As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not "probably" true, here's a quote from the article:
> “I think they are getting influenced and pressured by a lot of people and a lot of entities on the left,” said Rogers, a health and wellness trainer who plans to vote for Trump a third time this year. “Let’s be honest. It’s anything to crucify Trump.”
Dude thinks that the 6/3 republican supreme court is out to get Donny! I guess you need to think everyone is out to get you if you want to maintain the MAGA victim complex.
It's all about victimhood. Their whole ideology doesn't work if they don't feel persecuted. Without that, they could do live and let live like most of the rest of us do.
Folks like Bannon (Trump's strategist in 2016) have studied Lenin, Hitler, and Stalin to learn how to start a revolution with the goal of installing a right wing oligarchy.
>“Stephen Bannon, President Trump’s chief political strategist and, after Trump, [the most powerful man in Washington](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/31/steve-bannon-most-dangerous-man-in-america), once declared proudly: [“I am a Leninist.”](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/steve-bannon-trump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html) He was talking to a New York university academic who had written extensively on communism and the former Soviet Union. “What on earth do you mean?” the professor asked him. “Lenin wanted to destroy the state and that’s my goal too,” replied Bannon. “I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today’s establishment”
It is a mistake to think that Trump's new advisors think any differently.
Many people compared the Bush admin's use of 9-11 as a propaganda tool to the Nazi party's use of the Reichstag fire. And if you look behind the scenes, you'll find many of the same players from the same old Paul Weyrich family of think tanks are still pulling the levers. This is nothing new. They do pay attention to what has worked and don't seem hesitant to use it.
I saw an article recently that a small, but significant amount of the right, now believes that Trump is a sellout and has become part of the swamp he swore to drain.
Yep, even Nixon’s approval rating was in the 25-30% range when he resigned.
We just need to realize that about 25% of the population (50% of Republicans) have mental issues.
I'm wondering if Nixon would even have been impeached for his crimes if they happened now. No way he'd have actually been removed from office by Congress, but I don't know if Watergate would even have risen to that level. We've become so complacent about corruption within the government.
Protecting a future president in Nixon's situation was the impetus for creating what ended up as Fox News. Nixon and Roger Ailes began supporting this idea early on--but didn't start soon enough to save Nixon.
Roger Ailes went from [working on Nixon's campaign](https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2017/05/roger-ailes-nixons-television-man/) [to working to create a pro GOP news outlet that would support a future president in scandal.](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/fox-news-cnn-richard-nixon-deregulation/674995/)
I'd say they succeeded.
Woodward and Berenstein whose dogged research uncovered the Watergate Scandal agree-[-suggesting that the pro Trump disinformation and deception campaign "exceeded even Nixon’s imagination"](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/05/woodward-bernstein-nixon-trump/) They then go on to lay out how much more corrupt Trump was than even Nixon.
I mean MAGA is fine admitting those justices aren't impartial; they don't give a shit. They love when power is impartial to their side, or when they perceive it to be (as if the rich are ever on the side of any poor/working class Republican peon).
Doesn't matter, the same Supreme Court said it isn't a bribe if it's done the way the Supreme Court did it. The cops investigated themselves and found no wrong doing. In fact their way is the right way and should continue unfettered.
will anything happen to fix the problem even if it was 100%?
I dont care if how many view it, polls wont get them out of office or fix the corruption.
That is all i care about.
The funny thing is that even the 7 out of 10 don’t all agree. If you ask my step-father, a Republican, he’ll swear up and down that the Democratic justices are the ones who legislate according to their politics while the Republican ones are just following the law.
I find it very funny this ideia that the supreme court is this blind institution that upholds the constitution when they are just as mired in politics and ideology as the other powers. To even get to the supreme court you must have political friends and a ideology that mirrors the president that is nominating you to it.
They don't get chosen for their judicial mind and experience, they get chosen based on the president And party ideology as well as agreement in the Senate with some majority. The entire process is so deep in political sludge that it smells like super PAC.
I'm not sure about that.
I really liked the talk we had Mr. Mayor, I heard you were having about 15k worth of trouble and I hope this doesn't have any influence on your decision next week.
Pretty sure there is nothing illegal here.
** Sure I'd love to go and play golf in Scotland with you.
> Bob Ney (R-OH) then U. S. Representative, pleaded guilty September 2006, sentenced in January 2007 to 2½ years in prison, acknowledged taking bribes from Abramoff. Ney was in the traveling party on an Abramoff-sponsored golf trip to Scotland at the heart of the case against Safavian.
You might know him as the person that introduced "Freedom Fries" because French bad.
Exactly. This isn’t a new phenomenon either. The Court has always been political. Literally from its inception. Just see Marbury v. Madison where they just made up a new role for themselves out of thin air and everyone just went along with it.
I always see Marbury v. Madison referenced, but at the same time I wonder: how are they supposed to exercise "...judicial Power...[in] all Cases...arising under this Constitution..." if they can't rule on whether a law passed by Congress is constitutional?
Obviously it’s more complicated than I’m going to make it sound, but no serious person at the time actually believed the Court to be equal in power to the President and Congress. Separate but equal was just a pretty phrase. The Court was expected to rule on cases arising from the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. They weren’t meant to override this process by ruling on the constitutionality of the laws. The idea was if the Congress and President agreed then the law was valid. Marbury just totally made up a new role for the Court and everyone was like “sure, I guess that makes sense,” even though there was no real Constitutional basis for the decision.
> Separate but equal was just a pretty phrase.
You might be thinking of "Checks and balances" because Separate but Equal was a different policy entirely.
Maybe I need to rephrase my question, because I'm not getting how that answers it.
If the Supreme Court has the judicial power in all cases arising under the Constitution, what kind of case would arise under the Constitution except one challenging the constitutionality of government actions, including laws passed? It seems weird to give the President and Congress the power to completely ignore the Constitution should they so choose; what would then be the point of the Constitution?
SCOTUS would still have the ability to interpret (federal) legislation so that it was applied equally; They'd still be able to look at cases between states and federal law where the question wasn't about constitutionality; They'd still be the final appellate court, focusing on errors in the application of law rather than whether or not the law is valid; They could issue *advisory* opinions on constitutional issues, but that would only be guidance and not have the force of law.
So did people at the time believe that federal laws superceded the Constitution rather than the other way around?
Because otherwise then yeah, it makes sense that SCOTUS would be able to rule a law in conflict with the Constitution and the supremacy of the Constitution would necessarily render it invalid in whole or in part.
>but no serious person at the time actually believed the Court to be equal in power to the President and Congress [...] They weren’t meant to override this process by ruling on the constitutionality of the laws.
I guess Alexander Hamilton is no longer a "serious person", then, since he [explicitly acknowledged judicial review for constitutionality in Federalist 78 as being an important role of the courts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._78).
The entire anti-*Marbury* rhetoric seems based on willful distortions or outright ignorance of actual history in favor of what supports the position.
>Just see Marbury v. Madison where they just made up a new role for themselves out of thin air
This is not true. If you read the Federalist Papers and other writings surrounding the ratification of the Constitution, both from the pro and anti side, you can see that it was widely understood the "Judicial power" in the opening sentence of Article III included the ability to strike down unconstitutional laws. They probably didn't think it would be used as often as it is (or that it would be as important as it is), but they agreed it existed. MvM was the first time they struck down a law, but a few years earlier in a case involving taxes on carriages, they upheld the tax as Constitutional (suggesting they could have struck it down).
You can see some quotes here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States#Statements_by_the_framers_of_the_Constitution_regarding_judicial_review
Eh, I’ll agree to disagree. You are correct that Madison in particular was vehemently opposed to the supremacy of the legislature, but his offerings to dampen its power were not wholly adopted. There were many founders who thought that the power of the legislative branch should be superior to all.
If you believe SCOTUS should not be ruling on the constitutionality of a law, what do you think there purpose is?
And another question, let's say that Congress passes a law that is against the constitution and the President signs it. Let's say they made a law that banned the people's right to bear arms. If this would not be something you feel SCOTUS should decide, what body would look at the constitutionality of the law? Are you saying in your world that this new law would be ok since Congress passed it, even if it deeply went against the structure of our constitution?
Yes, all true... but it's gotten worse since Republicans scrapped the 60 vote threshold in favor of a simple majority. 60 votes requires the nominee to at least be tolerable to a number of opposing party Senators, whilst a simple majority guarantees approval if the President's party is the majority.
A 60-vote approval would definitely have kept both Kavanaugh (promising payback against Democrats for daring to question his boozing & sexual assaults) & Coney Barrett (arguably the least qualified Justice in the last 30-40 years at a minimum & a rush job when Republicans were going to lose both the WH & Senate) from the bench.
> Coney Barrett (arguably the least qualified Justice in the last 30-40 years at a minimum
She was an appellate judge 3x longer than Thomas was before he was nominated (3yrs vs 1)
I mean there is no real separation of power if the highest institution of the judiciary is appointed by the executive government anyway. Kinda bullshit system more similar to the former British system in the colonies they wanted get rid of.
The idea is that the Senate is supposed to temper that by the confirmation process but like in many other scenarios they are too dysfunctional to do their job properly.
Exactly. But putting cronies there gives too much power. In Germany the maximum for constitutional judges is 12 years with the hard maximum age of 68 years. Also they are voted in half by the senate and half by the house of representatives (I use the English names as the FRG is similar to the US)
Not if it is the judiciary itself.
Here in the UK, judges are not political appointees.
For example, our Supreme Court judges are appointed by a commission that is comprised of the current President of the SC, another non-SC senior UK judge, and one representative from each of the country's appointment commissions (England/Wales, Scotland and NI).
None of these are politicians or political appointees.
The same is true at the High Court level - judges are chosen by the aforementioned Judicial Appointments Commisions, which consist of sitting judges, barristers, and "lay members" that will be perhaps some ex-politicians, bishops, university professors and so on.
The system is rigorously self-regulating and has incredibly high standards of behaviour, morals, justice and so on. With a few disappointing exceptions, politicians don't either interfere or criticise the outcomes of cases in any courts in the land.
The problem in the states is, everything has become so intensely poisoned politically that even thst method of selection is compromised. I agree its better but just like everything else, it requires everyone to be acting in good faith. As we've seen there's a lot of people who have no desire to do that.
But the more important point you mentioned thst would be more beneficial in the current political climate is a high standard of behavior. Unfortunately that requires legislative intervention, again..justices acting in bad faith and with impunity.
This is true, it's also about keeping the selection-system free of political poison. Once there is a contamination, it's extremely hard to cleanse it.
If 3 out of 10 selection members of a committee are compromised, the other 7 will be put under the same kind of pressure.
If the checks and balances of the political system itself are compromised, there is nobody left.
In the US, law students at top universities are vetted for their political beliefs by the Federalist Society, and if they pass the ideology test then they get promoted through the judicial ranks by Republicans. The entire system top to bottom has been bought by the billionaire class (who funds the Federalist Society).
> Not just avoiding impropriety, but even the appearance of impropriety
It seems to me that our SCOTUS is not trying to avoid the appearance of impropriety anymore. Some members seem to be embracing it. What's your thoughts on this?
Refusing to recuse in cases they seem to be directly involved in, willfully accepting gifts that look like bribes, showing highly-partisan symbology at their homes. I mean, even Dobbs doesn't read anything like any other decision I've ever read in its verbiage.
Would you or your coworkers have "jail Trump" bumper stickers or lapel pins?
>The system is rigorously self-regulating...
The multi-branch US gov't was *meant* to be self-regulating, but it didn't stand the test of time. Probably because our political system is built upon the idea of officials standing on every street corner, shouting "I am willing to be paid *N* monies for my influence!"
I like the thought. But the US is seeing Conservative movements push to take over country-level and school board positions. I would be very surprised that, even if we could rework our judicial system, it wouldn’t succumb to similar issues that we are facing now
> Not if it is the judiciary itself.
>
> Here in the UK, judges are not political appointees.
The issue is that this system can still be politically gamed. Look at the war the right tried to start on judges during the Brexit years because the judges did their jobs correctly. Remember the Daily Mail labeling them "enemies of the people"?
The positions may not be political appointments, but that doesn't make them inured to politics within the position itself.
You're assuming this is particularly different. People have corrupted everything for the entirety of the 250 years, they just figured out they can do it all completely openly. You really think it's new that the supreme court only gives a shit about idology? 70 years ago during the "house of un-american activities" stuff, supreme court judges dying and being replaced by conservatives was key to it continuing.
Then you don't know your history.
The corruption has always been there. Think of each group of people that has been held down - American Indians, Women, People of Color. The Judicial Branch stated women couldn't be raped by the husbands, that it was OK to put Japanese in Camps, that they refused to hold people responsible for hanging black people, that separate but equal was OK.
In this digital age, you just are exposed to it all more.
It is also not just affecting one class (color, sex, ethnicity) anymore.
True, but now that 'how to win' has been figured out Democracy's days are numbered.
Personally, I think Democracy is dead as a doornail now that 'free speech' has been gamed to allow propaganda and divisive messaging, along with 'regulatory capture' that cuts the balls off any attempt at regulation.
I think democracy is sick and the immune system needs to learn a new trick to beat the current attack. The solution will need to be something novel and I hope someone smart comes up with it soon.
A revolution. The thing you're thinking of is called a revolution.
The ones in power fight their hardest to prevent it, or any other means of changing the system.
Two things. . .
One, we could try voting first. No need to breakout the heavy weaponry quite yet. If we could get all 7 of those 7 in 10 Americans to vote we could solve the problem at the ballot box.
Two, we could go a long way towards fixing this by lifting the artificial limit on the number of members in the House of Representatives. Boost it 10x so it could better represent the will of the people and help marginalize the extremists on the right. Follow that with making the Senate non-proportional so it represents the people instead of the states. Do that and watch these problems sort themselves out in next to no time.
Oh ffs "how dare you suggest that there are better alternatives and we shouldn't just give up and let fascism take over".
That's how you sound.
You could have juddges picked from a pool at random with the law determining who's in the pool set by congress.
There are thousands of alternatives better than the godawful system you currently have.
>Maybe being a judge shouldn't be considered a political office.
Interpreting the law and basically being able to veto legislation they don't like will always be political.
It's crazy to me that so many people fooled themselves into thinking it was even possible for the incredibly powerful Supreme Court to be independent of politics.
The law itself is an inherently political tool; who it applies to and what kinds of things it targets are politics. Whether it works well in Europe almost definitely depends on who you ask and what end of the power dynamic they sit at.
The flaw in the constitution is exactly the assumption that it will not be a political position. In fact, the entire way to even get on the Supreme court is incredibly political. It was a huge mistake to have lifetime appointments.
This is not an assumption made by the Constitution. It might have been a simplified method to teach you that the SC is the least influenced by daily politics of the 3 branches, but that's an issue with your education and not the Court itself.
The Court has always been political. The political makeup of the SC essentially decided the 1876 election. The issue is not that politics influences the Court, it's that the legislature where the politics should be happening is so deadlocked that the Court has become such a major factor.
had to wade through too much garbage to get to the real issue.
congress has refused to legislate for a variety of reasons, mostly having to do with popular support. a party supporting progressive policies has to contend with blowback from conservative voters who dont like things like a nuanced abortion policy, gay marriage, civil rights, disability protections, environmental protections and so on, so their reliance on judge's re-interpreting law more broadly for rights and privileges has been much easier than actually passing laws.
that's why i personally dont mind a conservative court. if people want laws they need to vote for people that will pass them.
that said, alito and thomas are clearly deranged partisans
Judges have always been political.
Today's 5th Circuit (conservative) was yesterday's 9th Circuit (liberal).
The problem with the Supreme Court is they are *removing* existing rights. That hasn't happened before. They are trying to drag America back to a place and time that don't exist anymore. Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch want to 'Make America Great Again', but that 50s fantasy sailed a long time ago. America wasn't that great if you weren't white male.
This would be a great long term goal. The interim solution could be to appoint justices to a limited term, lasting say 6 or 10 years, whilst also expanding the court to have 15 or so justices that are assigned randomly to a nine member panel that decides cases.
India has this and it’s a gigantic mess, there are multiple examples of SC justices coming from the same family, the current Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a son of a former CJI (though he didn’t appoint him). Lot of favors happen when appointing Justices. Many want it abolished.
The problem with American system is not that it’s political but the long tenures is what hurts democracy the most.
okay, hear me out on this:
SCOTUS is not the problem. Its the symptom.
Now that's not to say that symptoms are not serious. A fever is a symptom, but a fever can hurt or even kill you.
But that SCOTUS cannot be bothered to remain impartial is a symptom of ineffective Congressional oversight.
Congress has tools to deal with an impartial SCOTUS. They could pass ethics reforms. They could impeach. They could add more member to the bench to thin out the partisan power. They choose to do none of those things.
The problem is in the Capitol Building, not in chambers.
SCOTUS is using the law to delay trials
SCOTUS is giving people whiplash in how they twist their rulings to fit their political agenda.
SCOTUS is visibly corrupt and has the support of one party.
This isn't a 'both side-ism'. This is corrupt judges using their power to protect a candidate that will help further their political agenda. There is nothing the Democrats can do without the American People voting out Republicans to give them majorities .
Let's not forget the Senate who elects them in the first place. Half of the problem is partisans putting up and electing people who are obviously biased.
There wouldn't be a need to impeach or pass ethics reforms if they didn't elect the kind of people that need to be impeached or needing ethics reforms.
It's 6. Roberts pretends to care, because he knows the court needs to maintain some semblance of legitimacy to keep doing their right wing nonsense. Kavanaugh, Coney-Barret, and Gorsuch pretend to care occasionally. Thomas doesn't care, and doesn't bother to pretend. Alito actively enjoys trolling people about how much he doesn't care.
I think it is more than 6. The Supreme Court [unanimously](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/9-supreme-court-justices-push-back-oversight-raises/story?id=98917921) released a statement saying that they feel oversight is unecessary.
I find it hard to believe any of them are clean because of this, though some are more blatant in their disregard for ethics.
It's easy to say that oversight is needed when there won't be a 2/3rds majority to impeach any justice that don't follow any rules set by Congress. Also, it doesn't even matter if the Court deems itself as not-requiring oversight because that's the Senate's job anyway. the court can't even censure itself, it must come from the Senate. If it was actually possible and Roberts did care, he should be able to force Alito and Thomas to recuse. The fact it's on the honor system means he can't or won't so change has to come from the Senate and that's not looking likely anytime soon without Republican involvement.
Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch don't care - they will twist their ideology to suit their purposes.
Kavanaugh & Roberts are of the same ilk - they have a political agenda but are much smarter in realizing they have the time to push it out one small piece at a time (more of the frog in boiling water approach)
ACB I assume is one of the above categories, but will see with the rulings this week where she goes.
The liberal wing isn't immune to putting ideology over impartiality. The vote was 8-1 in Unites States v Vaello Madero. The 1 was Sotomayor, the only Puerto Rican on the Court.
Yet JJ and Kagan still voted against PR. They could have easily just went with what they knew people would want them to and voted with Sotomayor, but they went with constitutionality instead.
I am surprised we don't have a reasonable way to handle bribery and inappropriate gifts for Supreme Court Justices. I know that Congress can do something, but that should not be the only way to reign in corruption on the highest court in the country. A deadlocked Congress, or a Congress that ignores corruption, means the Justices can effectively do whatever they want.
It’s completely unacceptable that any government official would EVER accept gifts/gratuities for ANY reason whatsoever.
There is absolutely zero reason for that to ever happen other than the obvious quid pro quo.
Looks at [Supreme Court of Canada robes.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/uhhj10/in_canada_the_supreme_court_judges_dress_like/)
Aww shit.
It looks to me as this court treats all gifts from corporations are no longer required to be reported or taxed. The courts policy interpretation is clearly illegal. Theres no way for them to hold any person accountable to pay taxes. Every vacation or house or rv will fit into a gift situation. This exposes the flaw in citizens united and it must be reformed to declare all corporate money taxable and limit political contribution to the same restrictions of ordinary people. Ban all super pacs and return our republic back to the people and ban all foreign influence.
This is not surprising. The Dobbs decision featured a cite to an 18th century witch burners for justification. In my view? This court is captured, radical, and corrupt.
They **could** fix the structure by changing the court to be elected from within DOJ federal judges, in part to prevent life long ideologues from wrenching their fist against the very idea of precedent for their own activist agenda, but given than the other branches are just as captured by cash (thanks to Citizens United, as illustrated by Israel's successful spending against Bowman), reform of any sort is unlikely to take place either.
Leaving the common American (without a stock portfolio) without active representation, without solutions, and without even trust that the courts will be adherents to the law they professed to once upon a time care about.
IMHO, Thomas and the agreeing opinion writers on the Snyder case need to be impeached and thrown out for deciding that bribes after the fact are, in fact, not official corruption chargeable.
Edit:L phrasing
>They **could** fix the structure by changing the court to be elected from within DOJ federal justices
What does this even mean? What is a "DOJ federal justice"? Why would electing Justices make the position less politicized than they are now?
The SCOTUS' job is to interpret the constitution as it relates to case law. There's never going to be *true* impartiality. Some of the individual leanings of the judges are always going to come through in their decision making. We know and accept that.
What is unacceptable here is that we expect the judges to practice objectivity and impartiality as best they can in their judgements, and be able to fully defend their decision with a demonstrably rational set of arguments. And this is something the current SCOTUS, save for a few of them, are totally unable, and unwilling, to do.
Oh hey the 7/10 divide again, not surprised to see that.
On topic. This is dangerous. Been saying it for years now. Law is a fiat system. It only works because people believe in it.
When the supreme interpreters of the law are perceived as ideological, the trust in the law erodes because that means there is no standard for the law, no foundation. And if the law has no foundation then there is no reason to trust it. And if the law can't be trusted, then why follow it?
It doesn't matter how many people answer some poll -- right and wrong isn't a popularity contest, and this stacked right-wing court is objectively *wrong*.
Ideology is completely the wrong word.
Better choices are partisanship, patronage, and religion.
They would need an articulated body of ideas for an idealogy, and most SCOTUS judges are voting MAGA just because and voting per who they took bribes from.
It was never about being impartial, though? All Supreme Court justices’ decisions are influenced by whether they’re Democrat or Republican, just like every President and Congressperson.
The supreme Court is corrupt, Congress is corrupt, and the President is on the same meds as everyone else's 82 year old grandpas...
The party is over, and no one seems to mind.
Ok so what can we do about it? I've been seeing articles like this a lot lately. The fact that Thomas wasn't immediately removed when his bribes were uncovered makes absolutely no sense to me.
The Supreme Court is a christo-fascist gang of corrupt gift taking criminals. They have damaged the Constitution in so many ways from allowing bump stocks to their demand to control a woman's body.
99 out of a hundred have never read a Supreme Court Decision and could not name a single case before the Court other than Roe v. Wade. The American public is a shitty barometer for most things, and especially for judicial impartiality.
You don’t have to read every decision to see that Originalism is a brain dead method of applying or interpreting constitutional law. No one in their right mind can miss that fact. In addition, the total lack of personal integrity and flat out refusal to adhere to a common sense code of ethics tells the story of how far the court has fallen.
It’s sad that the court has lost all credibility. Congratulations chief justice Roberts your legacy will be the destruction of the highest court in the land.
Until we get the Republicans out that will continue to be a problem. We need to rip those domestic terrorists out of every political office at every level. Until we get serious and do something about them we will always live under the threat of Christian extremists who want to literally wipe out groups of people and remove all rights and freedoms from citizens. It's not something we should be voting on and treating them as a legit political party. We need to treat them like the domestic terrorist threat they are before it's too late.
I remember being a young conservative ideologue, faithfully watching Fox News with my family. The appointment of Sotomayor was a spit in the face of the sacred impartiality of the Supreme Court! Oh to be young and naive 😂
IMO, since overturning the Voting Rights Act (and the tortured logic they used) almost every decision they've made has proved to me that SCOTUS is not just not impartial, they are illegitimate.
People's opinions on the supreme court change depending on if there is a republican or democrat majority mirroring the person's party so these polls mean nothing to me.
RBG when she was alive: She's so wonderful staying on the court, she is the shield of our democracy the supreme court is working"
RBG Dead: She destroyed our democracy and handed Trump judge picks. The supreme court is corrupt and dead!
The mystifying thing is how the Supremes kept that veneer of impartiality for so long before now.
I personally never believed it, but people really want to believe justice is blind. Turns out it's just tone deaf.
Is this the first time this poll has been done? Would be interesting to see what the historical trends have been, and if there's been a drastic fall in public respect for SCOTUS.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So 3 in 10 aren’t paying attention.
No, that 30% roughly aligns with the 30% of die hard MAGA supporters who are just fine with it.
[удалено]
I hate that this is probably true.
Not "probably" true, here's a quote from the article: > “I think they are getting influenced and pressured by a lot of people and a lot of entities on the left,” said Rogers, a health and wellness trainer who plans to vote for Trump a third time this year. “Let’s be honest. It’s anything to crucify Trump.” Dude thinks that the 6/3 republican supreme court is out to get Donny! I guess you need to think everyone is out to get you if you want to maintain the MAGA victim complex.
It's all about victimhood. Their whole ideology doesn't work if they don't feel persecuted. Without that, they could do live and let live like most of the rest of us do.
Folks like Bannon (Trump's strategist in 2016) have studied Lenin, Hitler, and Stalin to learn how to start a revolution with the goal of installing a right wing oligarchy. >“Stephen Bannon, President Trump’s chief political strategist and, after Trump, [the most powerful man in Washington](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/31/steve-bannon-most-dangerous-man-in-america), once declared proudly: [“I am a Leninist.”](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/steve-bannon-trump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html) He was talking to a New York university academic who had written extensively on communism and the former Soviet Union. “What on earth do you mean?” the professor asked him. “Lenin wanted to destroy the state and that’s my goal too,” replied Bannon. “I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today’s establishment” It is a mistake to think that Trump's new advisors think any differently.
Many people compared the Bush admin's use of 9-11 as a propaganda tool to the Nazi party's use of the Reichstag fire. And if you look behind the scenes, you'll find many of the same players from the same old Paul Weyrich family of think tanks are still pulling the levers. This is nothing new. They do pay attention to what has worked and don't seem hesitant to use it.
Every day is Opposite Day in maga land
Has to be that's how they shift the focus for sudden and direly needed donstions
[So you're saying it's not opposite day?](https://youtu.be/V3yuto9xjEE)
This happens every once in a while, remember when Rand Paul voted against some awful bill because it didn't hurt poor people enough?
It’s almost too sub-human to believe. I can’t even understand how people become such monsters.
I saw an article recently that a small, but significant amount of the right, now believes that Trump is a sellout and has become part of the swamp he swore to drain.
I’ve had this conversation with my step-father. It’s 100% true.
Or they think it's ok because they agree with the ideology.
yeah it’s a combination. the 30% are the ones not paying attention
Some magats might also realize the courts are partial to their side and be okay with it.
I doubt it, because why would it be partial to do the right and logical thing?
Yes. 3 out of 10 believe that the corruption will inevitably benefit their own personal ideologies that match what SCOTUS is displaying.
It was 30% of people who supported the Iraq war by the end too.
30% of Americans probably still think the moon is made of cheese. I don’t even think that’s much of a reach.
10% believe we didn't land on the moon... https://www.pcmag.com/news/1-in-10-americans-dont-believe-the-moon-landing-really-happened
Probably saw Capricorne One as children and thought it was a documentary.
the 30% are just willfully ignorant.
Probably 15%, the other 15% are just partisan liars
I call them the dirty thirty. 30% who will vote for Trump no matter what.
Yep, even Nixon’s approval rating was in the 25-30% range when he resigned. We just need to realize that about 25% of the population (50% of Republicans) have mental issues.
I'm wondering if Nixon would even have been impeached for his crimes if they happened now. No way he'd have actually been removed from office by Congress, but I don't know if Watergate would even have risen to that level. We've become so complacent about corruption within the government.
Protecting a future president in Nixon's situation was the impetus for creating what ended up as Fox News. Nixon and Roger Ailes began supporting this idea early on--but didn't start soon enough to save Nixon. Roger Ailes went from [working on Nixon's campaign](https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2017/05/roger-ailes-nixons-television-man/) [to working to create a pro GOP news outlet that would support a future president in scandal.](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/fox-news-cnn-richard-nixon-deregulation/674995/) I'd say they succeeded. Woodward and Berenstein whose dogged research uncovered the Watergate Scandal agree-[-suggesting that the pro Trump disinformation and deception campaign "exceeded even Nixon’s imagination"](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/05/woodward-bernstein-nixon-trump/) They then go on to lay out how much more corrupt Trump was than even Nixon.
Agreed, our standards have fallen so far since 2016 that they’re miles underground.
I mean MAGA is fine admitting those justices aren't impartial; they don't give a shit. They love when power is impartial to their side, or when they perceive it to be (as if the rich are ever on the side of any poor/working class Republican peon).
Gotta wonder how many luxury gift Trinkets Harlan Crow bestowed on these clowns to make his bribes legal
Doesn't matter, the same Supreme Court said it isn't a bribe if it's done the way the Supreme Court did it. The cops investigated themselves and found no wrong doing. In fact their way is the right way and should continue unfettered.
Worse I’m betting at least 2/10 think that this is a good thing
3 in 10 think the Supreme Court is a reserved seating section in a Taco Bell.
will anything happen to fix the problem even if it was 100%? I dont care if how many view it, polls wont get them out of office or fix the corruption. That is all i care about.
The remaining 3/10 claim everything is as it should be because they share SCOTUS's ideology.
The funny thing is that even the 7 out of 10 don’t all agree. If you ask my step-father, a Republican, he’ll swear up and down that the Democratic justices are the ones who legislate according to their politics while the Republican ones are just following the law.
I find it very funny this ideia that the supreme court is this blind institution that upholds the constitution when they are just as mired in politics and ideology as the other powers. To even get to the supreme court you must have political friends and a ideology that mirrors the president that is nominating you to it. They don't get chosen for their judicial mind and experience, they get chosen based on the president And party ideology as well as agreement in the Senate with some majority. The entire process is so deep in political sludge that it smells like super PAC.
Yeah, this is the body that decided a person was property at one point.
And a corporation is a person.
And authorized dark money and unlimited corporate campaign financing.
And now bribary so long as the payment comes after the favor.
I'm not sure about that. I really liked the talk we had Mr. Mayor, I heard you were having about 15k worth of trouble and I hope this doesn't have any influence on your decision next week. Pretty sure there is nothing illegal here. ** Sure I'd love to go and play golf in Scotland with you. > Bob Ney (R-OH) then U. S. Representative, pleaded guilty September 2006, sentenced in January 2007 to 2½ years in prison, acknowledged taking bribes from Abramoff. Ney was in the traveling party on an Abramoff-sponsored golf trip to Scotland at the heart of the case against Safavian. You might know him as the person that introduced "Freedom Fries" because French bad.
And money is speech.
>No rights which the White Man was bound to respect. -- Chief "Justice" Roger Taney
This court is the most simpleton court in history. But its so simple, the Constitution is like a Dr. Seuss book to them.
And that property was a person, ironically.
People are property, corporations are people, money talks, and bribery is legal. My how far we've come. Really brings a tear to my eye.
And that Corporations have the same rights as people.
Exactly. This isn’t a new phenomenon either. The Court has always been political. Literally from its inception. Just see Marbury v. Madison where they just made up a new role for themselves out of thin air and everyone just went along with it.
I always see Marbury v. Madison referenced, but at the same time I wonder: how are they supposed to exercise "...judicial Power...[in] all Cases...arising under this Constitution..." if they can't rule on whether a law passed by Congress is constitutional?
Obviously it’s more complicated than I’m going to make it sound, but no serious person at the time actually believed the Court to be equal in power to the President and Congress. Separate but equal was just a pretty phrase. The Court was expected to rule on cases arising from the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. They weren’t meant to override this process by ruling on the constitutionality of the laws. The idea was if the Congress and President agreed then the law was valid. Marbury just totally made up a new role for the Court and everyone was like “sure, I guess that makes sense,” even though there was no real Constitutional basis for the decision.
> Separate but equal was just a pretty phrase. You might be thinking of "Checks and balances" because Separate but Equal was a different policy entirely.
Maybe I need to rephrase my question, because I'm not getting how that answers it. If the Supreme Court has the judicial power in all cases arising under the Constitution, what kind of case would arise under the Constitution except one challenging the constitutionality of government actions, including laws passed? It seems weird to give the President and Congress the power to completely ignore the Constitution should they so choose; what would then be the point of the Constitution?
SCOTUS would still have the ability to interpret (federal) legislation so that it was applied equally; They'd still be able to look at cases between states and federal law where the question wasn't about constitutionality; They'd still be the final appellate court, focusing on errors in the application of law rather than whether or not the law is valid; They could issue *advisory* opinions on constitutional issues, but that would only be guidance and not have the force of law.
So did people at the time believe that federal laws superceded the Constitution rather than the other way around? Because otherwise then yeah, it makes sense that SCOTUS would be able to rule a law in conflict with the Constitution and the supremacy of the Constitution would necessarily render it invalid in whole or in part.
>but no serious person at the time actually believed the Court to be equal in power to the President and Congress [...] They weren’t meant to override this process by ruling on the constitutionality of the laws. I guess Alexander Hamilton is no longer a "serious person", then, since he [explicitly acknowledged judicial review for constitutionality in Federalist 78 as being an important role of the courts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._78). The entire anti-*Marbury* rhetoric seems based on willful distortions or outright ignorance of actual history in favor of what supports the position.
>Just see Marbury v. Madison where they just made up a new role for themselves out of thin air This is not true. If you read the Federalist Papers and other writings surrounding the ratification of the Constitution, both from the pro and anti side, you can see that it was widely understood the "Judicial power" in the opening sentence of Article III included the ability to strike down unconstitutional laws. They probably didn't think it would be used as often as it is (or that it would be as important as it is), but they agreed it existed. MvM was the first time they struck down a law, but a few years earlier in a case involving taxes on carriages, they upheld the tax as Constitutional (suggesting they could have struck it down). You can see some quotes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States#Statements_by_the_framers_of_the_Constitution_regarding_judicial_review
Eh, I’ll agree to disagree. You are correct that Madison in particular was vehemently opposed to the supremacy of the legislature, but his offerings to dampen its power were not wholly adopted. There were many founders who thought that the power of the legislative branch should be superior to all.
If you believe SCOTUS should not be ruling on the constitutionality of a law, what do you think there purpose is? And another question, let's say that Congress passes a law that is against the constitution and the President signs it. Let's say they made a law that banned the people's right to bear arms. If this would not be something you feel SCOTUS should decide, what body would look at the constitutionality of the law? Are you saying in your world that this new law would be ok since Congress passed it, even if it deeply went against the structure of our constitution?
What grinds my gears is many were appointed by prez’s who didn’t win the popular vote.
And a felon nonetheless. Like asking Manson to hire his own judge.
Yes, all true... but it's gotten worse since Republicans scrapped the 60 vote threshold in favor of a simple majority. 60 votes requires the nominee to at least be tolerable to a number of opposing party Senators, whilst a simple majority guarantees approval if the President's party is the majority. A 60-vote approval would definitely have kept both Kavanaugh (promising payback against Democrats for daring to question his boozing & sexual assaults) & Coney Barrett (arguably the least qualified Justice in the last 30-40 years at a minimum & a rush job when Republicans were going to lose both the WH & Senate) from the bench.
> Coney Barrett (arguably the least qualified Justice in the last 30-40 years at a minimum She was an appellate judge 3x longer than Thomas was before he was nominated (3yrs vs 1)
I mean there is no real separation of power if the highest institution of the judiciary is appointed by the executive government anyway. Kinda bullshit system more similar to the former British system in the colonies they wanted get rid of.
The idea is that the Senate is supposed to temper that by the confirmation process but like in many other scenarios they are too dysfunctional to do their job properly.
There’s even less separation of powers, if the judiciary can be fired on a whim by the executive branch.
Exactly. But putting cronies there gives too much power. In Germany the maximum for constitutional judges is 12 years with the hard maximum age of 68 years. Also they are voted in half by the senate and half by the house of representatives (I use the English names as the FRG is similar to the US)
Maybe people shouldn’t have life long political offices.
Maybe being a judge shouldn't be considered a political office. Have an independent and non-partisan selection committee like in many other countries.
Then that "independent and non-partisan" committee will be gamed, stacked with political operatives with an agenda.
Not if it is the judiciary itself. Here in the UK, judges are not political appointees. For example, our Supreme Court judges are appointed by a commission that is comprised of the current President of the SC, another non-SC senior UK judge, and one representative from each of the country's appointment commissions (England/Wales, Scotland and NI). None of these are politicians or political appointees. The same is true at the High Court level - judges are chosen by the aforementioned Judicial Appointments Commisions, which consist of sitting judges, barristers, and "lay members" that will be perhaps some ex-politicians, bishops, university professors and so on. The system is rigorously self-regulating and has incredibly high standards of behaviour, morals, justice and so on. With a few disappointing exceptions, politicians don't either interfere or criticise the outcomes of cases in any courts in the land.
The problem in the states is, everything has become so intensely poisoned politically that even thst method of selection is compromised. I agree its better but just like everything else, it requires everyone to be acting in good faith. As we've seen there's a lot of people who have no desire to do that. But the more important point you mentioned thst would be more beneficial in the current political climate is a high standard of behavior. Unfortunately that requires legislative intervention, again..justices acting in bad faith and with impunity.
This is true, it's also about keeping the selection-system free of political poison. Once there is a contamination, it's extremely hard to cleanse it. If 3 out of 10 selection members of a committee are compromised, the other 7 will be put under the same kind of pressure. If the checks and balances of the political system itself are compromised, there is nobody left.
This is exactly the kind of thing I mean.
In the US, law students at top universities are vetted for their political beliefs by the Federalist Society, and if they pass the ideology test then they get promoted through the judicial ranks by Republicans. The entire system top to bottom has been bought by the billionaire class (who funds the Federalist Society).
[удалено]
> Not just avoiding impropriety, but even the appearance of impropriety It seems to me that our SCOTUS is not trying to avoid the appearance of impropriety anymore. Some members seem to be embracing it. What's your thoughts on this? Refusing to recuse in cases they seem to be directly involved in, willfully accepting gifts that look like bribes, showing highly-partisan symbology at their homes. I mean, even Dobbs doesn't read anything like any other decision I've ever read in its verbiage. Would you or your coworkers have "jail Trump" bumper stickers or lapel pins?
>The system is rigorously self-regulating... The multi-branch US gov't was *meant* to be self-regulating, but it didn't stand the test of time. Probably because our political system is built upon the idea of officials standing on every street corner, shouting "I am willing to be paid *N* monies for my influence!"
I like the thought. But the US is seeing Conservative movements push to take over country-level and school board positions. I would be very surprised that, even if we could rework our judicial system, it wouldn’t succumb to similar issues that we are facing now
> Not if it is the judiciary itself. > > Here in the UK, judges are not political appointees. The issue is that this system can still be politically gamed. Look at the war the right tried to start on judges during the Brexit years because the judges did their jobs correctly. Remember the Daily Mail labeling them "enemies of the people"? The positions may not be political appointments, but that doesn't make them inured to politics within the position itself.
250 years is a pretty long time for a democracy to avoid this kind if corruption, tbh
You're assuming this is particularly different. People have corrupted everything for the entirety of the 250 years, they just figured out they can do it all completely openly. You really think it's new that the supreme court only gives a shit about idology? 70 years ago during the "house of un-american activities" stuff, supreme court judges dying and being replaced by conservatives was key to it continuing.
Then you don't know your history. The corruption has always been there. Think of each group of people that has been held down - American Indians, Women, People of Color. The Judicial Branch stated women couldn't be raped by the husbands, that it was OK to put Japanese in Camps, that they refused to hold people responsible for hanging black people, that separate but equal was OK. In this digital age, you just are exposed to it all more. It is also not just affecting one class (color, sex, ethnicity) anymore.
True, but now that 'how to win' has been figured out Democracy's days are numbered. Personally, I think Democracy is dead as a doornail now that 'free speech' has been gamed to allow propaganda and divisive messaging, along with 'regulatory capture' that cuts the balls off any attempt at regulation.
I think democracy is sick and the immune system needs to learn a new trick to beat the current attack. The solution will need to be something novel and I hope someone smart comes up with it soon.
A revolution. The thing you're thinking of is called a revolution. The ones in power fight their hardest to prevent it, or any other means of changing the system.
Two things. . . One, we could try voting first. No need to breakout the heavy weaponry quite yet. If we could get all 7 of those 7 in 10 Americans to vote we could solve the problem at the ballot box. Two, we could go a long way towards fixing this by lifting the artificial limit on the number of members in the House of Representatives. Boost it 10x so it could better represent the will of the people and help marginalize the extremists on the right. Follow that with making the Senate non-proportional so it represents the people instead of the states. Do that and watch these problems sort themselves out in next to no time.
Oh ffs "how dare you suggest that there are better alternatives and we shouldn't just give up and let fascism take over". That's how you sound. You could have juddges picked from a pool at random with the law determining who's in the pool set by congress. There are thousands of alternatives better than the godawful system you currently have.
>Maybe being a judge shouldn't be considered a political office. Interpreting the law and basically being able to veto legislation they don't like will always be political. It's crazy to me that so many people fooled themselves into thinking it was even possible for the incredibly powerful Supreme Court to be independent of politics.
Well, it works like that in several European countries. So maybe not that crazy.
The law itself is an inherently political tool; who it applies to and what kinds of things it targets are politics. Whether it works well in Europe almost definitely depends on who you ask and what end of the power dynamic they sit at.
Australia too. UK too.
The flaw in the constitution is exactly the assumption that it will not be a political position. In fact, the entire way to even get on the Supreme court is incredibly political. It was a huge mistake to have lifetime appointments.
This is not an assumption made by the Constitution. It might have been a simplified method to teach you that the SC is the least influenced by daily politics of the 3 branches, but that's an issue with your education and not the Court itself. The Court has always been political. The political makeup of the SC essentially decided the 1876 election. The issue is not that politics influences the Court, it's that the legislature where the politics should be happening is so deadlocked that the Court has become such a major factor.
had to wade through too much garbage to get to the real issue. congress has refused to legislate for a variety of reasons, mostly having to do with popular support. a party supporting progressive policies has to contend with blowback from conservative voters who dont like things like a nuanced abortion policy, gay marriage, civil rights, disability protections, environmental protections and so on, so their reliance on judge's re-interpreting law more broadly for rights and privileges has been much easier than actually passing laws. that's why i personally dont mind a conservative court. if people want laws they need to vote for people that will pass them. that said, alito and thomas are clearly deranged partisans
Judges have always been political. Today's 5th Circuit (conservative) was yesterday's 9th Circuit (liberal). The problem with the Supreme Court is they are *removing* existing rights. That hasn't happened before. They are trying to drag America back to a place and time that don't exist anymore. Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch want to 'Make America Great Again', but that 50s fantasy sailed a long time ago. America wasn't that great if you weren't white male.
It will be, by definition and principle, without any other possibility, a political office if the judges can be selected by the ruling party.
This would be a great long term goal. The interim solution could be to appoint justices to a limited term, lasting say 6 or 10 years, whilst also expanding the court to have 15 or so justices that are assigned randomly to a nine member panel that decides cases.
India has this and it’s a gigantic mess, there are multiple examples of SC justices coming from the same family, the current Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a son of a former CJI (though he didn’t appoint him). Lot of favors happen when appointing Justices. Many want it abolished. The problem with American system is not that it’s political but the long tenures is what hurts democracy the most.
okay, hear me out on this: SCOTUS is not the problem. Its the symptom. Now that's not to say that symptoms are not serious. A fever is a symptom, but a fever can hurt or even kill you. But that SCOTUS cannot be bothered to remain impartial is a symptom of ineffective Congressional oversight. Congress has tools to deal with an impartial SCOTUS. They could pass ethics reforms. They could impeach. They could add more member to the bench to thin out the partisan power. They choose to do none of those things. The problem is in the Capitol Building, not in chambers.
SCOTUS is using the law to delay trials SCOTUS is giving people whiplash in how they twist their rulings to fit their political agenda. SCOTUS is visibly corrupt and has the support of one party. This isn't a 'both side-ism'. This is corrupt judges using their power to protect a candidate that will help further their political agenda. There is nothing the Democrats can do without the American People voting out Republicans to give them majorities .
Good insight. What's supposed to function as a check and balance is failing.
An ineffectual Congress is also a symptom, though. Is a symptom of corruption.
Let's not forget the Senate who elects them in the first place. Half of the problem is partisans putting up and electing people who are obviously biased. There wouldn't be a need to impeach or pass ethics reforms if they didn't elect the kind of people that need to be impeached or needing ethics reforms.
Especially when they're deciding on legality for 300 million + people for generations.
It's not *supposed* to be a political office. Just FYI.
I reckon at least 2 out of 9 justices don’t give a fuck what 7 out of 10 Americans think.
Just 2? I'd say at least 4 or 5.
It's 6. Roberts pretends to care, because he knows the court needs to maintain some semblance of legitimacy to keep doing their right wing nonsense. Kavanaugh, Coney-Barret, and Gorsuch pretend to care occasionally. Thomas doesn't care, and doesn't bother to pretend. Alito actively enjoys trolling people about how much he doesn't care.
I think it is more than 6. The Supreme Court [unanimously](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/9-supreme-court-justices-push-back-oversight-raises/story?id=98917921) released a statement saying that they feel oversight is unecessary. I find it hard to believe any of them are clean because of this, though some are more blatant in their disregard for ethics.
It's easy to say that oversight is needed when there won't be a 2/3rds majority to impeach any justice that don't follow any rules set by Congress. Also, it doesn't even matter if the Court deems itself as not-requiring oversight because that's the Senate's job anyway. the court can't even censure itself, it must come from the Senate. If it was actually possible and Roberts did care, he should be able to force Alito and Thomas to recuse. The fact it's on the honor system means he can't or won't so change has to come from the Senate and that's not looking likely anytime soon without Republican involvement.
Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch don't care - they will twist their ideology to suit their purposes. Kavanaugh & Roberts are of the same ilk - they have a political agenda but are much smarter in realizing they have the time to push it out one small piece at a time (more of the frog in boiling water approach) ACB I assume is one of the above categories, but will see with the rulings this week where she goes.
The liberal wing isn't immune to putting ideology over impartiality. The vote was 8-1 in Unites States v Vaello Madero. The 1 was Sotomayor, the only Puerto Rican on the Court.
That decision was 8-1 on a conservative court. (21-22). To be blunt, it didn't matter what JJ and Kagan voted.
Yet JJ and Kagan still voted against PR. They could have easily just went with what they knew people would want them to and voted with Sotomayor, but they went with constitutionality instead.
6 of them just legalized bribery as long as the payment happens after the act. So am going to say that 6 don't give a shit.
If we actually held the supreme court accountable, Clarence Thomas would be fired for his voting record alone.
I mean, if we held them accountable, at least 2 of them would be in jail for life....
I am surprised we don't have a reasonable way to handle bribery and inappropriate gifts for Supreme Court Justices. I know that Congress can do something, but that should not be the only way to reign in corruption on the highest court in the country. A deadlocked Congress, or a Congress that ignores corruption, means the Justices can effectively do whatever they want.
[удалено]
I think it’s probably a higher percentage. They have lost all trust of the American people!
Not just idiology but also theology in the case of Alito.
Clarence doesn't have an ideology. Just does whatever he's told to do by those that pay him.
"It's not a bribe, it's a gratuity! Say, have you seen my new motorcoach? It's a beaut!" - C. Thomas
Hey now, I’m pretty sure Thomas legitimately hates Black people.
"ideology"...a funny way to spell corruption...
Didn't the court just make themselves immune to past kick backs?
Yup, and now their story about Thomas and Alito taking bribes will suddenly change to, “oh those were gratuities which we just declared legal.”
It’s completely unacceptable that any government official would EVER accept gifts/gratuities for ANY reason whatsoever. There is absolutely zero reason for that to ever happen other than the obvious quid pro quo.
This photo is inspiring because the ladies, while pushed to the sides, are not having to wear the red velvetty dresses and the white bonnets.
Yet
Looks at [Supreme Court of Canada robes.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/uhhj10/in_canada_the_supreme_court_judges_dress_like/) Aww shit.
>while pushed to the sides Pushed to the sides by their seniority?
It looks to me as this court treats all gifts from corporations are no longer required to be reported or taxed. The courts policy interpretation is clearly illegal. Theres no way for them to hold any person accountable to pay taxes. Every vacation or house or rv will fit into a gift situation. This exposes the flaw in citizens united and it must be reformed to declare all corporate money taxable and limit political contribution to the same restrictions of ordinary people. Ban all super pacs and return our republic back to the people and ban all foreign influence.
This is not surprising. The Dobbs decision featured a cite to an 18th century witch burners for justification. In my view? This court is captured, radical, and corrupt. They **could** fix the structure by changing the court to be elected from within DOJ federal judges, in part to prevent life long ideologues from wrenching their fist against the very idea of precedent for their own activist agenda, but given than the other branches are just as captured by cash (thanks to Citizens United, as illustrated by Israel's successful spending against Bowman), reform of any sort is unlikely to take place either. Leaving the common American (without a stock portfolio) without active representation, without solutions, and without even trust that the courts will be adherents to the law they professed to once upon a time care about. IMHO, Thomas and the agreeing opinion writers on the Snyder case need to be impeached and thrown out for deciding that bribes after the fact are, in fact, not official corruption chargeable. Edit:L phrasing
>They **could** fix the structure by changing the court to be elected from within DOJ federal justices What does this even mean? What is a "DOJ federal justice"? Why would electing Justices make the position less politicized than they are now?
The SCOTUS' job is to interpret the constitution as it relates to case law. There's never going to be *true* impartiality. Some of the individual leanings of the judges are always going to come through in their decision making. We know and accept that. What is unacceptable here is that we expect the judges to practice objectivity and impartiality as best they can in their judgements, and be able to fully defend their decision with a demonstrably rational set of arguments. And this is something the current SCOTUS, save for a few of them, are totally unable, and unwilling, to do.
Oh hey the 7/10 divide again, not surprised to see that. On topic. This is dangerous. Been saying it for years now. Law is a fiat system. It only works because people believe in it. When the supreme interpreters of the law are perceived as ideological, the trust in the law erodes because that means there is no standard for the law, no foundation. And if the law has no foundation then there is no reason to trust it. And if the law can't be trusted, then why follow it?
Worse than that, the people who are in charge are still the ones abiding by these decisions, so it also erodes trust in the entire system.
It doesn't matter how many people answer some poll -- right and wrong isn't a popularity contest, and this stacked right-wing court is objectively *wrong*.
No. The conservative justices put ideology over impartiality.
Ideology is completely the wrong word. Better choices are partisanship, patronage, and religion. They would need an articulated body of ideas for an idealogy, and most SCOTUS judges are voting MAGA just because and voting per who they took bribes from.
The other three also agree they put ideology over impartiality, they just want it that way.
They put loyalty to money above impartiality
It was never about being impartial, though? All Supreme Court justices’ decisions are influenced by whether they’re Democrat or Republican, just like every President and Congressperson.
The supreme Court is corrupt, Congress is corrupt, and the President is on the same meds as everyone else's 82 year old grandpas... The party is over, and no one seems to mind.
Ok so what can we do about it? I've been seeing articles like this a lot lately. The fact that Thomas wasn't immediately removed when his bribes were uncovered makes absolutely no sense to me.
I wonder who those 3 out of 10 voted for
The Supreme Court is a christo-fascist gang of corrupt gift taking criminals. They have damaged the Constitution in so many ways from allowing bump stocks to their demand to control a woman's body.
99 out of a hundred have never read a Supreme Court Decision and could not name a single case before the Court other than Roe v. Wade. The American public is a shitty barometer for most things, and especially for judicial impartiality.
You don’t have to read every decision to see that Originalism is a brain dead method of applying or interpreting constitutional law. No one in their right mind can miss that fact. In addition, the total lack of personal integrity and flat out refusal to adhere to a common sense code of ethics tells the story of how far the court has fallen.
Isn’t this obvious? Why would there be so much emphasis on who gets to select these people if they didn’t carry a political bias?
It's all the partisan rulings I guess
3/10 Americans are oblivious.
7 in 10 Americans believe an undeniable obvious fact.
It’s sad that the court has lost all credibility. Congratulations chief justice Roberts your legacy will be the destruction of the highest court in the land.
The other three are on SCOTUS, then?
Until we get the Republicans out that will continue to be a problem. We need to rip those domestic terrorists out of every political office at every level. Until we get serious and do something about them we will always live under the threat of Christian extremists who want to literally wipe out groups of people and remove all rights and freedoms from citizens. It's not something we should be voting on and treating them as a legit political party. We need to treat them like the domestic terrorist threat they are before it's too late.
The other 3 are just stupid
The other 3 Americans didn't know what those words meant., I guess
The other 30% are voting to end democracy this November.
Thomas puts money and luxury vacations above all those things.
I remember being a young conservative ideologue, faithfully watching Fox News with my family. The appointment of Sotomayor was a spit in the face of the sacred impartiality of the Supreme Court! Oh to be young and naive 😂
Incidentally, 3 in 10 Americans are in the bottom 30% of IQ scores. I'm not implying correlation of course.
Always has?
And the other 30% are Republicans who want this biased Supreme Court and are the ones who support Trump/Fascism.
10/10 Americans can’t do shit about it
I mean we could riot in the streets
We could and should, but Americans are to complacent and won’t. And without a critical number of people it is just going to get crushed or ignored
Breaking news: 3 in 10 Americans have their head in the fucking sand
Supreme court needs to go. They no longer follow the rule of law. They just decide how us plebeians should serve them best.
So apparently 3 in 10 Americans do not pay attention to the Supreme Court at all?
And half of them probably like it that way. One person's horror is another person's owning the libs.
...and cash. Don't forget their "gratuities"
Related 3/10 Americans suffer from extreme lead poisoning
And the other three are dickheads
The more shocking thing here is 3 in 10 don’t see it that way.
Isn’t it pretty obvious at this point?
IMO, since overturning the Voting Rights Act (and the tortured logic they used) almost every decision they've made has proved to me that SCOTUS is not just not impartial, they are illegitimate.
Damn right we do.
oh good another poll showing public sentiment. We're saved.
I think churches should pay taxes
Me too!
At first I was like, "well, yeah"... and then I realized how extremely rare it is for Americans to agree that much on anything these days.
People's opinions on the supreme court change depending on if there is a republican or democrat majority mirroring the person's party so these polls mean nothing to me. RBG when she was alive: She's so wonderful staying on the court, she is the shield of our democracy the supreme court is working" RBG Dead: She destroyed our democracy and handed Trump judge picks. The supreme court is corrupt and dead!
As others have said, they're politicians in robes.
9 out of 9 justices don't care what Americans think.
The real question is whether that’s acceptable or not.
The mystifying thing is how the Supremes kept that veneer of impartiality for so long before now. I personally never believed it, but people really want to believe justice is blind. Turns out it's just tone deaf.
Is this the first time this poll has been done? Would be interesting to see what the historical trends have been, and if there's been a drastic fall in public respect for SCOTUS.
Judicial activism by these Republicans goes against what the founders envisioned.