It is sad that at least giving the appearance of impartiality is too much to ask for a justice in the highest court in the country. I don’t think anyone is truly fair or unbiased but couldn’t they at least pretend?
The same goes for Thomas and his many bribes. Whether he sold his vote is hard to prove, but isn’t putting himself in the position that it looks like he did almost just as bad?
The problem is that they don't need to pretend because there's no practical mechanism by which they'll ever be held accountable for their corruption, no matter how blatant it may be. If anything, there's almost a perverse incentive to show off their ill-gotten gains, because it broadcasts the price of their influence without them having to directly ask for bribes. Yes, it's beyond fucked.
Precisely this. There is no mechanism. Or almost no mechanism ...
There is no likely result of the 2024 election that could give Democrats both a majority in the House and a 2/3 majority in the Senate, so near-term impeachment of Alito or Thomas is genuinely off the table. However, Congress really does have extremely broad authority under the Constitution to regulate the judiciary. So, simple majorities in the House and Senate and a Biden win (I know, that combination is still not too likely) would empower Congress to fairly dramatically change the way that SCOTUS operates and is managed.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-6/ALDE\_00013618/#:\~:text=art.,Court's%20appellate%20jurisdiction%20and%20proceedings.
I think that Biden and the Democrats should campaign hard on this issue: the federal judiciary is broken and is jeopardizing our country. We have the power to correct things without an amendment of the Constitution if you vote BLUE in federal contests in November.
I think that any reform attempt, at this point, is futile. We should pursue it, of course, but it is doomed. Any successful legislation to rein in the Supreme Court, or expand it, would automatically be challenged by the losing side and fought, in the courts, until it ends up in front of the Court, itself, who will denounce it along party lines. This has been the tactic for years, now, and reinforced, case after case: forget the will of the people and get the decision in front of nine individuals.
Whether it has been overthrowing other countries to install a dictator, using a governorship to unilaterally mandate personal choices as state policy (looking at you, Ronny Boy), or this, authoritarians prefer to work with one entity than with a parliament/congress/senat that has its own mind.
> We have the power to correct things without an amendment of the Constitution if you vote BLUE in federal contests in November.
The problem is that's just not true, there is not reasonably possible outcome of the 2024 elections where the Dems can do anything about this. If you make big promises and don't deliver people will punish you and the political party you rode in on.
With respect, utter bullshit.
To change the number of the court both houses of Congress would have to pass a bill to do so. Unless the filibuster is removed or changed there is zero chance of the Senate Dems coming out of the 2024 election with enough Senators to pass a cloture motion to end a filibuster stopping the court from being packed. None, zip, zero, nada, no way jose, nu-uh, nope-erino.
Next, there is no reason to believe the Senate Democrats are interested in doing away with the filibuster.
Thirdly, with the Republicans, due to all States having two Senators, having an advantage in the Senate it's likely they will more often have a majority. Doing away with the filibuster will invite wild swings of policy if/when majorities change and the Senate Dems not only know this they also know without it Senators in the minority party become unimportant back benchers and their egos are not going to let that happen easily.
Lastly if the Dems did away with the filibuster, gained majorities in both houses, and packed the court what happens the next time Republicans have majorities in both houses? They pack the court to give themselves a majority. Now it's turtles all the way down as majorities pack and change the jurisdiction of SCOTUS for blatant political advantage.
People with low regard for the institutions that are pillars of our nation have put us in a shitty spot. Being like them is not going to fix the problem.
-End rant
There is a “reasonably possible outcome” where Dems get both houses of congress and the White House. This is especially true if disaffected republicans decide to stay home on Election Day rather than vote for Trump. There could be a massive impact down ballot.
If that happens, Dems can (and should IMO) do away with the filibuster.
Assuming the Dems govern well when they aren’t dealing with Republican obstruction, there is no reason to assume that Republicans will ever regain both houses and the White House simultaneously. So I don’t think fear of retribution should prevent them from fixing the court.
> If that happens, Dems can (and should IMO) do away with the filibuster.
Do you have any reason to believe incumbent Dem Senators are in favor of eliminating the filibuster?
There's nothing stopping people from being at a healthy BMI but obesity rates are around 32%.
The Senate Dems have shown no interest in removing the one thing that makes them relevant when in the minority so thinking it's something Dems should promise is not warranted.
[But who knows? Maybe the horse will sing.](https://websites.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/sig.html)
People are still talking about recusal from Trump cases here, but this seems like bias against the rule of law itself. How can you be a judge and apparently support ending the country?
If you look at it from his Historical Society remarks perspective, Alito no longer believes compromise is possible. Democracy has been reduced to a zero sum game.
> “I don’t know that we can **negotiate with the left** in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end,” Windsor says. “I think that **it’s a matter of, like, winning.”**
> “I think you’re probably right, On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win…there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised.”
What are these absolute positions on which a Supreme Court Justice believes compromise is not possible? Abortion, gun control, tax policy, racial equality, reproductive freedom, contraception, immigration? Alito has joined the extremist right view that it either gets what it wants—or it cheats. He agrees that the right must win at all cost.
The man swore 2 oaths, 2 of them, to support the Constitution. His statements contravene at least the establishment clause of the constitution and likely well beyond that.
You can't be a SCOTUS justice and not support the Constitution. Alito has to go.
The "ending polarization" talk is a complete load of bullshit. He wants to enable the fascists to seize power so people who don't agree with his theocratic vision can be safely ignored or put behind bars.
He's just shifting blame. Fascists love to blame everyone else for their own actions. It's never THEIR fault, everything is everyone ELSE'S fault. Sure, Dear Leader launched an attack on the Congress. Sure, the GOP is doing everything it can to undermine and hollow out the democratic process. Sure, Alito is legislating from the bench and stripping away human rights from millions of people. But it's NOT THEIR FAULT, don't you see? It's CLEARLY the commu-femi-nazi-antifa-liberal-pinko lefties that are MAKING the fascists do the bad things.
In the mind of a fascist, they are never at fault. In a 6-3 decision, this fucking Court agrees.
I think these guys have an outsized view of their own importance in history. They feel like they are instruments of their God in a final boss battle between good and evil. And evil is anything that they don't personally agree with as dictated by their self-serving distortions of the concepts of Christianity.
Uh, it sounds a hell of a lot worse than that. He's talking the end of it altogether. No compromise. Wtf are you talking about "ignored" or "jail" they want us DEAD!
IMO, the axiomatic impasse he describes exists partly in their dualistic conception of mind and their rejection of materialism in favour of religious ideas.
I find that conservatives take 'free will' for granted, unjustifiedly allowing them to reinforce happenstance hierarchies. 'God' gave us 'free will' and 'free will' explains away the Problem of Evil – simple, right?
Their belief in a higher power (completely inexplicably) feeds them the notion that 100% objective categories and rules are at play. Conveniently, those categories and rules always align with conservative principles and further reinforce the aforementioned hierarchies (which were probably in place when these religions were founded... hmmm...)
The belief that there exists an afterlife also makes the material world merely irrelevant to them. This life is simply a test and so their adherence to 'the rules' is sufficient to trample all over other lives and the Earth without regrets.
These beliefs all synthesize to make humanity a cancer upon Earth, which is not a metaphor. Excessive consumption by elements that consider themselves distinct from their surroundings and *special* is resulting in the detriment of the entire system.
Progressives want to make humanity sustainable. Conservatives seem to want to ride the anthropic ego full-throttle into the sun, so I think he is somewhat correct in his zero-sum assessment.
I don't see how flying flags makes a stronger case for bias than making political donations in defiance of ethics rules to groups that are campaigning against a defendant.
I see.
So Trump and his allies have convinced you that Trump can only be tried in court by a judge that is a Republican, but only if they are one of the good Republicans, of course. No RINOs.
And if the judge or prosecutor has ever been remotely associated with elements that have overtly negative feelings towards Trump, a massively public and polarizing figure by his own doing, then they can't try him in court either.
Essentially, you believe that Trump can only be held accountable by people that are aligned with Trump, regardless of the professional oaths these people have maintained for decades.
The difference between Merchan and Alito and Thomas is that it appears they were/are directly tied to support for the January 6th coup and the criminality surrounding it.
At BEST, their wives support (and in Ginni's case, were directly involved in) the criminal activity that people like Trump are being indicted for. It is not a leap whatsoever to believe that a husband shares the same views as their wife. At minimum, they are influenced by them. Justices have STEPPED DOWN for less, much less recused themselves.
The fact that you are comparing the SCOTUS situation to a political donation of $35 (three separate payments of $10-$15 to separate organizations) to Trump's opponent long before Trump was a defendant in his court room is intellectually pathetic.
Grow up.
Where did I say that? A Democrat judge who didn't break rules to donate to Biden would be totally fine. Merchan already violated his professional oaths to support anti-trump PACs why would you have cinfidence in his ability to uphold those oaths when the stakes are higher? And whether or not someone supports something is now grounds for their recusal? Thats not how that's ever worked.
The two ethics panels with more info than you have either cleared or cautioned him. Who are you to be the arbiter of his neutrality.
Is Judge Chutkan acceptable as well?
Merchan went to the judicial ethics panel for a ruling, instead of just lying.
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/06/13/cannot-reasonably-be-questioned-judicial-ethics-committee-says-merchans-impartiality-is-unimpaired/?slreturn=20240510125250
Pretty sure that the flags cost more than the donations that were made. Plus, flags are a display of personal beliefs, whereas donations to support your daughter's business don't have to be something that you believe in particularly strongly.
Answered.
He didn't only donate to PACs which his daughter worked for. And if his daughter's financial success is so heavily tied to Biden that he felt compelled to break ethics rules to donate to Biden's campaign that's just another layer of bias.
No arguments left to defend Trump's actions so you resort to personal attacks against those who are holding him accountable.
Who's not engaging in good faith here?
Judge Merchan went above and beyond to PROTECT Trump during the trial. Any other defendant who had broken their gag order 11 times would have been in jail - not your boy Trump.
Point to a single instance where the judge showed bias against the defendant during the trial.
I mean, I don’t have any stake in this at all and I just jumped into it and can see that you are working very hard here to try to protect something ridiculous
The court did a review on the donations and all personal ties, before Merchan even took the case, and didn’t determine there to be anything there that said he should recuse. Beyond that, he was extremely fair in his judgement of this case. He only found 10 of the 15 violations of Trump’s gag order to be violations and didn’t put him in jail for them. The judge doesn’t determine guilt, jurors do and did. What exactly do you think he should have done differently that another judge might’ve?
Oh, shove your self-righteous ethics where the moon don’t shine. A judge, to the best of his ability, is supposed to impartially rule on the law, not what he wishes to believe. If you think luxury vacations are in par with a minor political donation, we already know what you’re arguing for.
If you want judges to impartially rule on the law instead of what judges want to believe, then how can you supoort Democrats? Roe v. Wade for example was the exact opposite of that.
Bullshit. It’s religious law at the heart of the RvW overturn. If you believe what’s written. The founding fathers (who wrote the Federalist Papers) wanted no part of religion in politics.
Three of the founding fathers wrote the federalist papers. They're hardly a complete collection of the founding fathers beliefs. And the court's opinion in Roe was clearly premised on faulty logic. They misapplied the standards for finding an implied right under the constitution in order to undemocratically oppose the will of the legislatures.
Please explain in detail how [Judge Merchan’s daughter’s](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4561622-trump-attacks-on-judges-daughter-based-on-fake-account-court/) *“financial success is **heavily tied to Biden**”*…
Also please explain your legal opinion on this take:
———
Trump and many in his Admin ‘levied war’ against the US on J6, committing treason.
As based on the [Constitution](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39#:~:text=Treason%20against%20the%20United%20States,on%20Confession%20in%20open%20Court.) and the interpretation of founding father and Chief Justice, [John Marshall](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall):
“The Constitution specifically identifies what constitutes treason against the United States and, importantly, limits the offense of treason to only two types of conduct: **(1) “levying war” against the United States**; or (2) “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States], giving them aid and comfort. Although there have not been many treason prosecutions in American history—indeed, only one person has been indicted for treason since 1954—the Supreme Court has had occasion to further define what each type of treason entails.
The offense of “**levying war**” against the United States was interpreted narrowly in Ex parte Bollman & Swarthout (1807), a case stemming from the infamous alleged plot led by former Vice President Aaron Burr to overthrow the American government in New Orleans.
The Supreme Court dismissed charges of treason that had been brought against two of Burr’s associates—Bollman and Swarthout—on the grounds that their alleged conduct did not constitute levying war against the United States within the meaning of the Treason Clause. It was not enough, Chief Justice John Marshall opinion emphasized, merely to conspire “to subvert by force the government of our country” by recruiting troops, procuring maps, and drawing up plans.
**Conspiring to levy war was distinct from actually levying war.** Rather, a person could be convicted of treason for levying war only if there was an “**actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design.**” In so holding, the Court sharply confined the scope of the offense of treason by levying war against the United States.”
———
By actually amassing and inciting a group of supporters to attack the Nation’s Capital (“*actual assemblage of men*”), to prevent the certification of the election he knowingly lost (”*for the purpose of executing*”), combined with the multi-State fake elector scheme* (”*a treasonable design*”), Trump and many in his Admin—*including SC [Justice Alito](https://apnews.com/article/alito-supreme-court-flags-history-symbol-protest-a5415aeba90e21a86a50f8489fc54b7a), now Speaker of the House, [Mike Johnson](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/mike-johnson-christian-nationalist-appeal-to-heaven-flag-1234873851/), and the spouse of SC [Justice Thomas](https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4501934-clarence-thomass-conflict-is-clear-he-must-recuse-himself-from-the-trump-immunity-case/), [Virginia Thomas](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/ginni-thomas-tells-jan-6-committee-she-regrets-texting-with-meadows-about-2020-election/)*—‘levied war’ against the US on J6, committing treason as written in the Constitution and further defined by founding father and Chief Justice, John Marshall.
———
“[Penalty:](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Penalty%3A%20Under%20U.S.%20Code%20Title,office%20in%20the%20United%20States.) Under U.S. Code Title 18, the penalty is death, or not less than five years' imprisonment (with a minimum fine of $10,000, if not sentenced to death).
Any person convicted of treason against the United States also forfeits the right to hold public office in the United States.”
Its certainly a compelling argument. My main question is whether "The traveling of individuals to the place of rendezvous is not sufficient, but the meeting of particular bodies of men and their marching from places of partial to a place of general rendezvous is such an assemblage as constitutes a levying of war" would preclude a finding that there was an "assemblage of men" it seems to contemplate organized units rather than a mob like January 6.
I appreciate your reply.
And I believe the details laid out in the convictions of the [Proud Boys leader](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/proud-boys-leader-sentenced-22-years-prison-seditious-conspiracy-and-other-charges-related) and [four (4) Oath Keepers](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-additional-oath-keepers-sentenced-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach) of seditious conspiracy answer this specific question.
You understand that no matter what the judge or his adult children might think about politics that Trump is still guilty, right?
He signed the checks. He did the crimes. Even if the judge were Biden’s running mate Trump still did that shit.
You understand that, right?
If Trump didn’t want to be judged by a group of his peers in NYC he shouldn’t have committed a bunch of crimes in NYC.
What ethics rule specifically did he break though? Can you cite one? Because there’s been a lot of talk about ethics but no one pointing to an actual rule violation.
Lol, there are plenty of bad Republicans including Trump. I don't see how that somehow changes facts like Merchan having breached ethics rules. I don't think any of you are holding yourselves to the same standards of neutrality.
The article and discussion wasnt even about that; you made it about your contrarian straw man argument. We can argue all day about whataboutism, but not in any meaningful sense. How are Putin’s balls tasting going into fall?
You know that judge Merchan specifically asked the states ethics committee about this possible conflict before the trial, and they told him to proceed with the case, right?
It’s not like Judge Merchan tried to hide this - he made every effort to be unbiased. Keep guzzling the conspiracy, though.
Your panties are this in a twist over 35 dollars and you don’t care that this Supreme Court judge is acting in a way that ends democracy in America.
You’re pathetic.
[Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/18/judge-juan-merchan-trump-trial-political-contributions?CMP=share_btn_url)
>“Justice Merchan said the complaint, from more than a year ago, was dismissed in July with a caution,” spokesperson Al Baker of the state office of court administration said in response to an inquiry from Reuters.
So, the correct course of action was followed, and he was reprimanded over a year ago. Good on NY for following the rules.
>In its 2024 annual report, the body said several dozen judges had apparently made prohibited contributions in the last few years, mostly to candidates for federal office.
So this isn't isolated to just him. It sounds like it is a fairly common misstep that they address with transparency to the public.
>In response to a motion for Merchan to step aside, which the judge denied, a separate advisory committee on judicial ethics said the contributions did not create an impression of bias or favoritism.
So Trump's team asked for him to be removed, he refused and was backed up by a separate committee. Everyone has bias it's impossible not to. What they look for in cases like these is whether or not that bias is going to unduly affect their judgment, which Judge Merchan has by all accounts done at pretty much every level in this trial.
He's already been reprimanded, and an advisory committee has agreed that his bias would not affect his ability to remain neutral during the trial. So what *specifically* did he do in *this* trial that you think should disqualify him?
So you think $35 in donations for which they have *already* been reprimanded is the same as multiple ethical failings?
He took a luxury vacation with a hedge fund billionaire, Paul Singer, who later had cases in front of the court. He did not report this trip as required on his annual financial disclosures. The trips estamated to cost around 100k (which is about 2857 times more than Judge Merchans $35 donation)
[Court House News](https://www.courthousenews.com/alito-kicks-up-ethics-questions-with-new-undisclosed-gifts-from-billionaire-donors/)
>Alito accepted private jet flights totaling over $100,000 from hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, who has had over 10 cases before the high court, according to a ProPublica report published Tuesday night. Just one of the cases where Alito voted in the majority led Singer to a $2.4 billion payout. Alito did not disclose Singer’s gifts or recuse himself from cases involving the wealthy investor.
>Ethics experts say Alito’s failure to disclose this trip on his annual report likely violated federal disclosure law requiring justices to report all gifts they are given.
[Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/21/samuel-alito-undisclosed-gifts-billionaire-paul-singer-supreme-court)
[Prorepublica](https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court)
Judges are supposed to be impartial and apolitical.
You really don't see an issue with a Supreme Court judge flying a flag in support of the person they're supposed to be ruling on?
It wouldn't be so bad if he recused himself.
I don't have a problem with the premise but where the line is drawn seems pretty arbitrary. Ginsburg was a founder of the ACLU's women's rights project. Was she truly "impartial" on women's rights cases. Sotomayor is Puerto Rican. Is she truly impartial in ruling on issues having to do with Puerto Rico. I would say no given that she's been the sole dissent in some cases.
Typical whataboutism. Let's try to stay focused on the conversation.
Do you not see the issue with Alito ruling on Trump immunity when he was flying flags supporting his lies and his coup attempt?
Do you not see the issue with Alito admitting that he wants a Christian takeover of our country then ruling on cases regarding Christianity?
He has shown that he is compromised and cannot be impartial. All of his rulings support this as well.
How is that whataboutism? I'm not saying what Alito does is okay because of what other justices do. I'm saying its a very hard line to draw. Can you formulate a brightlime rules that would rework Alito to recuse himself without sweeping in many other scenarios that don't rose to that level?
A federal judge is supposed to recuse if there is even an appearance of a conflict ot interest.
I'd say showing support for the insurrection and being caught on tape saying that we need godliness in our country is more than just an appearance of a conflict of interest.
He's a religious zealot who wants to force his religion on us while removing our voting rights and he's on the Supreme Court ruling against the constitution on cases involving these subjects.
Overturning Roe, letting a coach force kids to pray at a public school, ruling against minority voters in gerrymander cases, ruling Trump eligible to run for the presidency as a adjudicated insurrectionist...
I haven't even mentioned the Harlon Crowe bullshit...
The combo of his out of court actions + his rulings show that he cannot keep his outside beliefs out of his rulings. He is compromised.
What flag was he flying? What was the commonly accepted meaning of that flag? Also did anyone ever investigate the underlying facts that prompted that flag?
I love how you try and excuse away his behavior without acknowledging it, he flew a flag known for standing with the concept of a stolen election, a concept we know for an absolute certain fact was manufactured fake news by the loser. A blatant lie to placate his NPC followers. This is the hard truth
Meh, 40% of the country thinks the war we lost the most Americans was over something else, so it makes sense to me. I find the idea that judges are benevolent at all as just incredibly biased and without evidence from what I have seen. I learned a lot more about ethics from jurists than well, anything.
I would have gotten better justice from hammurabi code. So you guys have some work to do, ethics wise. Also like 80% of this country gets morals from books that are pro rape pro murder pro abortion etc.
I could go on. I'm a lot wiser about things people refuse to accept than my sum of knowledge. Jurists taught me that.
Yeah I always thought I would be good at computers that is my thing, but I spent 5 years watching evidence mean nothing, and didn't get justice for my own children until an unborn child was hurt. Which actually the Bible says churches should give abortions and unborn babies are worth shillings and silvers, payable to the husband since they are property.
Unlike you guys I actually follow evidence and can produce the receipts. I never planned to know more about old books than you guys. I thought learning 25 computer languages was enough but I can teach you a computer language easier than I can get you to beleive words are in a book.
The really scary part is that for a given fact x if you do not want to beleive it you won't. We could go through a bubonic plague levels before we break this cognitive dissonance. That's why I knew that the pandemic would go how it would go based on r values. They said up to 2 million, I know how biased against evidence we are, and so .3% is less than 33% and with the help of the courts showing me how biased we can be, I can see the true trouble we are in. I never would have imagined, that people are so awful, but courts help me understand. I don't blame the jurist. Their views are not that different from most Americans, but most Americans don't care if evidence means anything in court, and so we reap what we sow.
We are working with our own biased brains and so we do the best we can. But we have so far to go.
I am trying to be truthful. I wish I just made it up. Take from it what you will, I guess
Also, if you do hate me, hey, here's another comment you can downvote.
I don’t anybody. Not the Donald, not you, not Hitler, not Putin. I pity those who can’t see how blinded they are by their own bias and their own hatred. I’d like to believe I am no longer one of those people but certainly I could be deluded. I will say it does not seem to me that you are willing to engage in good faith conversation, but also I’ll say that this is a difficult thing to do over the internet. I truly believe it we ever spoke person to person it might be different and we might find some common ground, even if we are vastly far apart upon the Overton window
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/blog/public-opinion-confederate-flag-and-civil-war-blog
Ok 48% states rights. That is worse. And yes this country is about 80% Christian. The civil war was about slavery. You either think duh, nobody can be that stupid or you are that stupid.
Awesome the evidence gets downvoted, shocking. You want new better data, awesome, well which one, because they are both still true. Gallop has been polling that half the country doesn't know the cause of the civil war for a long time and it has not changed. And we are still very religious, if you are claiming we are less Christian
Please remember to downvote my inconvenient facts if you find them unpleasant. That is how this works.
I did not choose to be wiser about bullshit and lies. It does not take intelligence. It takes an open mind. But I can still teach you programming easier than I can get you to accept what is in a book, and that's not my fault.
80% of this country doesn't even read books, however I'm pretty old and I've read a lot of books and I can't recall a single line ever being pro any of the three things you mentioned.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exod+21%3A22-25&version=NRSVUE
Women were property in biblical times. It wouldn't have made any sense to them.
I have another heavily downvoted post that gives more context, which might even seem more unhinged.
I watched evidence mean nothing in court for 5 years then finally got justice once an unborn child was harmed. I think most people have an expectation that evidence means something in court. Certainly I did, before my experiences. The Bible is pro abortion if you actually read it.
It was not easy for me to throw my computer ego, programming under the bus for some old books!
I feel bad for predicting the pandemic. I predicted a million people would die and the rest would not learn. I just can't compete with that with programming prowess.I can keep learning new things, but if folks keep buying the bullshit which they will since they are brainwashed from birth, there really isn't anything I can do to convince them. That's the wisdom. People are too biased to accept information they don't want to.
[Here's a nice plate of pizzle for yo' shizzle!!](https://i0.wp.com/www.thepizzle.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/The-Pizzle-Family.jpg?w=1500) !
[Bob taught me that.](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:828/format:webp/0*mJHaWg0NS6yux0JJ.gif)
Yeah, immunity or such thing under presidential protection from the law, I havent been watching enough Faux news to remember what they are calling it exactly now a days.
/s
We have to accept that the Republican Party has turned against democracy. Otherwise they would have impeached and removed both Alito and Thomas from the Court.
I'd go so far as to argue that even 15 or 20 years ago, he would have been impeached and convicted. Or, more likely, forced by his handlers to resign. You couldn't say it out loud then. He'd get a golden parachute, but at least he'd fade away into obscurity. We'd be discussing him as a footnote.
I know this is true in practice, but are there any theoretic loopholes? Like couldn’t Ailito neighbor sue him in a way that begs a Supreme Court opinion on women’s rights?
There are loopholes for presidents to become dictators, so why not here?
To be clear: I’m talking theoretical, not practical.
Impeachment as a process has always been so incredibly broken that it very rarely actually gets used, because the threshold required makes it practically impossible.
It’s not the current environment so much as the fact that impeachment has never been an effective mechanism.
There is none. Roberts can't do it. Congress can't even do it unless it was through a constitutional amendment, but we are unlikely to ever have any normal / progressive / accountability constitutional amendment passed through the normal procedures again in this country.
The system we have relies on no fewer than two of our three branches of government acting in good faith. We only have one left, and if Biden loses we will have zero.
This problem simply cannot be solved by our modern political system.
Can't these guys just die already?
Thomas accepts enough free vacations that the private plane and helicopter crash trend hitting the bad Iran guy and the President of Malawi seems like a reasonable consequence.
As for Alito and the flag business, maybe a reenactment of the January 6th event of Peter Francis Stager beating of the capital police officer with the American flagpole during the riot goes awry in the courtroom with one unfortunate casualty.
If the process of impeachments leads to nothing in terms of punishments or change over and over, and does nothing but waste Congressional time and money, and seems unlikely here due to slim Congressional majorities and weak will, then the only other procedural lever seems to be their death.
How unfortunate to be in the position where rooting for such a morbid thing is the only procedurally possible way to correct such corruption in the absence of a strictly enforced code of ethics with accountability and penalty of unseating these jurists for wrong-doing.
Seems like historically when governments cease to function and there are active plots to seize power, it's no longer about exploiting loopholes. At that point it's more about those who have the backing of the military making the rules.
Which is why just a few short years ago certain people were preaching the “magnanimous military”, until their dumpy leader shit all over them publicly forcing them to give up on their decades long ploy to galvanize their favor.
Trump may have expedited their party’s inclinations, but thankfully undermined all the work and image they were cultivating.
This has been the GOP model for ending democracy since the 1990s. Obstruction until they can get a super-majority on the Supreme Court to make 2 of 3 branches, including the supposed branch meant to mediate, entirely dysfunctional. Then it's just a wait until the Civil War breaks out.
I still don't understand why they can't be arrested if there have been crimes that have occurred. I'd say any involvement in January 6 would correspond to a crime.
There is, the problem is we don't have a house with enough members to pass a resolution or a senate with enough members to approve it. We need a Democratic majority in both, with enough people to overcome the Fettermans, Sinemas, and Manchins all in there acting as stooges.
Robert’s doesn’t like to grandstand on the big cases. It’s his way of not making the court about him. Jackson was the one who had the history down at oral argument. She should get to write this one.
It is sad that at least giving the appearance of impartiality is too much to ask for a justice in the highest court in the country. I don’t think anyone is truly fair or unbiased but couldn’t they at least pretend? The same goes for Thomas and his many bribes. Whether he sold his vote is hard to prove, but isn’t putting himself in the position that it looks like he did almost just as bad?
The problem is that they don't need to pretend because there's no practical mechanism by which they'll ever be held accountable for their corruption, no matter how blatant it may be. If anything, there's almost a perverse incentive to show off their ill-gotten gains, because it broadcasts the price of their influence without them having to directly ask for bribes. Yes, it's beyond fucked.
Precisely this. There is no mechanism. Or almost no mechanism ... There is no likely result of the 2024 election that could give Democrats both a majority in the House and a 2/3 majority in the Senate, so near-term impeachment of Alito or Thomas is genuinely off the table. However, Congress really does have extremely broad authority under the Constitution to regulate the judiciary. So, simple majorities in the House and Senate and a Biden win (I know, that combination is still not too likely) would empower Congress to fairly dramatically change the way that SCOTUS operates and is managed. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-6/ALDE\_00013618/#:\~:text=art.,Court's%20appellate%20jurisdiction%20and%20proceedings. I think that Biden and the Democrats should campaign hard on this issue: the federal judiciary is broken and is jeopardizing our country. We have the power to correct things without an amendment of the Constitution if you vote BLUE in federal contests in November.
Agreed and they won’t
I think that any reform attempt, at this point, is futile. We should pursue it, of course, but it is doomed. Any successful legislation to rein in the Supreme Court, or expand it, would automatically be challenged by the losing side and fought, in the courts, until it ends up in front of the Court, itself, who will denounce it along party lines. This has been the tactic for years, now, and reinforced, case after case: forget the will of the people and get the decision in front of nine individuals. Whether it has been overthrowing other countries to install a dictator, using a governorship to unilaterally mandate personal choices as state policy (looking at you, Ronny Boy), or this, authoritarians prefer to work with one entity than with a parliament/congress/senat that has its own mind.
> We have the power to correct things without an amendment of the Constitution if you vote BLUE in federal contests in November. The problem is that's just not true, there is not reasonably possible outcome of the 2024 elections where the Dems can do anything about this. If you make big promises and don't deliver people will punish you and the political party you rode in on.
They could pack the court.
With respect, utter bullshit. To change the number of the court both houses of Congress would have to pass a bill to do so. Unless the filibuster is removed or changed there is zero chance of the Senate Dems coming out of the 2024 election with enough Senators to pass a cloture motion to end a filibuster stopping the court from being packed. None, zip, zero, nada, no way jose, nu-uh, nope-erino. Next, there is no reason to believe the Senate Democrats are interested in doing away with the filibuster. Thirdly, with the Republicans, due to all States having two Senators, having an advantage in the Senate it's likely they will more often have a majority. Doing away with the filibuster will invite wild swings of policy if/when majorities change and the Senate Dems not only know this they also know without it Senators in the minority party become unimportant back benchers and their egos are not going to let that happen easily. Lastly if the Dems did away with the filibuster, gained majorities in both houses, and packed the court what happens the next time Republicans have majorities in both houses? They pack the court to give themselves a majority. Now it's turtles all the way down as majorities pack and change the jurisdiction of SCOTUS for blatant political advantage. People with low regard for the institutions that are pillars of our nation have put us in a shitty spot. Being like them is not going to fix the problem. -End rant
There is a “reasonably possible outcome” where Dems get both houses of congress and the White House. This is especially true if disaffected republicans decide to stay home on Election Day rather than vote for Trump. There could be a massive impact down ballot. If that happens, Dems can (and should IMO) do away with the filibuster. Assuming the Dems govern well when they aren’t dealing with Republican obstruction, there is no reason to assume that Republicans will ever regain both houses and the White House simultaneously. So I don’t think fear of retribution should prevent them from fixing the court.
> If that happens, Dems can (and should IMO) do away with the filibuster. Do you have any reason to believe incumbent Dem Senators are in favor of eliminating the filibuster?
Not especially, no. My point is that there’s nothing actually stopping them from doing it with a simple majority. Is that not correct?
There's nothing stopping people from being at a healthy BMI but obesity rates are around 32%. The Senate Dems have shown no interest in removing the one thing that makes them relevant when in the minority so thinking it's something Dems should promise is not warranted. [But who knows? Maybe the horse will sing.](https://websites.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/sig.html)
Checks and Balances* (tm) *exclusions apply.
I think they were/are pretending, they just got caught. Now they’re denying…
People are still talking about recusal from Trump cases here, but this seems like bias against the rule of law itself. How can you be a judge and apparently support ending the country?
If you look at it from his Historical Society remarks perspective, Alito no longer believes compromise is possible. Democracy has been reduced to a zero sum game. > “I don’t know that we can **negotiate with the left** in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end,” Windsor says. “I think that **it’s a matter of, like, winning.”** > “I think you’re probably right, On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win…there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised.” What are these absolute positions on which a Supreme Court Justice believes compromise is not possible? Abortion, gun control, tax policy, racial equality, reproductive freedom, contraception, immigration? Alito has joined the extremist right view that it either gets what it wants—or it cheats. He agrees that the right must win at all cost.
The man swore 2 oaths, 2 of them, to support the Constitution. His statements contravene at least the establishment clause of the constitution and likely well beyond that. You can't be a SCOTUS justice and not support the Constitution. Alito has to go.
Oaths are kind of squishy when you get enough power.
Only if you're not held to them by others in power. That's the basis of being granted authority.... the oath you swear to use that authority under.
And Roberts, and Thomas, and the Evil Rabbit, and ...
The "ending polarization" talk is a complete load of bullshit. He wants to enable the fascists to seize power so people who don't agree with his theocratic vision can be safely ignored or put behind bars.
He's just shifting blame. Fascists love to blame everyone else for their own actions. It's never THEIR fault, everything is everyone ELSE'S fault. Sure, Dear Leader launched an attack on the Congress. Sure, the GOP is doing everything it can to undermine and hollow out the democratic process. Sure, Alito is legislating from the bench and stripping away human rights from millions of people. But it's NOT THEIR FAULT, don't you see? It's CLEARLY the commu-femi-nazi-antifa-liberal-pinko lefties that are MAKING the fascists do the bad things. In the mind of a fascist, they are never at fault. In a 6-3 decision, this fucking Court agrees.
I think these guys have an outsized view of their own importance in history. They feel like they are instruments of their God in a final boss battle between good and evil. And evil is anything that they don't personally agree with as dictated by their self-serving distortions of the concepts of Christianity.
Once someone is convinced of their own righeousness, the are able to excuse all wickedness in service of their goals.
You end polarization by having only one pole.
Uh, it sounds a hell of a lot worse than that. He's talking the end of it altogether. No compromise. Wtf are you talking about "ignored" or "jail" they want us DEAD!
IMO, the axiomatic impasse he describes exists partly in their dualistic conception of mind and their rejection of materialism in favour of religious ideas. I find that conservatives take 'free will' for granted, unjustifiedly allowing them to reinforce happenstance hierarchies. 'God' gave us 'free will' and 'free will' explains away the Problem of Evil – simple, right? Their belief in a higher power (completely inexplicably) feeds them the notion that 100% objective categories and rules are at play. Conveniently, those categories and rules always align with conservative principles and further reinforce the aforementioned hierarchies (which were probably in place when these religions were founded... hmmm...) The belief that there exists an afterlife also makes the material world merely irrelevant to them. This life is simply a test and so their adherence to 'the rules' is sufficient to trample all over other lives and the Earth without regrets. These beliefs all synthesize to make humanity a cancer upon Earth, which is not a metaphor. Excessive consumption by elements that consider themselves distinct from their surroundings and *special* is resulting in the detriment of the entire system. Progressives want to make humanity sustainable. Conservatives seem to want to ride the anthropic ego full-throttle into the sun, so I think he is somewhat correct in his zero-sum assessment.
💰
I don't see how flying flags makes a stronger case for bias than making political donations in defiance of ethics rules to groups that are campaigning against a defendant.
I see. So Trump and his allies have convinced you that Trump can only be tried in court by a judge that is a Republican, but only if they are one of the good Republicans, of course. No RINOs. And if the judge or prosecutor has ever been remotely associated with elements that have overtly negative feelings towards Trump, a massively public and polarizing figure by his own doing, then they can't try him in court either. Essentially, you believe that Trump can only be held accountable by people that are aligned with Trump, regardless of the professional oaths these people have maintained for decades. The difference between Merchan and Alito and Thomas is that it appears they were/are directly tied to support for the January 6th coup and the criminality surrounding it. At BEST, their wives support (and in Ginni's case, were directly involved in) the criminal activity that people like Trump are being indicted for. It is not a leap whatsoever to believe that a husband shares the same views as their wife. At minimum, they are influenced by them. Justices have STEPPED DOWN for less, much less recused themselves. The fact that you are comparing the SCOTUS situation to a political donation of $35 (three separate payments of $10-$15 to separate organizations) to Trump's opponent long before Trump was a defendant in his court room is intellectually pathetic. Grow up.
Where did I say that? A Democrat judge who didn't break rules to donate to Biden would be totally fine. Merchan already violated his professional oaths to support anti-trump PACs why would you have cinfidence in his ability to uphold those oaths when the stakes are higher? And whether or not someone supports something is now grounds for their recusal? Thats not how that's ever worked.
The two ethics panels with more info than you have either cleared or cautioned him. Who are you to be the arbiter of his neutrality. Is Judge Chutkan acceptable as well?
So you believe that if you work for the government you cannot make political donations? Is that rule for all government employees or just judges?
Merchan went to the judicial ethics panel for a ruling, instead of just lying. https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/06/13/cannot-reasonably-be-questioned-judicial-ethics-committee-says-merchans-impartiality-is-unimpaired/?slreturn=20240510125250
Pretty sure that the flags cost more than the donations that were made. Plus, flags are a display of personal beliefs, whereas donations to support your daughter's business don't have to be something that you believe in particularly strongly. Answered.
We spend at least twice as much stocking up on Girl Scout cookies every year.
He didn't only donate to PACs which his daughter worked for. And if his daughter's financial success is so heavily tied to Biden that he felt compelled to break ethics rules to donate to Biden's campaign that's just another layer of bias.
“I support a convicted felon for president and don’t care that he broke the law.” -Thermicthermos
Perceived bias covers most Alito issues. There are others but I'm not taking the time to go through their bullshit guidelines.
No arguments left so we're jumping to personal attacks. Seems like you're really engaging in good faith here.
No arguments left to defend Trump's actions so you resort to personal attacks against those who are holding him accountable. Who's not engaging in good faith here?
Its not a personal attack lol its a discussion about law. Isn't that the point of this sub?
Why are you debating the guilty verdict then. Pretty sure that the jury wasn't influenced by tiny donations from the judge.
You don't think judges have massive sway over a case?
Judge Merchan went above and beyond to PROTECT Trump during the trial. Any other defendant who had broken their gag order 11 times would have been in jail - not your boy Trump. Point to a single instance where the judge showed bias against the defendant during the trial.
I feel like you should go have a good long cry, get it out of your system.
I mean, I don’t have any stake in this at all and I just jumped into it and can see that you are working very hard here to try to protect something ridiculous
The court did a review on the donations and all personal ties, before Merchan even took the case, and didn’t determine there to be anything there that said he should recuse. Beyond that, he was extremely fair in his judgement of this case. He only found 10 of the 15 violations of Trump’s gag order to be violations and didn’t put him in jail for them. The judge doesn’t determine guilt, jurors do and did. What exactly do you think he should have done differently that another judge might’ve?
Oh, shove your self-righteous ethics where the moon don’t shine. A judge, to the best of his ability, is supposed to impartially rule on the law, not what he wishes to believe. If you think luxury vacations are in par with a minor political donation, we already know what you’re arguing for.
If you want judges to impartially rule on the law instead of what judges want to believe, then how can you supoort Democrats? Roe v. Wade for example was the exact opposite of that.
Bullshit. It’s religious law at the heart of the RvW overturn. If you believe what’s written. The founding fathers (who wrote the Federalist Papers) wanted no part of religion in politics.
Three of the founding fathers wrote the federalist papers. They're hardly a complete collection of the founding fathers beliefs. And the court's opinion in Roe was clearly premised on faulty logic. They misapplied the standards for finding an implied right under the constitution in order to undemocratically oppose the will of the legislatures.
Good. Let’s regulate your genitals, then.
If there's public support for it then sure. That's how democracy works. Sometimes the majority wants things you don't.
The Supreme Court has quoted The Federalist Papers nearly 300 times in their decisions. Why would it be unapplicable for the Roe and Dobbs decisions?
Please explain in detail how [Judge Merchan’s daughter’s](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4561622-trump-attacks-on-judges-daughter-based-on-fake-account-court/) *“financial success is **heavily tied to Biden**”*… Also please explain your legal opinion on this take: ——— Trump and many in his Admin ‘levied war’ against the US on J6, committing treason. As based on the [Constitution](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39#:~:text=Treason%20against%20the%20United%20States,on%20Confession%20in%20open%20Court.) and the interpretation of founding father and Chief Justice, [John Marshall](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall): “The Constitution specifically identifies what constitutes treason against the United States and, importantly, limits the offense of treason to only two types of conduct: **(1) “levying war” against the United States**; or (2) “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States], giving them aid and comfort. Although there have not been many treason prosecutions in American history—indeed, only one person has been indicted for treason since 1954—the Supreme Court has had occasion to further define what each type of treason entails. The offense of “**levying war**” against the United States was interpreted narrowly in Ex parte Bollman & Swarthout (1807), a case stemming from the infamous alleged plot led by former Vice President Aaron Burr to overthrow the American government in New Orleans. The Supreme Court dismissed charges of treason that had been brought against two of Burr’s associates—Bollman and Swarthout—on the grounds that their alleged conduct did not constitute levying war against the United States within the meaning of the Treason Clause. It was not enough, Chief Justice John Marshall opinion emphasized, merely to conspire “to subvert by force the government of our country” by recruiting troops, procuring maps, and drawing up plans. **Conspiring to levy war was distinct from actually levying war.** Rather, a person could be convicted of treason for levying war only if there was an “**actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design.**” In so holding, the Court sharply confined the scope of the offense of treason by levying war against the United States.” ——— By actually amassing and inciting a group of supporters to attack the Nation’s Capital (“*actual assemblage of men*”), to prevent the certification of the election he knowingly lost (”*for the purpose of executing*”), combined with the multi-State fake elector scheme* (”*a treasonable design*”), Trump and many in his Admin—*including SC [Justice Alito](https://apnews.com/article/alito-supreme-court-flags-history-symbol-protest-a5415aeba90e21a86a50f8489fc54b7a), now Speaker of the House, [Mike Johnson](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/mike-johnson-christian-nationalist-appeal-to-heaven-flag-1234873851/), and the spouse of SC [Justice Thomas](https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4501934-clarence-thomass-conflict-is-clear-he-must-recuse-himself-from-the-trump-immunity-case/), [Virginia Thomas](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/ginni-thomas-tells-jan-6-committee-she-regrets-texting-with-meadows-about-2020-election/)*—‘levied war’ against the US on J6, committing treason as written in the Constitution and further defined by founding father and Chief Justice, John Marshall. ——— “[Penalty:](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Penalty%3A%20Under%20U.S.%20Code%20Title,office%20in%20the%20United%20States.) Under U.S. Code Title 18, the penalty is death, or not less than five years' imprisonment (with a minimum fine of $10,000, if not sentenced to death). Any person convicted of treason against the United States also forfeits the right to hold public office in the United States.”
Its certainly a compelling argument. My main question is whether "The traveling of individuals to the place of rendezvous is not sufficient, but the meeting of particular bodies of men and their marching from places of partial to a place of general rendezvous is such an assemblage as constitutes a levying of war" would preclude a finding that there was an "assemblage of men" it seems to contemplate organized units rather than a mob like January 6.
I appreciate your reply. And I believe the details laid out in the convictions of the [Proud Boys leader](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/proud-boys-leader-sentenced-22-years-prison-seditious-conspiracy-and-other-charges-related) and [four (4) Oath Keepers](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-additional-oath-keepers-sentenced-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach) of seditious conspiracy answer this specific question.
You understand that no matter what the judge or his adult children might think about politics that Trump is still guilty, right? He signed the checks. He did the crimes. Even if the judge were Biden’s running mate Trump still did that shit. You understand that, right? If Trump didn’t want to be judged by a group of his peers in NYC he shouldn’t have committed a bunch of crimes in NYC.
What ethics rule specifically did he break though? Can you cite one? Because there’s been a lot of talk about ethics but no one pointing to an actual rule violation.
It’s impossible to argue with fascists.
Judicial ethics are a well knowm hallmark of fascism?
Yes. The lack thereof and the petty false equivalence that you are trying to make. So is disingenuousness.
There's an explicit ethical rule that Judge Merchan broke which shows a bias. Please show me the ethical rule Alito has breached.
[Taking bribes before hearing cases](https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court)
Which explicit ethical rule did Judge Merchant break?
I'm going to use you as an example of how retarded people become when they NEED their side to not be the bad guys.
Lol, there are plenty of bad Republicans including Trump. I don't see how that somehow changes facts like Merchan having breached ethics rules. I don't think any of you are holding yourselves to the same standards of neutrality.
The article and discussion wasnt even about that; you made it about your contrarian straw man argument. We can argue all day about whataboutism, but not in any meaningful sense. How are Putin’s balls tasting going into fall?
[удалено]
You know that judge Merchan specifically asked the states ethics committee about this possible conflict before the trial, and they told him to proceed with the case, right? It’s not like Judge Merchan tried to hide this - he made every effort to be unbiased. Keep guzzling the conspiracy, though.
Your panties are this in a twist over 35 dollars and you don’t care that this Supreme Court judge is acting in a way that ends democracy in America. You’re pathetic.
[Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/18/judge-juan-merchan-trump-trial-political-contributions?CMP=share_btn_url) >“Justice Merchan said the complaint, from more than a year ago, was dismissed in July with a caution,” spokesperson Al Baker of the state office of court administration said in response to an inquiry from Reuters. So, the correct course of action was followed, and he was reprimanded over a year ago. Good on NY for following the rules. >In its 2024 annual report, the body said several dozen judges had apparently made prohibited contributions in the last few years, mostly to candidates for federal office. So this isn't isolated to just him. It sounds like it is a fairly common misstep that they address with transparency to the public. >In response to a motion for Merchan to step aside, which the judge denied, a separate advisory committee on judicial ethics said the contributions did not create an impression of bias or favoritism. So Trump's team asked for him to be removed, he refused and was backed up by a separate committee. Everyone has bias it's impossible not to. What they look for in cases like these is whether or not that bias is going to unduly affect their judgment, which Judge Merchan has by all accounts done at pretty much every level in this trial. He's already been reprimanded, and an advisory committee has agreed that his bias would not affect his ability to remain neutral during the trial. So what *specifically* did he do in *this* trial that you think should disqualify him?
The discussion was about appearances of impropriety. What has Alito done specifically in hearing cases that you think disqualifies him?
So you think $35 in donations for which they have *already* been reprimanded is the same as multiple ethical failings? He took a luxury vacation with a hedge fund billionaire, Paul Singer, who later had cases in front of the court. He did not report this trip as required on his annual financial disclosures. The trips estamated to cost around 100k (which is about 2857 times more than Judge Merchans $35 donation) [Court House News](https://www.courthousenews.com/alito-kicks-up-ethics-questions-with-new-undisclosed-gifts-from-billionaire-donors/) >Alito accepted private jet flights totaling over $100,000 from hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, who has had over 10 cases before the high court, according to a ProPublica report published Tuesday night. Just one of the cases where Alito voted in the majority led Singer to a $2.4 billion payout. Alito did not disclose Singer’s gifts or recuse himself from cases involving the wealthy investor. >Ethics experts say Alito’s failure to disclose this trip on his annual report likely violated federal disclosure law requiring justices to report all gifts they are given. [Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/21/samuel-alito-undisclosed-gifts-billionaire-paul-singer-supreme-court) [Prorepublica](https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court)
Don't have a good answer so you're changing the question again?
Judges are supposed to be impartial and apolitical. You really don't see an issue with a Supreme Court judge flying a flag in support of the person they're supposed to be ruling on? It wouldn't be so bad if he recused himself.
I don't have a problem with the premise but where the line is drawn seems pretty arbitrary. Ginsburg was a founder of the ACLU's women's rights project. Was she truly "impartial" on women's rights cases. Sotomayor is Puerto Rican. Is she truly impartial in ruling on issues having to do with Puerto Rico. I would say no given that she's been the sole dissent in some cases.
Typical whataboutism. Let's try to stay focused on the conversation. Do you not see the issue with Alito ruling on Trump immunity when he was flying flags supporting his lies and his coup attempt? Do you not see the issue with Alito admitting that he wants a Christian takeover of our country then ruling on cases regarding Christianity? He has shown that he is compromised and cannot be impartial. All of his rulings support this as well.
How is that whataboutism? I'm not saying what Alito does is okay because of what other justices do. I'm saying its a very hard line to draw. Can you formulate a brightlime rules that would rework Alito to recuse himself without sweeping in many other scenarios that don't rose to that level?
A federal judge is supposed to recuse if there is even an appearance of a conflict ot interest. I'd say showing support for the insurrection and being caught on tape saying that we need godliness in our country is more than just an appearance of a conflict of interest. He's a religious zealot who wants to force his religion on us while removing our voting rights and he's on the Supreme Court ruling against the constitution on cases involving these subjects. Overturning Roe, letting a coach force kids to pray at a public school, ruling against minority voters in gerrymander cases, ruling Trump eligible to run for the presidency as a adjudicated insurrectionist... I haven't even mentioned the Harlon Crowe bullshit... The combo of his out of court actions + his rulings show that he cannot keep his outside beliefs out of his rulings. He is compromised.
What flag was he flying? What was the commonly accepted meaning of that flag? Also did anyone ever investigate the underlying facts that prompted that flag? I love how you try and excuse away his behavior without acknowledging it, he flew a flag known for standing with the concept of a stolen election, a concept we know for an absolute certain fact was manufactured fake news by the loser. A blatant lie to placate his NPC followers. This is the hard truth
Didn’t take long for the deflection to try to change the topic. So so predictable.
Meh, 40% of the country thinks the war we lost the most Americans was over something else, so it makes sense to me. I find the idea that judges are benevolent at all as just incredibly biased and without evidence from what I have seen. I learned a lot more about ethics from jurists than well, anything. I would have gotten better justice from hammurabi code. So you guys have some work to do, ethics wise. Also like 80% of this country gets morals from books that are pro rape pro murder pro abortion etc. I could go on. I'm a lot wiser about things people refuse to accept than my sum of knowledge. Jurists taught me that.
Cool story bro
Respect his wiseness, you peasant! /s
Yeah I always thought I would be good at computers that is my thing, but I spent 5 years watching evidence mean nothing, and didn't get justice for my own children until an unborn child was hurt. Which actually the Bible says churches should give abortions and unborn babies are worth shillings and silvers, payable to the husband since they are property. Unlike you guys I actually follow evidence and can produce the receipts. I never planned to know more about old books than you guys. I thought learning 25 computer languages was enough but I can teach you a computer language easier than I can get you to beleive words are in a book. The really scary part is that for a given fact x if you do not want to beleive it you won't. We could go through a bubonic plague levels before we break this cognitive dissonance. That's why I knew that the pandemic would go how it would go based on r values. They said up to 2 million, I know how biased against evidence we are, and so .3% is less than 33% and with the help of the courts showing me how biased we can be, I can see the true trouble we are in. I never would have imagined, that people are so awful, but courts help me understand. I don't blame the jurist. Their views are not that different from most Americans, but most Americans don't care if evidence means anything in court, and so we reap what we sow. We are working with our own biased brains and so we do the best we can. But we have so far to go.
This absolutely can not be real. Wow.
I am trying to be truthful. I wish I just made it up. Take from it what you will, I guess Also, if you do hate me, hey, here's another comment you can downvote.
I don’t anybody. Not the Donald, not you, not Hitler, not Putin. I pity those who can’t see how blinded they are by their own bias and their own hatred. I’d like to believe I am no longer one of those people but certainly I could be deluded. I will say it does not seem to me that you are willing to engage in good faith conversation, but also I’ll say that this is a difficult thing to do over the internet. I truly believe it we ever spoke person to person it might be different and we might find some common ground, even if we are vastly far apart upon the Overton window
Yeah I never heard of that tern but that's a good way to put it.
Is this evidence in the room with us?
I will take made up stats for 500.
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/blog/public-opinion-confederate-flag-and-civil-war-blog Ok 48% states rights. That is worse. And yes this country is about 80% Christian. The civil war was about slavery. You either think duh, nobody can be that stupid or you are that stupid.
I wonder what might have happened since 2015, huh?
Awesome the evidence gets downvoted, shocking. You want new better data, awesome, well which one, because they are both still true. Gallop has been polling that half the country doesn't know the cause of the civil war for a long time and it has not changed. And we are still very religious, if you are claiming we are less Christian Please remember to downvote my inconvenient facts if you find them unpleasant. That is how this works.
r/iamverysmart
I did not choose to be wiser about bullshit and lies. It does not take intelligence. It takes an open mind. But I can still teach you programming easier than I can get you to accept what is in a book, and that's not my fault.
r/iamverysmart^2
80% of this country doesn't even read books, however I'm pretty old and I've read a lot of books and I can't recall a single line ever being pro any of the three things you mentioned.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exod+21%3A22-25&version=NRSVUE Women were property in biblical times. It wouldn't have made any sense to them.
This started well and came apart so hard
I have another heavily downvoted post that gives more context, which might even seem more unhinged. I watched evidence mean nothing in court for 5 years then finally got justice once an unborn child was harmed. I think most people have an expectation that evidence means something in court. Certainly I did, before my experiences. The Bible is pro abortion if you actually read it. It was not easy for me to throw my computer ego, programming under the bus for some old books!
"Unhinged" first step is admitting
I feel bad for predicting the pandemic. I predicted a million people would die and the rest would not learn. I just can't compete with that with programming prowess.I can keep learning new things, but if folks keep buying the bullshit which they will since they are brainwashed from birth, there really isn't anything I can do to convince them. That's the wisdom. People are too biased to accept information they don't want to.
A judge is a jurist, ffs. Delicious word salad.
I'm trying to be inclusive to the Supreme Court. They go low, I go high.
[Here's a nice plate of pizzle for yo' shizzle!!](https://i0.wp.com/www.thepizzle.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/The-Pizzle-Family.jpg?w=1500) ! [Bob taught me that.](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:828/format:webp/0*mJHaWg0NS6yux0JJ.gif)
“flips”
It sucks that there is no real way to impeach, or force recusal.
much like marriage, "till death do us part"
Alito: I said you’re carrying this to term 🖕🖕
How convenient. Until they come to a decision on this, i hear a sitting president could arrange for that.
Yeah, immunity or such thing under presidential protection from the law, I havent been watching enough Faux news to remember what they are calling it exactly now a days. /s
We have to accept that the Republican Party has turned against democracy. Otherwise they would have impeached and removed both Alito and Thomas from the Court.
I'd go so far as to argue that even 15 or 20 years ago, he would have been impeached and convicted. Or, more likely, forced by his handlers to resign. You couldn't say it out loud then. He'd get a golden parachute, but at least he'd fade away into obscurity. We'd be discussing him as a footnote.
I know this is true in practice, but are there any theoretic loopholes? Like couldn’t Ailito neighbor sue him in a way that begs a Supreme Court opinion on women’s rights? There are loopholes for presidents to become dictators, so why not here? To be clear: I’m talking theoretical, not practical.
Theoretically Congress could step in, but with all the MAGA congress people, it's highly unlikely to ever happen.
right - impeachment is available, but it won’t happen in the current environment
Impeachment as a process has always been so incredibly broken that it very rarely actually gets used, because the threshold required makes it practically impossible. It’s not the current environment so much as the fact that impeachment has never been an effective mechanism.
Awe, there must be a more creative answer. Skys the limit. What’s your best non-congress, theoretically legal way to get Alito to recuse himself?
Only real way to force him is through congress. And fat chance he listens. He would probably need to be held in contempt.
Why does it have to be legal? This country was founded on an “illegal” riot against the crown.
There is none. Roberts can't do it. Congress can't even do it unless it was through a constitutional amendment, but we are unlikely to ever have any normal / progressive / accountability constitutional amendment passed through the normal procedures again in this country. The system we have relies on no fewer than two of our three branches of government acting in good faith. We only have one left, and if Biden loses we will have zero. This problem simply cannot be solved by our modern political system.
Can't these guys just die already? Thomas accepts enough free vacations that the private plane and helicopter crash trend hitting the bad Iran guy and the President of Malawi seems like a reasonable consequence. As for Alito and the flag business, maybe a reenactment of the January 6th event of Peter Francis Stager beating of the capital police officer with the American flagpole during the riot goes awry in the courtroom with one unfortunate casualty. If the process of impeachments leads to nothing in terms of punishments or change over and over, and does nothing but waste Congressional time and money, and seems unlikely here due to slim Congressional majorities and weak will, then the only other procedural lever seems to be their death. How unfortunate to be in the position where rooting for such a morbid thing is the only procedurally possible way to correct such corruption in the absence of a strictly enforced code of ethics with accountability and penalty of unseating these jurists for wrong-doing.
Seems like historically when governments cease to function and there are active plots to seize power, it's no longer about exploiting loopholes. At that point it's more about those who have the backing of the military making the rules.
Which is why just a few short years ago certain people were preaching the “magnanimous military”, until their dumpy leader shit all over them publicly forcing them to give up on their decades long ploy to galvanize their favor. Trump may have expedited their party’s inclinations, but thankfully undermined all the work and image they were cultivating.
This has been the GOP model for ending democracy since the 1990s. Obstruction until they can get a super-majority on the Supreme Court to make 2 of 3 branches, including the supposed branch meant to mediate, entirely dysfunctional. Then it's just a wait until the Civil War breaks out.
I still don't understand why they can't be arrested if there have been crimes that have occurred. I'd say any involvement in January 6 would correspond to a crime.
Impeaching is feasible. Not now, but it's a distinct possibility while he's still on the Court. Convicting, now. Yeah. That's not gonna happen.
There is, the problem is we don't have a house with enough members to pass a resolution or a senate with enough members to approve it. We need a Democratic majority in both, with enough people to overcome the Fettermans, Sinemas, and Manchins all in there acting as stooges.
The real coup plan has always been the white christian fascists. Trump is just their vehicle into power
Crisis in confidence
the murderers of US democracy are in the house...., Senate, SCROTUS, the GOP etc
It’s theocracy
I wonder who would be head SCROTUS?, left ball or right ball?
Good for her!
I'm guessing he won't be assigned to write the majority opinion in the Trump immunity case...
You give me a few points and I'll take that bet.
No, it'll be Roberts or Thomas.
Robert’s doesn’t like to grandstand on the big cases. It’s his way of not making the court about him. Jackson was the one who had the history down at oral argument. She should get to write this one.
Alito was always known as POS within the SCOTUS.Goes back decade that people were calling him unfit for one of the most powerful positions in the USA.