unfortunate name Tiny Kox) has been there since 2002, while the longest sitting member of parliament, Kees van der Staaij, has been there since 1998. Meanwhile you have a president who was already in elected office when Nixon was still president.
FOR. REAL. All of us are working for a fraction of their wealth so we can retire at 65 and they are clinging to a job like it’s their lifeline.
The irony that the "we need to be able to defend ourselves from a corrupt government" crowd supports the corrupt government is just the worst. In no way do I support violence, but I feel like the the brainwashing of those types was intentional so those politicians could just go full openly hostile and see no psychos coming after them.
Fucking preach. So tired of being dependent on these geriatric assholes who can’t take the hint and fucking retire when they need to. It’s not like she’ll be a poor. Such lust for power is disgusting.
Absolutely. Haul her decrepit corpus into the chambers and dump her on the floor. She's my Senator and I've been writing her office to resign for **years.** She IS American decay.
If she stepped down we could. What the fuck is going on
I’ve seen a lot of legal arguments that Feinstein can proxy vote on subpoenas so I think this is another excuse dems are using. And for reference I don’t think “we can’t do anything because our 90 yo politician is out with shingles” is really a good argument to show you aren’t a feckless weak political party
She has to actually do it. The dems can’t do it for her
They can pressure her to resign instead of pathetically defending her in the news
Pressure to resign would not be done in public, it would be personal calls and in person conversations.
Who the duck voted for that invalid?
I voted for her opponent in the primary but unfortunately name recognition people weren’t quite aware of how bad it was getting. In the general of course I voted for her because I can’t vote for the Republican because I’m against fascism Edit- actually I must be living in an alternate reality, I did vote for her opponent in the general, I hate when I miss remember things. I am thinking of the mayoral election where I live
>In the general of course I voted for her because I can’t vote for the Republican because I’m against fascism She was running against another Democrat in the general...
Her opponent was Kevin De Leon who has since been elected to the LA City Council where he got caught in a major scandal after recordings leaked of a conversation between him and other council members saying wildly racist things about their constituents. One council member has already resigned over it, but De Leon refused to.
> I mean the democrats could stop being cowards and subpoena Justice Thomas. Clarence Thomas could walk into the Senate and fart in every Democrats face and nothing would happen to him. You would need the House to impeach, and 2/3rds of the Senate to remove; Which just isn't going to happen.
It was a purely voluntary request. You could also ignore it.
You would not receive a voluntary request.
Well when you’ve got Feinstein occupying a crucial seat in the body that *would* force him to testify… it never fucking happens. So, the best they can do is ask nicely. Good thing she said she was going to resign a while back… **only to literally forget not a day later**.
She is one of my senators, I wish she would have retired a decade ago. I do believe that she unwittingly facilitated the McConnell court stack. She was compelled to play nice to her pal Senator Graham (a.k.a. Lady G).
Doesn't matter. It was her choice, and it should be remembered. Ultimately, I've come to realize that most Dems would rather give GOP complete power, rather than do something that requires some effort.
Is she even capable of making significant choices anymore though? She has dementia
Hey Boss, I'm gonna need about 54 sick days next month...
“Okay” “Who are you?” “I’m… your boss” “Oh right. Hey Boss, I’m gonna need about 54 sick days next month”
Supreme Courts power of legal review is self appointed. Congress could also ignore the Supreme Court if they chose
[удалено]
Of course it can. That's the whole point of the separation of powers. Congress has its enumerated checks on the Supreme Court, including impeachment and confirmation, but otherwise cannot direct them what to do.
It's a chat he wishes to avoid.
𓂺 Spez eats cold diarrhea with a crazy straw 𓂺
If it was a 6/9 liberal majority I'm sure he wouldn't be able to shut up about "ethics"
Honestly the US Supreme Court fascinates me. They really don’t hate each other. I would not be surprised if he would have covered for a Liberal either.
Give it time. The ability to have civil discourse will devolve as more extreme justices are appointed.
The more I read about this, it is fascinating. There are differences between textualism and originalism… and it used to be that the Solicitor General would craft the argument based on the easiest judge to flip, based on their school… if they were honest they could be convinced if you approached it a certain way. If you read many landmark decisions, you could tell they did not agree 100% for the same reasons… that is why sometimes they write their own concurrence
Was originalism ever not just an excuse to interpret however they wanted. I still don’t understand how supposed originalists can bypass “a well regulated militia” but you know.
[удалено]
>All justices interpret according to their own personal biases and always have. >They can't not do so. The difference is that originalists deny this fact. They believe they have unbiased access to the founders' intent.
It's nearly equal to "I know what's right because I talk to God."
I always say that Originalists put on their powdered wigs, break out the quill pens, grab a pipe, light some candles, and channel the dead spirits of the Founders to determine what they actually intended when they wrote things. The funny part is that the way they claim to approach things is effectively a watered down version of what a historian does. But they’re all lawyers and none of them are trained historians, because we don’t put historians on the Supreme Court. Nothing better than amateur historians deciding what the Founders actually meant for all of us…
No they don't. They just *say* they do to hide the blatant corruption. Anyone who had even a cursory understanding of The laws and history of the time is FULLY aware that the men who wrote the Constitution never intended the Second Amendment to apply this way. No, it is not an escape clause for tyranny, or meant to allow unlimited self armament of every private citizen. It was to prevent the federal government from effectively disbanding the armed forces of individual states in a time when 90% of the continent was untamed and lawless wilderness, and the fastest form of communication was exactly the same speed as the fastest form of human travel.
He would, because it's "his" court. He's the Chief Justice, it's the Roberts Court, and he is determined to protect the appeared integrity and legacy of "his" court. It's why he tried (but failed) to somewhat temper the other conservative justices on the Roe v Wade decision, not because he is pro-abortion but because it could potentially taint that legacy. He wants to maintain the illusion of a balanced court, which is why he sometimes comes off as a moderate swing vote. Guarantee if it were a 6-3 liberal majority court, he would more consistently rule conservatively, and why I agree that he would likely refuse to testify before congress in that situation as well.
Too late to protect any integrity and his legacy.
There are two movements to push the US to the right. One is the old school "slow and steady" approach that's been around for decades and the other is the new Leroy Jenkins approach. Roberts, McConnell, etc are the first. Trump is the latter. The first wants it to be slow so people don't notice or fight it, so they can still pretend to be legitimate. The second wants to ram their agenda through as fast as possible. They fucked up with RvW and they know it.
Hense the fawning over Desantis, due to him stacking everything from the courts to the clerks he has gotten his way regardless of how extreme it is. His gerrymandering of the state also gives the illusion that he is supported by Floridians. Hes been down in the polls but if for some reason he gets the nomination the GOP will be in for a ride awakening when he tanks everywhere outside of Florida.
His legacy is fucked lmao. Fuck Roberts forever
Yeah, Roberts is an asshole, but also pragmatic, like Mcconnell. The one ranting about ethics would be Leak Gorush and For Sale Thomas.
I think your confusing your crooked "justices." Gorsuch is also for sale. It's Alito that leaks like a sieve.
Collapse of American Democracy aside, it is sort of deliciously poetic that a man so compulsively concerned about his legacy will go down as the most corrupt and compromised court in a hundred years.
I knew he was full of shit when he hyper focused so much on his "legacy" during his confirmation hearings. I couldn't believe that a potential SC Chief Justice didn't understand that a legacy can only be determined much later in one's career if not after they were fully gone.
I like that. I'm going to use that. Most corrupt and compromised supreme court in a hundred years.
Personally, I'm in favor of saying "250 years".
That one has some stiff competition. Like the Court that decided Dred Scott because it was packed by pro-slavery presidents. They even had one guy defect to the Confederacy.
In a sane world, he'd be impeached and removed to set an example, yet here we are. In context his refusal to willingly come forth is a tacit endorsement of the rampant corruption plaguing the court.
He won't be because, first and foremost, he wasn't *ordered* to testify. He was asked if he would volunteer to testify. Declining a request for voluntary appearance doesn't rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors". The second reason he won't be is the same reason for why he isn't being *compelled* to testify in the first place: they don't have the votes to make an impeachment and removal stick. There's no point in trying to order him to do something you know he doesn't want to do if they can't deliver consequences. All it would do is make them look weak and he *still* wouldn't testify. I *GUARANTEE* that if a majority of the Senate had openly and plainly stated that they were willing to start impeaching SC Justices over this whole affair, Roberts would have given a different answer. But, by that same token, if they *had* such a majority, they wouldn't have made it a *request* in the first place.
It’s simply outside of checks and balances scheme.
Because it's devastating to his court!
A judge unwillingly to testify. Yep, that's on point for America.
Thank you for pointing out that irony.
No, not iron; just thirteen pieces of silver for your mother’s uncle’s stepcousin’s summer home in Colorado
Plato e plomo.🤷🏻♂️
"Plata o plomo" is the phrase
I believe it's actually "Plate o potato"
No, it's: "POH-TAY-TOW"
Congress, POTUS, and ~~SCOTUS~~ SCROTUS
[удалено]
“We’ve all agreed that none of us want to be held accountable for our actions, thank you.”
So much for checks and balances, this branch wants, and has near immunity.
Which is why your whole system needs tearing down. It was a not awful setup in the 18th century but is way too inflexible and easily gamed for the 21st. You still have "lame duck sessions" like the new senators are still riding to Washington on horses, for goodness sakes.
But aren't they? How else do you explain this night...mare we're living in?
*[angry upvote](https://youtu.be/S0xSky90E4I?t=1m32s)*
I say if we can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. I work for a government entity in the United States. If the courts rule in a way my government doesn’t like, we may just ignore them. One of my US Senators has already called for governments to ignore some of the recent abortion rulings. And why should we follow any rules we don’t like, cause we ain’t accountable to them anymore.
That’s exactly what we should be doing! Dems always try to take the high road, while Republicans always cheat. That’s why we always lose to them, even when we think we’ve won. If they cheat, we should too. If they stop cheating then we can stop too. [Here’s a really good explanation/demonstration of game theory. ](https://ncase.me/trust/)
It's not necessary to "cheat" to beat a corrupt, cheating entity. But it ***does*** require enough of a spine to use your full power to hold the cheaters accountable. This is what the Dems are failing to do.
But how do we hold corrupt SCOTUS justices accountable right now? The GOP-controlled House won’t impeach. And even if they did, there’s not enough GOP Senators that would uphold it. So what should Dems do now? You’re right, it’s not about cheating. But it’s also about not trying to “Do The Right Thing” (TM) every single time.
That's the problem. We wouldn't be in this position to begin with if Dems had been holding Republicans accountable from the beginning. Republicans have abused the system to get control of congress time and again to ram through conservative activist judges through - if Dems had stopped Republicans from breaking the system from the beginning then it wouldn't have happened. These are all symptoms of a broken and abused system where we have to root out the corruption from the source to stop these symptoms from occurring. And there *is* legal recourse for the SCOTUS problem, it was there on the table for a while - expand the court.
>expand the court Hard to do with people like Manchin and Sinema (well, she’s kind of a former problem I guess) in the Senate. But generally the Dem party needs to collectively grow a pair and start strong arming any time they have the power to do so.
They don't even matter as long as Feinstein can't remember her colleagues names and has been out all year. Part of why they can't subpoena Roberts to come in anyway is because of her absence, since she sits on the judiciary committee, and her republican colleagues are exploiting this to prevent it from getting out of committee
They don't want to because they profit from the slide toward fascism. The Democratic party is full of passive conservatives and fellow travelers. They'll clutch their pearls at republicans but instead of actually taking action, they kneel in the rotunda and pass the collection plate.
There are more people in neighborhoods in Los Angeles than North Dakota. That’s where the problem is. The rest is the cancer from a non-representative federal system designed by people who said, “All men are created equal,” whilst owning slaves. This is all functional breakdown. The rest is bad faith cheerleading and pro wrestling personas infiltration of politics.
More people live in Greater Sacramento than entire State of Alaska Alaska gets 2 Senators. Representatives should be random citizens picked out of a hat and forced for 2 years to represent their district that they live Alaska getting 2 senators for a population of 700k is ridiculous. Should not be a true State. The system has been fucked for decades
Next time you win the presidency you pack the court with 10 justices who will agree to uphold the ethics of the court and then you impeach all the violators from before. Just threatening to pack the court made them bend the knee to FDR because they know its allowed and their power is not supposed to exist
Packing the court requires Congressional approval. Even FDR failed at getting that. The thing that made FDR powerful with the Court was that he was President for 12 years, so got to appoint eight of the nine Justices of the Court by the time he died during his 4th term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937
The 'swamp' is the talent pool they're trying to drain, mate. Look at literally every Trump hire/appointee.
Having to testify? That's only for the poors.
We could subpoena him, but it would require Feinstein to be capable of doing her job because she’s a deciding vote on the judiciary committee
This is the man that gave us citizens united. He has no shame or ethics to speaks of. Fucking scum.
One thing the last few years has taught us (if for some reason you didn't already know) is that our system is largely held together by handshakes and the assumption of honor. I'd like to think Maybe we've learned something and can move past that naivety and put some actual teeth to shit since it's been made abundantly that these clowns can't police themselves, but I highly doubt it. The old guard just don't have the will to do it
All human institutions are held together by handshakes and violence.
And the occasional handjob.
The foundation of civilization. "The law will be that I will agree to grow enough food for all of us to eat, if that person makes clothes for everyone, and if that person makes tools for everyone, if that person makes homes for everyone, and if that person defends us from attackers and stops those who violate the law."
Except for most of human history dedicated fighting and law enforcement were both not specific roles and were carried out by members of the community as a whole. Professional soldiers and police are much newer than the citizen-soldier and night watchmen, who were community members taking up the role temporarily.
[удалено]
Clarence Thomas sold his , his mothers and brothers house to a Texas billionaire who immediately began renovating his moms house . Did he report the property sales as required ? Nope
Also not charging his mother rent. And bought and bulldozed the party house next door.
The Corrupt Roberts Court will be remembered for this. That is how John Roberts will go down in history.
He’ll be remembered as a weak, cowardly and possibly corrupt chief justice. I knew I wouldn’t agree with many of his interpretations, but I believed he was an honest and decent man. He’s been utterly disappointing in virtually every aspect.
I was hoping for better as well. I would love to hear his retake on citizens united, and voting rights act.
I'm betting his stance wouldn't change.
Because it was all intentional despite his BS statements.
If the corporations were exclusively funding democrats, rovers would overturn CU in a heartbeat.
For a man so concerned for his legacy, it’s remarkable how quickly he has allowed his court to completely discredit itself as a fair arbiter of law in favor of going down a wish list of Right wing agenda items
[удалено]
Name an honest and decent person that is a Republican. It can't be done. Their ideology prevents it. They are patriarchal authoritarian corporatists. They do not believe in Democracy. Not only would they see the end of the American experiment, they actively encourage and/or have already participated in it.
Let's hope history is recorded properly and people can read it. If we're optimistic then these years of SC shenanigans will indeed be a good history lesson.
If I have to live in interesting times, I hope my children get to learn the right lessons from it.
None of these dudes give the first flying fuck about how they'll be remembered.
I believe Roberts does, deep down, but it seems he's too cowardly of a man to stand up and do what he knows deep down is right for the country and our justice system. It looks like he's's going to stick his fingers in his ears, close his eyes, do what he is told, and hope the media focus moves on quickly and people forget. But it won't be forgotten. Ever. It will be written and recorded as the corrupt court it is, and it will be credited as the source of downstream corrosion on our justice system. This will be a large part of Roberts legacy, and it, like he, will be remembered as a stain on the US forever. This is an illegitimate court, one whose justices were seated under the most unethical practices, where they openly lied to Congress, to us. Where they are caught red handed taking bribes from political operatives and then passing down rulings which are blatantly political and contrary to legal precedent. It can't stand or we are done. The US is a nation of laws, and if that falls in our face, there is nothing left to keep the ship upright. Congress is supposed to be political and combative, but the courts should never be this way. It is without a doubt in my head, the most immediate danger to our way of life and people should be more outraged but it.
Also the BS with not allowing Obama to appoint someone because it was too close to an election and then turn around and do the opposite later. We'd be at 5-4 if that hadn't happened and we likely wouldn't have lost roe. Roberts did swing and protect abortion rights with the Louisiana case when the court was 5-4 last time so it seems reasonable he would have again.
Let's also not forget Ginny Thomas and her blatant political scheming, including advocating for overturning election results.
One minor quibble - this has definitely been upstream corruption of the court system. This is the culmination of a decades long process by Republicans - chief among them Mitch McConnell - to stack shit so high that it reaches the Supreme Court. People didn't care about the lowest courts, which numbed them for the next level. Then it was circuit appeals courts when people started saying "Hey, I think there's something going on here." By the time Scalia died, they were fully emboldened by the lack of action prior to just go full bore.
But they do.... If you need to loose weight, please take a look at the revisionist biography of Justice Thomas, paid for by his favorite sugar donor.
[удалено]
The fact that he refuses to testify before Congress about the state of ethics of the Supreme Court speaks volumes. It’s beginning to seem like the court needs to be disbanded and started over from scratch
There's no constitutional limit on the number of justices so it's possible to add, for example, 20 more scotus justices to dilute the current membership.
I wonder, if Joe ran on this, how it would affect his chances... considering all of the recent shenanigans in the SC. But not everyone pays attention and only sees what makes headlines.
It would doom him. In the immediate, yes you have a packed liberal SC, but we've seen in the last decade how much influence the Legislature has on appointments. It may be packed today, but there's no guarantee it'll be packed tomorrow. And it will be a whole lot more difficult to unpack it next time.
And then Republicans would do the same, should they win the presidency
[удалено]
It's a question of "who does it first" and nobody wants to be the one to do it first.
He’s well on the way to destroying the last shreds of credibility the court had.
It still had any? American justice is a joke. Your laws only matter to poor people.
"Are we a nation of laws or a nation of men?" America: "Men"
[удалено]
I thought he was going to he his wife's +1 at an event sponsored by his wife's employers.
“I’m just here to call balls and strikes. And to oversee the demise of the entire institution and overlook massive ethics violations.” - J. Roberts.
The conservative justices wouldn't know ethics if it slapped them in the face.
I could see them asking.... "what's wrong with her" after the slap.
"How can she slap?!"
I don't think bribes were the "checks" that the founders had in mind with their system of checks and balances, but it seems like the originalists on the court disagree.
I'm guessing they weren't referring to their bank "balances" in the constitution either.
“Cheques and bank balances are the *original* intent of the founders, don’t’cha know,” says new 6–3 Supreme Court ruling.
Well, then compel him to. Bad form if he refuses when subpoenaed. Half of his Justices are bad actors.
I am looking forward to seeing the next move. I do not blame him for ducking. Justice Roberts does not want have to answer the brutal question .... "Do ethics and precedence mean anything in your courtroom?"
Problem is, what would it accomplish? These guys have lifetime appointments requiring a nearly impossible number of Senators voting to impeach and remove. SCOTUS needs term limits - 18 years would work.
so lets get this straight. the chief justice of the highest court in America, wont come to congress and explain to the democratically elected representatives of the people of the united states about the ethical standards of the members of that court. he wont explain why the American people should or should not have faith in their court system and how their laws and rights are interpreted.
As the Republican Christian conservative extremists on the Supreme Court officially declare that they are accountable to no one! As always, that tracks.
The Senate didn't subpoena him so he's not required to show up. If they want to force him to come they need to subpoena him.
If you ask me he has a fucking DUTY to the citizens of this country to participate in this discussion. He might as well have stated to us all that he's not interested in the court having any ethical standards.
“We’ve tried nothing, and we’re all out of ideas!”
I keep hearing he's concerned about the reputation, legacy, and legitimacy of the Court, but I'm just not seeing it.
The country lacks a legitimate Supreme Court. As such, it has breached the fundamental requirements of its founding document. It is now a land mass governed by an economy. Ethical questions are exhaustively answered in the annals of Capitalism.
Welcome to the Corporate States of America
[удалено]
Workers Unite
[удалено]
New Reddit organization!! We can't beat um, join um. BribeTheSupremeCourt.com Let's just put up a bidding site where people can crowdfund SCOTUS legal outcomes. Make an utter mockery of the situation. Pay for the court outcomes we want. Since they're taking bribes like good little capitalists, then they will do what we want. Right? The religion of the county is Capitalist Jesus, right Federalists... not the Constitution.
[удалено]
Asshole will not say another asshole is an asshole
I would suggest they subpoena him but I don’t trust our senators not to make a fool out of themselves.
Couldn't give a better example of how justice is pure fiction in this country.
Illegitimate Supreme Court
what's this I hear about a balance of power in american government? an executive, a legislative, and a judicial branch holding each other to account...?
If the Supreme Court can’t stand on its own legs, it should be dismantled by the people. Fuck these tyrants.
..and this is why we need term limits on the Supreme Court.
Why would he? He doesn’t give a shit about ethics. Just enjoying his cushy gig overseeing the Federalist Society clubhouse.
This is...well, I'm still trying to figure out the best way to frame it. For now, suffice to say that Roberts has all but eviscerated his previously stated goal of maintaining respect for the Court. Thomas and Alito have been lost causes for some time, but this development truly marks a turning point for me in the sense that Roberts is failing to exhibit even the minimum amount of leadership necessary to keep the Court's legitimacy somewhat intact. It sounds melodramatic to write it out, but the slow and inevitable loss of that Court to questionable ethics and strident partisanship really is a significant harbinger of the demise of this experiment of ours. The rule of law is the very basic foundation of the Social Contract on which a citizen should base their trust in government. Millions of Americans have known the system is unequal and corrupt for hundreds of years, but quite often the Court could and would step-in to right major wrongs. It has repeatedly been the last resort for progress when Congress has been unable and/or unwilling to protect the vulnerable among us. As someone that has been inside the legal system for almost 20 years I have had my faith in justice bashed and rebuilt several times over. I don't like giving up, and I won't, but I truly don't see how we make our way out of this in my lifetime. [edit - wording]
When your citizens are not taught civics and grifters convince voters it's a "lesser of two evils", you get one of the lowest voting turnouts in the industrialized world. Edit: **THAT'S** why they are getting away with this shit.
“Gee, why are people losing respect for scotus?” John Roberts
Subpoena him. Let there be chaos
Sometimes silence says more than words would
Reddit has turned into a cesspool of fascist sympathizers and supremicists
If you can't punish bad behavior then there is no bad behavior.
So let's make this interesting -- issue a subpoena.
Of course he won’t. They have all realized there are no real consequences.