Well I mean, you made the guy at the root of the problem immune from prosecution, so maybe the best advice is to wear your vest and be prepared to reap what you sow
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2025
147 points (96.8% liked)
politics
19291 readers
2439 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You know he's really talking about Democrats. He rails against open disregard for court rulings, disagreement with the Supreme Court, threats and intimidation of judges - he's not saying that the MAGA think they're above the law, he's claiming that he is the law and the ones being dangerous and threatening are the Democrats who disagree with him. And probably those who want to investigate the ethics of the Supreme Court too obviously, that's the real threat and intimidation. People like him are shameless like that.
These people don't rise to top clown position by being smart.
Judicial independence = we can do whatever our owners want us to do without recourse from the peons, fuck laws and morality
These are the statements of a man that sees the leopard that he helped let loose turning around to look at him while licking its chops.
Could Roberts be any more smug and tone deaf?
It's disgusting that we're forced to listen to these ancient clowns in costumes.
So why do all judges below SCOTUS level have no problem abiding by enforceable standards and Scotus itself has no problem with such divergence?
Who is SCOTUS accountable to if they have life terms that are realpolitik impassible to challlenge in the event of bad behavior whether its isolated or collective?
I hate to tell you, but they are pretty corrupt all the way down to traffic court.
Can they be impeached?
They can be, but Republicans will never impeach a fellow republican that has made it to the position like this.
Lifetime employment to a position that decides the literal rules of the county?
Roberts could slice open a baby, eat its liver on the front steps of the court, and they would spin it into oblivion using the media. Which is owned by Republicans by the way. They'd sane wash it by Sunday mornings Meet the Press and he'd drive off in a free Tesla. This is gonna be a crazy 2 years of straight chaos. I hope we don't get tired and keep our eyes on shit.
Motherfucker, y'all gave the president and former presidents immunity. Y'all don't get to bitch about it.
But it was the judicial system that did that, and the people didn't get a vote or say in it. I'm not anerican, but that was clearly the judges paving the way for their boss to get more power.
Taking bribes from people with cases in front of the court does indeed.
Have you tried not being corrupt? No?! You get what you deserve.
Oh, I know this one! The problem with people's faith in the court is the corruption.
Fuck John Roberts
The primary problem is there's effectively no check or balance on the Supreme Court.
The House can pass a bill that gets blocked by the Senate.
The House and Senate can pass a bill that gets vetoed by the President.
The House and Senate can over-ride a veto.
The House and Senate can impeach and remove the President.
But if the Supreme Court does something incredibly immoral or otherwise illegal, there really is zero accountability.
Yes, technically the House and Senate could impeach and remove, but that would really only apply to high crimes and misdemeanors (cough, Thomas, cough).
The only way around a bad ruling is to pass a new Constitutional Amendment over-riding it, and the bar for that is far, far higher than a simple veto.
Yes, it's always been a corrupt and evil system invented by literal slavemasters to violently preserve their disgusting privilege.
“High crimes and misdemeanors” means whatever the fuck Congress pleases. The problem is that these checks and balances were put in place by people of severely limited vision and imagination, centuries ago, who naively believed that govt officials would show fealty to their office and position. The whole shit breaks down when party loyalty is paramount. Our constitution is stupid af.
Our constitution is stupid af.
Our constitution is fine. On its surface, it works surprisingly well for a document written a quarter of a millennium ago by people who couldn't fathom what society would be two centuries later. If we were to write a new Constitution today, the people of the year 2275 would probably have similar criticisms since there's no way for us to know how society will develop and what the people of 2275 will need. Doesn't mean that the people who wrote it were bad, or there's a problem with the document. It just means that the people who wrote it aren't clairvoyant.
The biggest flaw with the Constitution is that it was written under the assumption that our elected officials would put their personal opinions and differences aside and sincerely work for what's best for the American people. Corruption seemingly did not exist in their minds, and the Constitution doesn't give any guidance about what to do if and when power falls into corrupt hands.
That said, even if the Constitution did give Congress a way to override Supreme Court rulings, our system of tribal politics would have long since perverted it. Especially these days, where even acknowledgement that the other side may even have a point is worthy of excommunication from the party. If a simple majority could override a SC ruling, then the majority would simply spend their time overriding a bunch of old SC rulings they don't like, rendering the SC essentially toothless. If it required a supermajority (60%, 75%, whatever), there's no way you'd get either party to override rulings made by a Supreme Court controlled by their own party. It just wouldn't happen, to the point where the rule may as well not exist and we'd be in the same situation we're in now.
Congress being largely unable to interfere in Supreme Court decisions is what (in theory, if not in practice) keeps the Supreme Court an independent branch of government and not just a lap dog of the legislative and/or executive branch. The problem is that that independence means the Supreme Court could just decide that it wants to be a lap dog anyway.
Have they thought of not being corrupt pieces of shit? That usually helps people view you as legitimate institutions, instead of crooked partisan hacks who take bribes and rule based on favor and who's who in the club.
Oh hey it's the thing conservatives love to do almost as much as shoveling money at rich people: beat us over the head and then cry about being a victim of "the left!"
Do all the things he says not to do.
Fucking traitor. I cannot wish enough ill upon him.
To be a traitor a person must have stood for something at some point.
SCOTUS derives its power through people's faith in it. Both the left and right know its "justice" is a farce - the right knows but applauds it while the left knows but is powerless to do anything.
Pretty sure these people derive their power from overwhelming violence.