Well yeah. Alito was executing "the plan" they all already agreed on back at the Federalist Society. SCOTUS has been captured by far right forces. The court is illegitimate and corrupt to the core.
5 out of 9 are known to have taken what looks to be bribes:
Until the Supreme Court is completely overhauled, it's going to be extremely difficult to substantively change the heading of this country. Conservatives see this as a win, but they're too short-sighted to realize they shot themselves in the foot just the same.
We could also water it down, adding justices seems to be the only option since they don't/won't hold themselves accountable.
I'm no legal expert but I've always thought the randomized or rotating court idea (perhaps > 9) filled by lower circuit courts would be better and less partisan overall.
There are 13 circuit courts full of judges, all with their own lifetime appointments. I believe the proposed idea is that the current supreme court could be made up of random, rotating judges on temporary assignments from the 13 circuit courts. Currently, the 9 justices oversee one or more of the 13 circuits. So, we could expand the court to match the 13 circuits, and then, as justices retire/die, their replacements are randomly assigned to terms of 18-24 months from the circuits they oversee. It would still meet the constitutional requirements for the supreme court, as it only requires that there is a supreme Court made up of appointed justices in good standing.
I'm sure it's more complex than that, but those are the basics of the random appointments and rotating seated justices.
I've never heard of that option, but they're appointed too right? Not sure if that would fix it.
All of Canada's judges are appointed (which, iirc, isn't what happens in America).
It is rare to see any judge up here so politically partisan. Part of that may be that we repatriated our Constitution in 1982 (to formally acknowledge our independence from Britain) so judges are basing decisions on a newer document. The other thing is Canadian courts do not put "original intent" above all ... they consider the changes in society's mores and beliefs just as important.
Up here all judges abhor being reversed so work very hard to base their rulings on facts. I'm not sure if it's the same in America.
abhor being reversed
Who reverses them, do you have a Supreme Court type of system?
Yes, provincial and the Supreme Court of Canada (SCoC) ... just like America does (state/SCOTUS).
It looks like you're pretty similar, just not as corrupt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Canada#Current_members
They are but they tend to be constantly cycling out at a given time and so seem less concentrated or determined by individual presidents. They are also possibly subject to less lobbying targeting given which group presiding over a specific case would never be certain.
Why would Republicans care about that? They aren't black! Except for the black one taking the most bribes so they consider him white!
Thomas isn't the one taking the most bribes, it's just the one they focus on in the media.
It's not a recent thing.
There was about 5 minutes under Warren where the court looks like it might actually be progressive. Other than that essentially it's entire history it's just a archconservative institution that exists as a check on civil rights.
Wow, that was a hell of a read. Thank you.
Instead of protecting the Constitution, specifically the 9th Amendment, the current SCOTUS is instead denying and disparaging the basic rights of all those people who can get pregnant.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
SCOTUS is either blind or bought off ... or both.
It’s a lot of people. If we add in all of those who can get someone pregnant but aren’t ready to be parents or who love someone whose life is affected by a problematic pregnancy, the number grows massively.
But we don’t live in a representative democracy anymore.
The 9th amendment? Those FedSoc fucks never read past the 2nd.
And Gorsuch in particular disregards that pesky line in the 1st that separates church and state.
Or maybe it's that he denies the post Civil War incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
Either way, he's written about how he thinks it should be legal for States to have an official religion (his own).
SCOTUS is either blind or bought off
OH, OH, I KNOW THIS ONE!
It didn’t take me nearly 10 minutes to figure out which one.
Of course he did. Overturning Roe was on all of their agendas as they were getting confirmed. They would just never admit to it. Conservatives are liars.
Yeah, of course. No doubt Alito circulated the opinion to allies before circulating to the rest is the court. Hell, I’m sure Alito has had it in his drafts folder for since he was appointed.
The bigger surprises:
Most people probably don't realize that this is super common in senior leadership roles. You'll share drafts and get buy in for critical things well before you send it out officially. It's much easier to handle issues outside of official processes that might include certain procedures or ceremony. At the very least you'll know what type of push back you can expect.
This probably is more indicative of them coordinating prior to release of the opinion. Possibly in an attempt sway other justices by how quickly it was signed off on.
These guys know how they are going to vote long before the case is even accepted to the Court.
It's a total charade, the whole fucking thing.
Think of it this way. We'd fail a 5th Grade student who didn't read a 100 page book and hold them back a year.
This guy is an inspiration to those struggling kids! Truly anyone can be a Supreme Court Justice!
Someone once made the point that a Supreme Court judge really didn't have to know the law, because by the time a case got to the court it was obvious that the law was ambiguous. They argued that the Justices should be considering which interpretation was best for the most people, not which was the 'correct' way to view it.
Oh, he read the 100 page document. Just long before it was sent out.
In your heart of hearts, do you believe that's what happened?
"Yep, that takes rights away from women alright. Good enough for me!" - Gorsuch probably.
It took him 10 minutes to pull out the rubber stamp?
It took him 9 minutes to open the attachment on his email.
I can all but guarantee he didn't even open the attachment. Probably replied on his cell phone when he saw the alert.
This stuff isn't really a debate or discussion. The two sides meet on their own and talk about what their strategies are before meeting in the middle in pointless formalities. They probably worked on the draft together or went over it before it went out- the goal was for the side in control to decide on how they wanted it before putting it through the red tape of a vote. The real decisions were made long before the email was even sent.
For all intents and purposes 4 of the 5 members of the supreme court are just bench warmers until a conservative member retires or dies. At that point they are relevant until another conservative gets pushed through, or simply take over once a liberal gets through. That's it.
imo the concept of nonpartial decisions or bipartisanship is a fantasy, just like communism. There's the winning side and there's the losing side and the winners take all in this country.
There's no chance he didn't know what was in it. He was part of the cabal from the beginning.
Given how far said stamp was jammed up his arse, I'd say that is a reasonable estimate.
Every time I think I can’t possibly think less of the Supreme Court they go and surprise me
He knew the plan to overthrow Wade v Roe already and was just making sure it was on track.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.