Oh, I assure you this is all because we forced them to desegregate. That's what forced them into private Christian schools and created this weirdo gumbo of Christian Conservative Capitalism
“You come after me, I’m gonna give it back to you,” Martha-Ann Alito said in the recording of a private conversation at the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner on June 3.
These are truly wretched people that have been granted unassailable power. This scandal has no teeth - Alito is going to sit on the bench until he dies or retires during a favourable administration.
Trying to, unfortunately Republicans aren't the only ones seeking to destroy everything - the Democrats doing a damn fine job as well:-(. This isn't bOtH sIdEs BS, I'm saying that one side had a majority and did something with it, then the other side had that and... didn't. Thus by the ratchet effect, they win by default. Biden's Presidency has done so much, but the Democratic party as a whole not so much.
Alito used to be Scalia's bitch, but his wife has taken over the position since he died, it seems.
She talks just like my Karen boomer aunt. It's always extreme revenge because they can't handle that no one pays any attention to them anymore. Oh, you hate LGBTQ people? Good for you. No one cares and Hollywood will keep doing their thing. They're irrelevant. It drives them insane.
Unbelievable that the reason why the Supreme Court is intentionally delaying Convicted Felon and Sex Offender Treason Trump's treason trial and supporting the GOP's War on Democracy is because Alito and his wife hate gays.
supreme court justices have lifetime job security to prevent corruption.
every other position in every other part of the government has term limits to prevent corruption.
edit: apparently people are having a problem with the point I'm trying to make. my point is that minimizing corruption is the supposed reasoning for term limits but also lifetime appointment, which are exact opposites.
obviously neither can prevent corruption as we can clearly see both kinds of positions hold lots of corrupt people. but at least elected officials can in theory be held accountable for their corruption in elections. supreme court justices answer to no one. for life. that's fucked up.
no, but they can surely end it sometime. a president can be corrupt but they have to fuck off after 8 years max. alito can say fuck democracy, blame his wife for it and live the rest of his life doing his best to ruin yours.
No, corruption is not the reason. They have lifetime appointments to
Be independent of political leaders and to be above politics
For example, Trump maybe have appointed all too many and they may even cackle greedily while doing his bidding, but they’ll be there long after Trump is gone, doing their thing, with no ties to any remaining political leaders. Independent of politics. This is why appointing someone capable is more important than appointing a lackey, at least historically
the supreme court has never been apolitical since its inception, and it never will. people hold beliefs and opinions and that makes up their political views. they don't suddenly become empty vessels when they're appointed to any position, lifetime or not.
i don't get how appointing a lackey is supposed to be a bad idea. if anything, lifetime appointment makes it more important to appoint lackeys so your "rule" stays long after your term.
Seriously though she's just exposing more and more how the Court is an absolute sham that isn't even close to impartial. It actually convinces me that long terms are a bad idea for everyone -- including the judges' family.
The Supreme Court must be impartial, and that binds not only the judge but their immediate family as well. It's unrealistic to expect people to show political impartiality for that long, and the way that it should work is that judges effectively give up their right to free political speech while serving. They cannot be allowed to express political opinion whatsoever.
With that in mind, shorter terms with a much larger body of justices feel appropriate. There also needs to be a new check on the Supreme Court so that their word isn't final -- the very idea goes against our idea of Checks and Balances. 2/3 of Congress, or a simple majority of Congress plus the President should be able to override the Court.
Anyway, what I remind myself when I get pissed about this -- reform will happen. These cretins have made it inevitable. The only question is when, and each time they spew their vile hate, the justices and their spouses bring us closer to reform.
The checks and balances you're describing do exist, unfortunately Congress is (and has been for quite some time now) dysfunctional. A simple majority in both chambers and the President's signature is enough to undo many SCOTUS rulings by passing a new law. They can also pass amendments to the constitution, which used to happen with some regularity, but we haven't passed one since Clinton was in office.
If you want Congress to act as a check on the court, then you need Congress to be functional.
Most of their decisions are around laws that can be rewritten to correct whatever negative outcome was seen in the court. This meets your simple majority and presidential signature standard.
For claims of constitutionality there is still a check via amending the constitution... Which is not far from your proposal of 2/3 of Congress. You just also have to clear 3/4 of the states.
I think the problem is the idiots that are supposed to be the check are fully supporting what the courts are doing--and the idiots don't actually represent the interests or will of the people.
There's already a "check" on the court. The President nominates them and Congress approves them. Also, just because the Supreme Court says something is unconstitutional doesn't mean it won't happen.
They have no enforcement mechanism. The President can execute laws how they interpret them. Congress can just pass slightly different versions of the same law. The Supreme Court is the weakest of the branches. People just need to fucking vote in their elections and the problem will solve itself.
If you go visit a small Republican town you will notice that people don't usually protest, they just donate to politicians and vote. That's how you win.
Guts on Windsor's part to both go to this event and record her conversations. Makes me a little uneasy from a style standpoint, but I think it's worth it because it more viscerally shows that Alito is partisan and not impartial.