• Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The guy can say anything he wants. It’s not like if he does something illegal that the supreme court is going to convict him. He doesn’t need to ever win an election, he’s there for life.

    This will just upset the people who already know the guy is a problem and are already upset with him.

    I wish justices had term limits.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The folks mad enough to off a SC justice are more likely to point their guns at Jackson or Sotomayer.

        Liberals will just frown and send polite letters to their Senators to maybe consider having a hearing or something.

  • affiliate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Anyone can pay $150 to become a dues-paying member and rub elbows with the court’s nine justices at events like the dinner where Windsor spoke with Alito. (Tickets for the dinner were an extra $500.)

    this is all it took for him to admit this stuff? anybody with 650$ could have walked in and asked him a couple prodding questions? these guys really arent even trying to hide it anymore

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      anybody with 650$ could have walked in and asked him a couple prodding questions?

      Alito has a long history of running his mouth. I doubt you’d even need to pay the $650, assuming he thought you were from a conservative media outlet.

  • nifty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    By law, religious people should not be allowed in government or policy making. Delusional people cannot be trusted with such work.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Who would pass such a law? Hell, who would even vote for such a law? Churches have enormous influence at the ballot box.

      Even at the peak of its power, the Soviets couldn’t simply abolish religious leadership. And they were in a country with Atheists in the highest tiers of government, with actual money and military power to toss around. What’s the plan to outlaw religious demagogues in a state founded by religious demagogues?

  • rsuri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Pressed on whether the court has an obligation to put the country on a more “moral path,” Roberts turns the tables on his questioner: “Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” He argues instead: “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.” Presented with the claim that America is a “Christian nation” and that the Supreme Court should be “guiding us in that path,” Roberts again disagrees, citing the perspectives of “Jewish and Muslim friends,” before asserting, “It’s not our job to do that. It’s our job to decide the cases the best we can.”

    I know John Roberts has made some terrible rulings, but he deserves credit where it’s due in that he won’t literally tear up the Constitution. Unfortunately he’s the exact kind of Justice the Trump-era GOP tries to avoid choosing, because he puts the Constitution above Trump.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      he deserves credit where it’s due in that he won’t literally tear up the Constitution

      Guy pealing big ribbons off the edge of the document for the last 19 years still hasn’t shoved it wholesale through a shredder. And for that we should be grateful, maybe, unless oops he’s in a 5-4 decision were the other justices decide to go at constitutional law with a blowtorch.

      he puts the Constitution above Trump

      Excited for him to put on RGB’s “I Dissent!” necklace in the SCOTUS decision that hands Trump Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia in 2024.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Who cares what Samuel Alito said? It’s not like he’s REWRITING Laws that our Elected Representatives already passed so it aligns more with HIS Bias instead of the text of the Constitution!

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    It would be one thing if there was no mechanism for accountability within the Supreme Court. Its a fundamental flaw in our constitution.

    However: https://www.fastcompany.com/90243523/can-a-supreme-court-justice-be-removed-yes-and-heres-how

    The way the Biden campaign is running to the right this election, Democrats will almost assuredly be losing the house and the senate, so removing any of these justices is a bit of a fantasy. If anything, we’ll probably lose a liberal justice for a conservative one.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    The second flag is the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, a Revolutionary War-era banner. The “Appeal to Heaven” language references philosopher John Locke, who argued that, when earthly political appeals are exhausted, men have the right to take up arms and let God sort out the justness of the cause. While the The Appeal to Heaven flag was not always controversial, it has been revived by militant Christian nationalists and was also a potent symbol on Jan. 6. This flag was flown at the Alitos’ vacation home in New Jersey in 2023.

    I didn’t know the flag was literally “kill everyone and let God sort them out”…