Omnibus Corrupt SCOTUS Thread

[Anonymous]

^^^ Brings to mind my favorite SATC brunch conversation.

Carrie: “Where'd you get that?”
Charlotte : “I read it in a magazine.”
Miranda : “What magazine, ‘Convenient Theories for You Monthly’”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Huffy little buster says he’s above the law. Imagine that.

This is disqualifying. There are a number of provisions that are very explicit in giving congress that authority. And they’ve done it for a couple hundred years.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Justice Alito tells the Wall Street Journal that Congress has no business policing SCOTUS:

"I know this is a con­tro­ver­sial view, but I’m will­ing to say it... No pro­vi­sion in the Con­sti­tu­tion gives them the au­thor­ity to reg­u­late the Supreme Court—pe­riod."


So according to Alito, once on the Supreme Court, the Justices are free to act as they will without repercussion. In other words, the Justices are above the law and above any check or balance or oversight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Justice Alito tells the Wall Street Journal that Congress has no business policing SCOTUS:

"I know this is a con­tro­ver­sial view, but I’m will­ing to say it... No pro­vi­sion in the Con­sti­tu­tion gives them the au­thor­ity to reg­u­late the Supreme Court—pe­riod."


So according to Alito, once on the Supreme Court, the Justices are free to act as they will without repercussion. In other words, the Justices are above the law and above any check or balance or oversight.

Hmm, according to the US Constitution...

Clause 2 Supreme Court Jurisdiction

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Methinks Alito is wrong here.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/section-2/

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Justice Alito tells the Wall Street Journal that Congress has no business policing SCOTUS:

"I know this is a con­tro­ver­sial view, but I’m will­ing to say it... No pro­vi­sion in the Con­sti­tu­tion gives them the au­thor­ity to reg­u­late the Supreme Court—pe­riod."


So according to Alito, once on the Supreme Court, the Justices are free to act as they will without repercussion. In other words, the Justices are above the law and above any check or balance or oversight.

Hmm, according to the US Constitution...

Clause 2 Supreme Court Jurisdiction

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Methinks Alito is wrong here.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/section-2/

“Alito, the slack jawed yokel” would naturally not have read or understood what’s in the Constitution. It’s as if he has no business being on the bench.

[Anonymous]

It’s all very consistent really. He and the other Fed Soc judges have arrived at predetermined positions, that align with their political views. There is no bend, twist, or omission that will stop them. They are like the worst, smug, insufferable little a hole on your high school debate team. Maybe they won often, but they weren’t “right”.
But I don’t think anything will happen to them. So far they have only been rewarded for the behavior.
Court reform is obviously and desperately needed, but we are distracted with Hunter Biden’s laptop, so shrug…..

[Anonymous]

O….k…. So checks and balances *only* exist in one direction??? The Supreme Court can regulate the executive and legislative branches but no checks in the opposite direction??? I don’t think that’s what our founding fathers had in mind (let’s go with their preferred “originalist” intent they are so fond of invoking.” Our drafters were extremely concerned with anyone or institution amassing too much power. Why do these justices think they are exempt?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:O….k…. So checks and balances *only* exist in one direction??? The Supreme Court can regulate the executive and legislative branches but no checks in the opposite direction??? I don’t think that’s what our founding fathers had in mind (let’s go with their preferred “originalist” intent they are so fond of invoking.” Our drafters were extremely concerned with anyone or institution amassing too much power. Why do these justices think they are exempt?

Because to date, no one has challenged them and they usually policed themselves where ethics were concerned. Chief Justice Roberts has turned a blind eye and the court has lost legitimacy through acts of the Senate and corruption by some of the justices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s all very consistent really. He and the other Fed Soc judges have arrived at predetermined positions, that align with their political views. There is no bend, twist, or omission that will stop them. They are like the worst, smug, insufferable little a hole on your high school debate team. Maybe they won often, but they weren’t “right”.
But I don’t think anything will happen to them. So far they have only been rewarded for the behavior.
Court reform is obviously and desperately needed, but we are distracted with Hunter Biden’s laptop, so shrug…..

All the Hunter garbage the GOP is obsessed with serves multiple purposes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all very consistent really. He and the other Fed Soc judges have arrived at predetermined positions, that align with their political views. There is no bend, twist, or omission that will stop them. They are like the worst, smug, insufferable little a hole on your high school debate team. Maybe they won often, but they weren’t “right”.
But I don’t think anything will happen to them. So far they have only been rewarded for the behavior.
Court reform is obviously and desperately needed, but we are distracted with Hunter Biden’s laptop, so shrug…..

All the Hunter garbage the GOP is obsessed with serves multiple purposes.

Yup. The same purpose as all of the other manufactured outrages that gets the base upset, creates false equivalences and distracts from the raping of our country that takes place every day, mostly by people in power on the right and their funders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was saddened to read about Robert’s wife.

Just sad.

Why ? They used duplicitous means to adopt their children.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all very consistent really. He and the other Fed Soc judges have arrived at predetermined positions, that align with their political views. There is no bend, twist, or omission that will stop them. They are like the worst, smug, insufferable little a hole on your high school debate team. Maybe they won often, but they weren’t “right”.
But I don’t think anything will happen to them. So far they have only been rewarded for the behavior.
Court reform is obviously and desperately needed, but we are distracted with Hunter Biden’s laptop, so shrug…..

All the Hunter garbage the GOP is obsessed with serves multiple purposes.

Exactly. This is all just smoke and mirrors by the GOP.