Get these fairy-tale-believing cunts out of government.
I will do my part by not voting in protest! That will surely work! (/s)
Politicians famously consider the opinions of people who don't vote. /s
Maybe they ought to? There's quite a lot of potential votes out there. Also want to add that I always vote, and politicians never consider my opinion anyway.
Reliable demographics or voting blocks get preferential treatment over fair-weather voters. If you want to know why even the GOP won't overtly kill social security or medicare (unless they include a way to keep current recipients on benefits), it's because old people vote very reliably. Though with the modern day cultists this isn't as true anymore since MAGAs will happily let the GOP take everything from them if they think it will hurt their perceived political enemies.
This is just useful expenditure of political capital. As a politician you want to stick your neck out for groups that are definitely showing up.
Seems like a good way to ensure you have low turnout elections, with only die-hard party-heads participating. That way, elections are won or lost on how jazzed up you can get your base, and you never have to attract anyone new. That sounds bad enough, but I think who the politicians actually listen to are their donors. Anytime there is a conflict between what the donors want, and what the constituency wants... voters can get fucked.
Believe it or not, there are people in the center that switch votes. That's who they go after.
Still the same small pool of voters.
It's not die hards as you put it. They are swing voters. Every one counts double because you get a vote and take one away from the other party. Elections are won from the centre.
Sure, but I'm saying that in addition to the 'swing' voters, there is a huuuge pool of people that never or rarely vote. These are potential voters, many of whom could be energized by the right policies.
Ok let's say you gamble and try to get those guys by say doubling gas taxes.You just lost the center (worth double) on the hope that some of the people who never vote magically vote. See the problem?
I mean they do, insofar as it might be easier to convert someone not voting into someone voting for them than it is to convert someone voting for their opponent.
That's why you vote uncommitted. There's no way to ignore that message or use any of their usual excuses.
But the Democrats understand what they need to do in order to win election, they're just so latched to the corporate tit that they won't do it. Think they can get a few more gulps of that sweet lobby money before things get "serious". The pigs are too busy feeding to give a fuck about our democracy collapsing.
Protest voting would be aimed at reforming a democratic party that's unfit to confront fascism. It's a legitimate strategy whether you agree with it or not.
Another Biden term will not do anything to mitigate Democratic complicity with fascism. Establishment dems are quite literally worse than useless.
Except it doesn't reform. You win elections from the center, so if Dems lose they go further to the center. Because those are the voters that exist.
No-voting accomplishes literally nothing. It never has and it never will. In reality, it's counter productive every time.
Whose idea was it to appoint Supreme Court justices for life? That seems like asking for trouble.
Blame the conservatives for abusing the system.
Honestly as much as the lifetime appointment wasn't the worst idea the drafters had in terms of something for long term stability when the positions in every other branch have varying degrees of volatility, not having some process baked into the Constitution to deal with bad actors in the judiciary was a gross oversight.
The Constitution seems to have been written with the idea that politicians will have good intentions. The checks and balances seem to be just to enforce compromise and prevent a single bad actor.
It doesn't have any protections about and entire political party colluding to grab power. I don't know how we fix this without amendments or a brand new constitution
There is. The Military. Its why they swear to the constitutio to protect against all threats foreign and domestic. not a person.
Now, The real question is, how to deal with it if the Military is at best indifferent, or at worst, complicit, and either way refusing to act.
Which should also help shine a worrying light on why the right never wanted the military to investigate and purge white supremacists/fascists/etc
If by "the military," you mean the well-regulated militia (every able-bodied adult male) exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, then sure.
'Cause otherwise you could only be talking about the Navy, as (from the founding fathers' perspective) a permanent standing army was very explicitly and intentionally Not A Thing. (That's why the Constitution limits for appropriating money to raise and support an army to a term of two years or less.)
All democratic government relies on some amount of good faith. Many of the rules are set up to be guidelines for resolving disputes in a civilized manner, and preventing any single bad actor.
The place where this was most respected was in the transfer of power between presidencies.
That goodwill benefits everyone. If you break it, all hell comes loose. It's why the Dems have worked so hard to stick to the good faith, even though the other party clearly hasn't.
It's why the Dems have worked so hard to stick to the good faith, even though the other party clearly hasn't.
I'm not so sure the reason is quite so principled. I'm more inclined to believe the explanation in this video starting at about the 6:40 mark: the difficulty building a coalition in the Democratic Party (and especially the conflicting aims of Democratic voters and Democratic donors) causes the party to avoid policy and focus on process instead.
And at the time people involved generally did. The only reason we perceive things differently these days is because we expect different outcomes easing a system designed for something else. Our system of government initially was drafted to protect the rights of white land owning males. And it still does this really well. We've scaffolded a lot of other things on top of that trying to make it more Equitable for everyone else. But it can't seem to stop giving preferential treatment to White land owning males.
The thing is the founders knew that they were going to be ignorant about the future. The further out you try to speculate the more wrong you'll be. They knew that they wouldn't be able to understand the needs of future generations. They expected things to change. They also expected the Constitution to be heavily amended or completely written every few decades. Instead the status quo has largely ignored their wishes instead deifying them and their original creation as perfect and infallible.
Originalism is fairly new i thought? But your explanation makes sense.
It doesn't have any protections about and entire political party colluding to grab power.
I suppose I was a bit small in the scope of what were dealing with today and entire party willing to disregard democracy to accumulate power.
There is a process. They can be impeached just like the President.
It's more than just the Judicial branch that's broken.
not having some process baked into the Constitution to deal with bad actors in the judiciary was a gross oversight.
They can be impeached. That requires both houses of Congress to be on board with it though, and most people wanting a solution to that problem currently don't want a solution that requires both houses of Congress or a supermajority of state legislatures to be on board because that's not a kind of support they can get. the only other way to remove a justice from SCOTUS is one casket at a time.
There's a funny thing about lifetime appointments.
You can end them whenever you want.
The framers of the constitution. But to be fair, back then they did not expect people to live this long. If anything, blame science. It’s all their fault!
Especially religious ones. Maybe we should have religious tests, just not the way xtianists want them.
Windsor goes on to tell Alito: “People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that — to return our country to a place of godliness.”
“I agree with you. I agree with you,” replies Alito
Disturbing on the face. But then you think, what exactly do they think is ungodly? Business regulation? Gay right to exist and marry? BLM? It's gay and trans rights isn't it? Let that sink it, they think human fucking rights are ungodly.
VOTE.
The GOP will be coming for Brown v Board of Education next, and you can bet your ass Clarence Thomas and the other right wing justices will be all for it.
I wonder if there will be a third school for Asian kids. Or do they go with black? Is it white and "other"?
Schools? Oh, we won't have any of those when the GOP is done.
Silly you. There will be Catholic schools to teach the bible, and to teach girls how to be good submissive housewives.
No, actually. The current GOP stance on compulsory schooling is, "no". They really don't believe every child should be educated.
I'm not even talking about kids with special needs or "just minorities". They really don't believe in compulsory education. It's considered government overreach.
The ideal GOP educational system is 100% private and only those who can afford it get to go. They couldn't care less about literacy rates.
They want the Bible taught in schools but they don't want kids to actually read it. That would reveal what's in it (liberal stuff everywhere!), after all.
It's one of those things that depends on the situation. As it stands, they want "no compulsory education", but it's because they don't like what the students will learn. However, if they could be assured that the compulsory education would be consistent with their views, then they would be all about compulsory education. No need to fear the Bible, there's plenty of "help" interpreting it available to people reading it...
Same on abortion rights. Currently the rhetoric is "well, it should be up to the states, not the federal government" but if they can ban it nationally, suddenly they would not be in favor of states like New York or California deciding for themselves.
Indirectly, this is why red states have the cheapest real estate values, but no one wants to move there. Economic value is literally centered around blue states, which have the highest literacy rates
Charter schools with government funding.
Other and white mean whatever the ones in power mean.
I recently learned that Russians often don't see Caucasians (from the caucuses) as white.
Not long ago Irishmen weren't considered white
They were considered white n-word.
I know at least where I'm from, these ghouls pretty much just hate black people.
Nah conservatives will be eager to put Asians in the "not white" category at the drop of a hat.
I'm pretty sure they'll overturn Obergefell before Brown.
You know godliness when a man could marry and rape a child before starting to whip those slave back into place just as god wanted all along
Asshole claims to be an "originalist".
Same asshole: We have to "return" a country founded as a secular one to "godliness".
“I agree with you. I agree with you,” replies Alito
Send this guy to prison. He's compromised the Constitution in the open.
human fucking rights
Literally...
“I think you’re probably right,” Alito replies. “On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”
In other words, dude wants some Taliban shit and wants to be able to control people are not prescribed to his religion.
If his family doesn’t want to have abortions, or wants their kids to learn about god in school, there is nothing stopping them from living that way. Just don’t force me to live that way.
The establishment clause yo
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Well yeah but the number one thing these people crave is dominion over others. Any professed love for liberty, freedom, and the rule of law will go out the window the second they can successfully do so.
That's why they are acting now. Because their demographics are cooked after this election, so they are going all in to try and steal control away from the people.
My main concern with the reporting is that the reporter is leading Alito a bit. Alito isn't pushing back at all, but I feel like that is the narrative fox and others are gonna go with
He explicitly says he agrees with what she says. I don't think it's worth being concerned over what a propaganda outlet is going to spin up - there isn't a scenario where they wouldn't spin up a defense of Alito. Reality isn't a concern for propagandists; no adjustment of tact will change that fact. To each their own, though.
"Congress shall"... I wonder if that's part of his thinking.
His reasoning. He knew where he stood on the issue before he had any good reasons for it.
He has to be part of an opinion in order for this to work. That opinion stands the test of time best if he can put forth a legal opinion that supports his preferred answer.
The second flag is the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, a Revolutionary War-era banner. The “Appeal to Heaven” language references philosopher John Locke, who argued that, when earthly political appeals are exhausted, men have the right to take up arms and let God sort out the justness of the cause. While the The Appeal to Heaven flag was not always controversial, it has been revived by militant Christian nationalists and was also a potent symbol on Jan. 6. This flag was flown at the Alitos’ vacation home in New Jersey in 2023.
I didn't know the flag was literally "kill everyone and let God sort them out"...
This is some real Sons of Jacob type of stuff...
In b4 some pedantic asshole argues about its original meaning, acting like context doesn't matter at all, and it's totally cool and normal to fly that flag--like Alito hasn't told on himself already.
Excellent job by Lauren Windsor. A full mask off, candid discussion that shows blatant partisanship is a step up from the other wrongdoings we've heard of Alito and Thomas so far.
Republicans are a craven mafia family so they'll do nothing, but this is still a very important news story. Change to the Court will only come once the public passes a critical threshold of distrust for it, and this story brings us closer and closer to that tipping point.
The Court will be reformed in our lifetimes. It's gone too far and will be course corrected. It's just a matter of when. And I can only hope it will be while Alito and Thomas and McConnell are all still alive so they can see the consequences of their partisan actions.
Anyone can pay $150 to become a dues-paying member and rub elbows with the court’s nine justices at events like the dinner where Windsor spoke with Alito. (Tickets for the dinner were an extra $500.)
this is all it took for him to admit this stuff? anybody with 650$ could have walked in and asked him a couple prodding questions? these guys really arent even trying to hide it anymore
Traitors do be tratoring on the cheap.
anybody with 650$ could have walked in and asked him a couple prodding questions?
Alito has a long history of running his mouth. I doubt you'd even need to pay the $650, assuming he thought you were from a conservative media outlet.
Mark my words. These people are not just willing, but eager to unleash nuclear hellfire in the Middle East, under the ludicrous delusion that they can fulfill prophecy and force Jesus to return. They shouldn't be trusted to run fast food joints or craft supply stores, much less a superpower. It's an apocalypse cult. They've convinced themselves that they're better than everyone, but their religion spread across the globe by genocide, enslavement, and forced conversion, not by loving their neighbors. They have been trying to end the world for 2000 years.
"Congratulations American Republicans! You won the God Prize! Murder enough innocent people in the right place and you win a visit from Jesus and salvation forever! You know what totally jives with our teachings of love and respect for your neighbors? Mass murder!"
That prophecy was fulfilled in the mid 1800's. As was predicted in almost every holy text, almost everyone didn't notice.
Not only is their kind better than everyone else in their eyes, but even among their kind, they as individuals are the CHOSEN ONES to fulfill the prophecy! I mean, they’re so smart and awesome that obviously the limitless power that created the cosmos needs a little help from such a very important big boy human.
And then they go online and complain about how little kids all get trophies and told they’re worth something, or some shit.
It’s delusions of grandeur, but in an especially Dunning-Kruger way.
I'm sure Samuel Alito's wife is an expert ventriloquist who is saying these things in a very convincing impression of her husband.
By law, religious people should not be allowed in government or policy making. Delusional people cannot be trusted with such work.
Who would pass such a law? Hell, who would even vote for such a law? Churches have enormous influence at the ballot box.
Even at the peak of its power, the Soviets couldn't simply abolish religious leadership. And they were in a country with Atheists in the highest tiers of government, with actual money and military power to toss around. What's the plan to outlaw religious demagogues in a state founded by religious demagogues?
Getting reasonable people into positions of power and authority will be a start
Belling the Cat
On one hand, yeah non-religious is what I want to happen in our government positions. But on the other hand, making it a law is one of those things you just can’t do.
Wow, that’s pretty fucking blatant.
But so were the last dozen things we’ve discovered about the Tribunal of Six.
Unfortunately, I expect nobody will do anything about this in an official capacity, due to obstructionism by the right, and because politicians on the left would probably think iT’s toO diViSiVE
the Tribunal of Six
Stealing this.
Hexumvirate?
We as civilians should gather outside the Supreme Court and demand he be removed.
Not if you're peacefully protesting and practicing your right to bear arms at the same time. Rubepublicans hate that shit.
I mean, if you try that in DC, you’ll get arrested. They require permits for concealed carry, and open carry is not legal outside of law enforcement and military.
Well they're squashing protestors all over the place. So get ready.
I mean if you’re preparing in the sense I think you are, you shouldn’t be posting about it
I'm broke so it'd absolutely not to the level you think
i'm so fucking sick of religion wrecking everything in this country. if people weren't so dumb that they buy into all the bronze age fairy tale bullshit, then they wouldn't be bootlicking these greedy scumbags pretending to be righteous while being the worst examples of the species
"Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers." - Jesse Ventura
The guy can say anything he wants. It's not like if he does something illegal that the supreme court is going to convict him. He doesn't need to ever win an election, he's there for life.
This will just upset the people who already know the guy is a problem and are already upset with him.
I wish justices had term limits.
It's not like someone is going to get mad enough to off him...
The folks mad enough to off a SC justice are more likely to point their guns at Jackson or Sotomayer.
Liberals will just frown and send polite letters to their Senators to maybe consider having a hearing or something.
Of course not that's way too direct, we've got laws.
Biden has to issue a presidential act before he can legally off him.
Yes... Definitely not...
He's surprisingly right, even if he is part of the problem.
The current political climate in this country can't last into the long-term future. I dislike the idea of conflict but many of the current right's ideals simply cannot coexist with those outside of their cult. The right has also been more aggressive about dismantling the country in several areas as a means of takeover. They really do see this as a battle or a war.
And remember, it only takes one side to start a war. Once that happens, you fight to defend yourself or you die.
They accomplished the majority of it by simply showing up. They didn't need their guns or elaborate criminal conspiracies, they just applied for positions of power (however minor) and used that power to push their agenda and support their dogshit friends doing the same.
Meanwhile, progressivism on the internet has been taken over nihilistic neckbeards that just sit back and watch it all happen, making worthless promises about how if it gets too bad, their for-profit firearms will bail them out.
We used to get arrested.
I've got news, it's not progressives standing in the way of fighting this. It's the morons who cling to "bipartisanship" because they still think this is about protecting the corporate money hose with their GOP pals across the aisle.
Meanwhile every Republican will vote like an ideolouge whether they are ir not. Neoliberalism has failed, utterly and completely, to confront fascism. Instead they bury their heads in the sand, ignore their growing base of Millenials and GenZ, and think they can protect a status quo that's dissolving beneath their feet.
People like you need to wake up. You're not going to get "slow progress" out of the lesser of two evils, you're going to get a negligbly slower slide into fascism. There is no protecting your comfortable bubble at this point.
What progressives? There's about 3 of them in politics. They don't have the power to stand in the way of anything because they're hopelessly outnumbered by "neoliberalism but you can have crumbs and social things".
People like you need to wake up. You're not going to get "slow progress" out of the lesser of two evils, you're going to get a negligbly slower slide into fascism. There is no protecting your comfortable bubble at this point.
Who do you think I am?
Their message doesn't seem to be edited so I believe their ending of "we used to get arrested" speaks to what they think we should be doing. I don't think they care much for moderates if they're advocating violence.
Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
Plug for:
Liberalgunowners
SRA
They really do see this as a battle or a war
it is. you need to see it that way too if you want to win it.
Arm up, comrades. They'll surely fire the first round, but we need to fire the last.
I mean, the USA has a Supreme Court Justice literally taking bribes from a billionaire who has stakes in FOUR cases this judge has not recused himself.... and literally NOTHING has happened.
Do you really think this recording will do anything?
No. But that's not gonna stop me from complaining.
Totally fair... And honestly good practice, otherwise it just becomes "normal"
Illegitimate court. Every single ruling by them should be thrown out. Almost half of them are corrupt and compromised, letting personal beliefs and feelings sway law. Justice is supposed to be blind, not Christian nationalist. Get them all off the bench.
American evangelicals are the craziest bunch of kooks on the planet. As a Canadian I gotta wonder if normal Americans are embarrassed by their evangelicals. I mean it's all about money and maybe a little Jesus as long as you hate the gays.
It's nuts.
as you hate the gays.
You're not giving them enough credit. They also hate trans, women, pregnant people, free-thought… the list goes on and on.
Out-groups. The more the better, apparently.
yes
Also a Canadian. I heard Rick Mercer tonight he spoke for about 1 hr and he did highlight the right evangelical nonsense. Shit is bleeding up here and has been for decades. It's scary AF. There are many people where there is no Canadian identity. It's a proxy for American Identity and as such they're as regressive as you would expect.
There are many people where there is no Canadian identity
There isn't really a Canadian identity left at this point. I live in a tiny rural community where we consider ourselves to be keeping the torch in a way... We don't lock our doors, we share and help each other, call each other on the phone just to chat, we sit around and drink too much coffee or beer and wrench on old junk. Drive around in winter plowing driveways and pulling cars out of the ditch. If a neighbour needs a tool it's just "let yourself into the shop and it's in the red toolbox, bring it back when you're done"
The cities though? I have friends there and that community attitude is long dead. Any available resources are exploited and nothing given in return, everyone is poor and desperate and barely making rent. Our country is very sick.
I've been pondering this one because I grew up a country boy and now live in the city. What you're talking about still exists. I live in Newmarket, ON and still rarely lock my doors and so all the things you mention.
John Ralston Saul said, and I'm paraphrasing, what made Canadians special was the uniqueness in how we came to be. Our relationship with "the other" now defined as immigrants, comes from a natural place of understanding and respect. You become a Canadian but you also keep your identity because Canada is made stronger by that inter-weaving of social fabrics.
I will agree that our country is hurting but I would argue the biggest threat to our nation is the immigration of American style identity politics that started back in the 80's and has since escalated to a wave of "Fuck Trudeau".
I have said before what truly scares me is that the Conservative movement in all their bigoted while male centric policies has realized that they can synergize their vitriol with people who have come here from brutally regressive countries when it comes to the treatment of women, gays and minorities.
Big picture we are going in the right direction but it's going to be a rough decade or so.
also a Canadian. but I have nothing further to add.
Yes.
Yes
As an American I'm embarrassed by like 80% of my fellow citizens.
Yes
Pressed on whether the court has an obligation to put the country on a more “moral path,” Roberts turns the tables on his questioner: “Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” He argues instead: “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.” Presented with the claim that America is a “Christian nation” and that the Supreme Court should be “guiding us in that path,” Roberts again disagrees, citing the perspectives of “Jewish and Muslim friends,” before asserting, “It’s not our job to do that. It’s our job to decide the cases the best we can.”
I know John Roberts has made some terrible rulings, but he deserves credit where it's due in that he won't literally tear up the Constitution. Unfortunately he's the exact kind of Justice the Trump-era GOP tries to avoid choosing, because he puts the Constitution above Trump.
he deserves credit where it’s due in that he won’t literally tear up the Constitution
Guy pealing big ribbons off the edge of the document for the last 19 years still hasn't shoved it wholesale through a shredder. And for that we should be grateful, maybe, unless oops he's in a 5-4 decision were the other justices decide to go at constitutional law with a blowtorch.
he puts the Constitution above Trump
Excited for him to put on RGB's "I Dissent!" necklace in the SCOTUS decision that hands Trump Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia in 2024.
What he says, and what he does...
He's like the other right-leaning justices, where he is an originalist, but only as long as it fits his political belief system.
So weird that a justice, influenced by a party run by religious extremists, picks and chooses when to strictly follow a foundational text. Hmmmmmmmmmm.
Alito made these remarks in conversation at the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner on June 3, a function that is known to right-wing activists as an opportunity to buttonhole Supreme Court justices. His comments were recorded by Lauren Windsor, a liberal documentary filmmaker. Windsor attended the dinner as a dues-paying member of the society under her real name, along with a colleague. She asked questions of the justice as though she were a religious conservative.
Great reporting job by Lauren Windsor.
Seems like y'all going to need a well regulated militia.
Oh would you look at that, the Supreme Court
just decided that opposition to the Supreme Court precludes participation in the well regulated militia. No more gun fights for dissenters!
Oh look at that. Illegitimate justices just started dropping dead outside their homes.....
you never needed permission to overthrow corrupt authority figures
You just have to be successful, otherwise you're a terrorist.
Literal prejudice in a judge.
Lordy, I hope there are tapes!
The article and the headline both clearly state that it was documented. No consequences will come of this either.
Who cares what Samuel Alito said? It's not like he's REWRITING Laws that our Elected Representatives already passed so it aligns more with HIS Bias instead of the text of the Constitution!
Ever wish you'd stumble onto a Death Note? To hell with that psycho manually scrawling the names of whoever pops into his head. Strategically study and pick off corrupt and fashy leaders with a variety of cardiovascular illnesses and aggressive cancers. Maybe the occasional shanking of a child molester, accidental head trauma for an ultra greedy megachurch pastor, or quiet suicide for life- & planet-wrecking ceos and tycoons. All randomly spread out and just enough to keep their organization stagnant or sliding backwards. I mean if you have the power of a deity at your disposal it's not that hard to use it strategically for the benefit of humanity.
find the part of the fantasy that doesn't require supernatural powers and manifest it into reality.
He said that was actually his wife speaking
"For everyone saying I have a stick up my ass I am here to correct the matter: it's no stick, it's my wife's arm."
Fuck this traitor piece of shit
Most of this kind of problem can be fixed with term limits - say 7 years. That way there would be a few changes of justices every presidential term.
That, and stop making the Supremes political appointees. The Australian parliament takes a shortlist of suitable candidates from a judicial review board. Our High Court is law-qualified and peer reviewed. The Government usually takes the first name off the recommended list. No particular political party has an advantage.
That's not to say that our governments love the high court. No government loves a hand brake. However, the people respect the bench, and the system works well.
I'm sure in America there would be a massive power struggle over which party would have majority control over the judicial review board. Agree with term limits though.
That's the thing. If political parties are involved it leads to corruption. It has to. The idea is to remove political interference. Let the law stand for itself without parties pushing it their preferred direction.
I know that this is probably impossible now in the US. It is probably even too big of a change to get your head around, However, such a system is common place around democracies.
The difference between the US and other countries is that there's more financial incentive to having political control in the US. Companies here have way too much freedom to exploit under the current system and a lot of money they can invest in keeping it that way. Whether that means bribing justices or building platforms for Ben Shapiros or making big donations to campaigns.
There's a way out for the US I think. We need to get people in office whose goal is to remove the incentives. Take money out of politics (no more donations, lobbying). Laws should be decided based on merit and debate alone, and if it's not near unanimous in the courts it should be a citizen vote.
That, and stop making the Supremes political appointees. The Australian parliament takes a shortlist of suitable candidates from a judicial review board. Our High Court is law-qualified and peer reviewed. The Government usually takes the first name off the recommended list. No particular political party has an advantage.
The only difference between this and the US system is that this is done by the US Senate and not a judicial review board. And it can't change without a constitutional amendment as it's the Constitution that makes the Supreme Court lifetime political appointees. But even if that were to happen, the only thing is that the power struggle around appointing judges would just shift from the US senate to whatever review board you set up to accomplish the exact same thing.
With that said, at least in the US, making Supreme Court appointees term-limited would likely just make the situation worse, not better. At least until the current supermajority, the Supreme Court at least had some public trust and appearance of impropriety. If you think it's bad now, Term-limiting the judges would just make them take the masks off even more and openly make whatever partisan decisions they need to make to get re-elected/re-appointed.
Well, the only difference between the two systems are extremely significant.
Whoever controls congress makes the pick. Congress comprises political parties. So, political parties make a choice as to how it benefits them. That's the point.
In our system an independent process is in play, and it works and has done so since 1901. In our system, the government of the day rubber stamps the selected candidate. Even if it would rather not. That explains the public faith in the system. We also have an independent electoral system that draws up the electorate boundaries. No political power can gerrymander electorate boundaries to preserve power. The electorate system is independent of party interference. All a party can do is make a submission. But anybody can make a submission. Even an individual.
I think that the US got itself into these problems by letting the inmates run the prison. You distrust your institutions because party politics control them. In your answer above about if anyone besides Congress were to select judges they would become just as corrupt. In the free world this isn't a particular problem. It is in the US tho.
Peace out....
Edit: Soz, where I say Congress, I mean Senate.
Is this going to continue to be more evidence that there's a different justice system for the rich and powerful in the US than for everyone else?
This fucker understands that the fascist Republican will NOT compromise or ever get along with the majority of Americans. The fact he entertains their existence or bills at all means he's a fucking fascist.
They don't even give a thought to the optics at this point. They don't care about public sentiment and what most of us want, they'll do whatever they damned well please and asshats like Trollito will give you the metaphorical finger in the process.
That's ALL Republicans, by the way. This is why I've been saying for more than a decade now that not ONE of them should be allowed into office.
The way Alito and his wife feel about defending america, I feel about defending queer people. The way Alito and his wife feel about queer people, I feel about supreme court judges
Supreme count set in when? I wanna grill some seitan ribs and sell them for John Brown breakfast club donations in the justices' secret nepobaby room maybe light up a joint too. No poo poo on the walls please thou but I'm definitely gonna steal things 👺
Traitor.
Stupid question. I don't doubt the record is authentic, but how do we talk about 'recordings' in the age of rampant deepfake ai? There's no trustworthy method of validating these claims, right?
it may not be a stupid question, but it does seem like a disingenuous question (though you probably don't mean to do that on purpose, others would).
Just because deepfake technology exists doesn't mean that that all video and audio recordings are immediately untrustworthy. It does, however, mean that anyone trying to defend reprehensible behaviour will have an easy method of defense.
This technology WILL be used during the current U.S. election cycle, and the upcoming Canadian election cycle, and probably every other election cycle after that. Just remember that Roger Stone said "flood the zone with shit". Know your shit from your shinola.
How does such a plain question appear insincere? Especially when no one even addresses my second question? lmao
Just because deepfake technology exists doesn’t mean that that all video and audio recordings are immediately untrustworthy.
Are you sure? I only ask because you didn't really provide any kind of logic to justify this claim. If we can artificially generate anything we can imagine, how are we to distinguish what recordings are authentic vs artificially generated? I don't see a clear or easy solution to the dilemma, but am hoping others can shine light on the issue.
Alito seems so unhinged, guy looks cooked.
Of course we can’t compromise.
Which kinda puts alito on the wrong side of history, doesn’t. Since he’s the one compromising the shit out of the courts…
We all know nothing will happen from any of this.
If you don't vote on November, a lot will come out.
-You'll never be allowed to vote
-Everybody will be afraid all the time
-You'll live the handmaid's tale IRL
Oh absolutely. I’m definitely voting. Plugging my nose while doing it, but doing it anyways as is my responsibility to those who will suffer greatly under Trump.
Well, he's not wrong. Just not in the way he thinks.
Sounds like America is pretty compromised already.
And there will be no consequences.
ITT: children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren of settlers in America realizing that the separation between church and state was just a power grab between white people.
The state sucks, so does the church. Which is just the state with more rituals.
Surely this time, americans wont stand for it... Lets all hold our breath and see.
The way the Biden campaign is running to the right this election, Democrats will almost assuredly be losing the house and the senate, so removing any of these justices is a bit of a fantasy. If anything, we'll probably lose a liberal justice for a conservative one.
Get these fairy-tale-believing cunts out of government.
I will do my part by not voting in protest! That will surely work! (/s)
Politicians famously consider the opinions of people who don't vote. /s
Maybe they ought to? There's quite a lot of potential votes out there. Also want to add that I always vote, and politicians never consider my opinion anyway.
Reliable demographics or voting blocks get preferential treatment over fair-weather voters. If you want to know why even the GOP won't overtly kill social security or medicare (unless they include a way to keep current recipients on benefits), it's because old people vote very reliably. Though with the modern day cultists this isn't as true anymore since MAGAs will happily let the GOP take everything from them if they think it will hurt their perceived political enemies.
This is just useful expenditure of political capital. As a politician you want to stick your neck out for groups that are definitely showing up.
Seems like a good way to ensure you have low turnout elections, with only die-hard party-heads participating. That way, elections are won or lost on how jazzed up you can get your base, and you never have to attract anyone new. That sounds bad enough, but I think who the politicians actually listen to are their donors. Anytime there is a conflict between what the donors want, and what the constituency wants... voters can get fucked.
Believe it or not, there are people in the center that switch votes. That's who they go after.
Still the same small pool of voters.
It's not die hards as you put it. They are swing voters. Every one counts double because you get a vote and take one away from the other party. Elections are won from the centre.
Sure, but I'm saying that in addition to the 'swing' voters, there is a huuuge pool of people that never or rarely vote. These are potential voters, many of whom could be energized by the right policies.
Ok let's say you gamble and try to get those guys by say doubling gas taxes.You just lost the center (worth double) on the hope that some of the people who never vote magically vote. See the problem?
I see a lot of problems.
I mean they do, insofar as it might be easier to convert someone not voting into someone voting for them than it is to convert someone voting for their opponent.
That's why you vote uncommitted. There's no way to ignore that message or use any of their usual excuses.
But the Democrats understand what they need to do in order to win election, they're just so latched to the corporate tit that they won't do it. Think they can get a few more gulps of that sweet lobby money before things get "serious". The pigs are too busy feeding to give a fuck about our democracy collapsing.
Protest voting would be aimed at reforming a democratic party that's unfit to confront fascism. It's a legitimate strategy whether you agree with it or not.
Another Biden term will not do anything to mitigate Democratic complicity with fascism. Establishment dems are quite literally worse than useless.
Except it doesn't reform. You win elections from the center, so if Dems lose they go further to the center. Because those are the voters that exist.
No-voting accomplishes literally nothing. It never has and it never will. In reality, it's counter productive every time.
Whose idea was it to appoint Supreme Court justices for life? That seems like asking for trouble.
Blame the conservatives for abusing the system.
Honestly as much as the lifetime appointment wasn't the worst idea the drafters had in terms of something for long term stability when the positions in every other branch have varying degrees of volatility, not having some process baked into the Constitution to deal with bad actors in the judiciary was a gross oversight.
The Constitution seems to have been written with the idea that politicians will have good intentions. The checks and balances seem to be just to enforce compromise and prevent a single bad actor.
It doesn't have any protections about and entire political party colluding to grab power. I don't know how we fix this without amendments or a brand new constitution
There is. The Military. Its why they swear to the constitutio to protect against all threats foreign and domestic. not a person.
Now, The real question is, how to deal with it if the Military is at best indifferent, or at worst, complicit, and either way refusing to act.
Which should also help shine a worrying light on why the right never wanted the military to investigate and purge white supremacists/fascists/etc
If by "the military," you mean the well-regulated militia (every able-bodied adult male) exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, then sure.
'Cause otherwise you could only be talking about the Navy, as (from the founding fathers' perspective) a permanent standing army was very explicitly and intentionally Not A Thing. (That's why the Constitution limits for appropriating money to raise and support an army to a term of two years or less.)
All democratic government relies on some amount of good faith. Many of the rules are set up to be guidelines for resolving disputes in a civilized manner, and preventing any single bad actor.
The place where this was most respected was in the transfer of power between presidencies.
That goodwill benefits everyone. If you break it, all hell comes loose. It's why the Dems have worked so hard to stick to the good faith, even though the other party clearly hasn't.
I'm not so sure the reason is quite so principled. I'm more inclined to believe the explanation in this video starting at about the 6:40 mark: the difficulty building a coalition in the Democratic Party (and especially the conflicting aims of Democratic voters and Democratic donors) causes the party to avoid policy and focus on process instead.
And at the time people involved generally did. The only reason we perceive things differently these days is because we expect different outcomes easing a system designed for something else. Our system of government initially was drafted to protect the rights of white land owning males. And it still does this really well. We've scaffolded a lot of other things on top of that trying to make it more Equitable for everyone else. But it can't seem to stop giving preferential treatment to White land owning males.
The thing is the founders knew that they were going to be ignorant about the future. The further out you try to speculate the more wrong you'll be. They knew that they wouldn't be able to understand the needs of future generations. They expected things to change. They also expected the Constitution to be heavily amended or completely written every few decades. Instead the status quo has largely ignored their wishes instead deifying them and their original creation as perfect and infallible.
Originalism is fairly new i thought? But your explanation makes sense.
I suppose I was a bit small in the scope of what were dealing with today and entire party willing to disregard democracy to accumulate power.
There is a process. They can be impeached just like the President.
It's more than just the Judicial branch that's broken.
They can be impeached. That requires both houses of Congress to be on board with it though, and most people wanting a solution to that problem currently don't want a solution that requires both houses of Congress or a supermajority of state legislatures to be on board because that's not a kind of support they can get. the only other way to remove a justice from SCOTUS is one casket at a time.
There's a funny thing about lifetime appointments.
You can end them whenever you want.
The framers of the constitution. But to be fair, back then they did not expect people to live this long. If anything, blame science. It’s all their fault!
Especially religious ones. Maybe we should have religious tests, just not the way xtianists want them.
Disturbing on the face. But then you think, what exactly do they think is ungodly? Business regulation? Gay right to exist and marry? BLM? It's gay and trans rights isn't it? Let that sink it, they think human fucking rights are ungodly.
VOTE.
The GOP will be coming for Brown v Board of Education next, and you can bet your ass Clarence Thomas and the other right wing justices will be all for it.
I wonder if there will be a third school for Asian kids. Or do they go with black? Is it white and "other"?
Schools? Oh, we won't have any of those when the GOP is done.
Silly you. There will be Catholic schools to teach the bible, and to teach girls how to be good submissive housewives.
No, actually. The current GOP stance on compulsory schooling is, "no". They really don't believe every child should be educated.
I'm not even talking about kids with special needs or "just minorities". They really don't believe in compulsory education. It's considered government overreach.
The ideal GOP educational system is 100% private and only those who can afford it get to go. They couldn't care less about literacy rates.
They want the Bible taught in schools but they don't want kids to actually read it. That would reveal what's in it (liberal stuff everywhere!), after all.
It's one of those things that depends on the situation. As it stands, they want "no compulsory education", but it's because they don't like what the students will learn. However, if they could be assured that the compulsory education would be consistent with their views, then they would be all about compulsory education. No need to fear the Bible, there's plenty of "help" interpreting it available to people reading it...
Same on abortion rights. Currently the rhetoric is "well, it should be up to the states, not the federal government" but if they can ban it nationally, suddenly they would not be in favor of states like New York or California deciding for themselves.
Indirectly, this is why red states have the cheapest real estate values, but no one wants to move there. Economic value is literally centered around blue states, which have the highest literacy rates
Charter schools with government funding.
Other and white mean whatever the ones in power mean. I recently learned that Russians often don't see Caucasians (from the caucuses) as white.
Not long ago Irishmen weren't considered white
They were considered white n-word.
I know at least where I'm from, these ghouls pretty much just hate black people.
Nah conservatives will be eager to put Asians in the "not white" category at the drop of a hat.
I'm pretty sure they'll overturn Obergefell before Brown.
You know godliness when a man could marry and rape a child before starting to whip those slave back into place just as god wanted all along
Asshole claims to be an "originalist".
Same asshole: We have to "return" a country founded as a secular one to "godliness".
Send this guy to prison. He's compromised the Constitution in the open.
Literally...
In other words, dude wants some Taliban shit and wants to be able to control people are not prescribed to his religion.
If his family doesn’t want to have abortions, or wants their kids to learn about god in school, there is nothing stopping them from living that way. Just don’t force me to live that way.
The establishment clause yo
Well yeah but the number one thing these people crave is dominion over others. Any professed love for liberty, freedom, and the rule of law will go out the window the second they can successfully do so.
That's why they are acting now. Because their demographics are cooked after this election, so they are going all in to try and steal control away from the people.
My main concern with the reporting is that the reporter is leading Alito a bit. Alito isn't pushing back at all, but I feel like that is the narrative fox and others are gonna go with
He explicitly says he agrees with what she says. I don't think it's worth being concerned over what a propaganda outlet is going to spin up - there isn't a scenario where they wouldn't spin up a defense of Alito. Reality isn't a concern for propagandists; no adjustment of tact will change that fact. To each their own, though.
"Congress shall"... I wonder if that's part of his thinking.
His reasoning. He knew where he stood on the issue before he had any good reasons for it.
He has to be part of an opinion in order for this to work. That opinion stands the test of time best if he can put forth a legal opinion that supports his preferred answer.
I didn't know the flag was literally "kill everyone and let God sort them out"...
This is some real Sons of Jacob type of stuff...
In b4 some pedantic asshole argues about its original meaning, acting like context doesn't matter at all, and it's totally cool and normal to fly that flag--like Alito hasn't told on himself already.
Excellent job by Lauren Windsor. A full mask off, candid discussion that shows blatant partisanship is a step up from the other wrongdoings we've heard of Alito and Thomas so far.
Republicans are a craven mafia family so they'll do nothing, but this is still a very important news story. Change to the Court will only come once the public passes a critical threshold of distrust for it, and this story brings us closer and closer to that tipping point.
The Court will be reformed in our lifetimes. It's gone too far and will be course corrected. It's just a matter of when. And I can only hope it will be while Alito and Thomas and McConnell are all still alive so they can see the consequences of their partisan actions.
this is all it took for him to admit this stuff? anybody with 650$ could have walked in and asked him a couple prodding questions? these guys really arent even trying to hide it anymore
Traitors do be tratoring on the cheap.
Alito has a long history of running his mouth. I doubt you'd even need to pay the $650, assuming he thought you were from a conservative media outlet.
Mark my words. These people are not just willing, but eager to unleash nuclear hellfire in the Middle East, under the ludicrous delusion that they can fulfill prophecy and force Jesus to return. They shouldn't be trusted to run fast food joints or craft supply stores, much less a superpower. It's an apocalypse cult. They've convinced themselves that they're better than everyone, but their religion spread across the globe by genocide, enslavement, and forced conversion, not by loving their neighbors. They have been trying to end the world for 2000 years.
Boycott Chick-fil-A, and Hobby Lobby
Imagine it actually worked....
"Congratulations American Republicans! You won the God Prize! Murder enough innocent people in the right place and you win a visit from Jesus and salvation forever! You know what totally jives with our teachings of love and respect for your neighbors? Mass murder!"
That prophecy was fulfilled in the mid 1800's. As was predicted in almost every holy text, almost everyone didn't notice.
Not only is their kind better than everyone else in their eyes, but even among their kind, they as individuals are the CHOSEN ONES to fulfill the prophecy! I mean, they’re so smart and awesome that obviously the limitless power that created the cosmos needs a little help from such a very important big boy human.
And then they go online and complain about how little kids all get trophies and told they’re worth something, or some shit.
It’s delusions of grandeur, but in an especially Dunning-Kruger way.
I'm sure Samuel Alito's wife is an expert ventriloquist who is saying these things in a very convincing impression of her husband.
By law, religious people should not be allowed in government or policy making. Delusional people cannot be trusted with such work.
Who would pass such a law? Hell, who would even vote for such a law? Churches have enormous influence at the ballot box.
Even at the peak of its power, the Soviets couldn't simply abolish religious leadership. And they were in a country with Atheists in the highest tiers of government, with actual money and military power to toss around. What's the plan to outlaw religious demagogues in a state founded by religious demagogues?
Getting reasonable people into positions of power and authority will be a start
Belling the Cat
On one hand, yeah non-religious is what I want to happen in our government positions. But on the other hand, making it a law is one of those things you just can’t do.
Wow, that’s pretty fucking blatant.
But so were the last dozen things we’ve discovered about the Tribunal of Six.
Unfortunately, I expect nobody will do anything about this in an official capacity, due to obstructionism by the right, and because politicians on the left would probably think iT’s toO diViSiVE
Stealing this.
Hexumvirate?
We as civilians should gather outside the Supreme Court and demand he be removed.
His response will be
Idk, the high fence has a more "talk to the hand" vibe: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/high-fence-erected-supreme-court-abortion-related-protests/story?id=84518199
Not if you're peacefully protesting and practicing your right to bear arms at the same time. Rubepublicans hate that shit.
I mean, if you try that in DC, you’ll get arrested. They require permits for concealed carry, and open carry is not legal outside of law enforcement and military.
Well they're squashing protestors all over the place. So get ready.
I mean if you’re preparing in the sense I think you are, you shouldn’t be posting about it
I'm broke so it'd absolutely not to the level you think
i'm so fucking sick of religion wrecking everything in this country. if people weren't so dumb that they buy into all the bronze age fairy tale bullshit, then they wouldn't be bootlicking these greedy scumbags pretending to be righteous while being the worst examples of the species
"Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers." - Jesse Ventura
The guy can say anything he wants. It's not like if he does something illegal that the supreme court is going to convict him. He doesn't need to ever win an election, he's there for life.
This will just upset the people who already know the guy is a problem and are already upset with him.
I wish justices had term limits.
It's not like someone is going to get mad enough to off him...
The folks mad enough to off a SC justice are more likely to point their guns at Jackson or Sotomayer.
Liberals will just frown and send polite letters to their Senators to maybe consider having a hearing or something.
Of course not that's way too direct, we've got laws.
Biden has to issue a presidential act before he can legally off him.
Yes... Definitely not...
He's surprisingly right, even if he is part of the problem.
The current political climate in this country can't last into the long-term future. I dislike the idea of conflict but many of the current right's ideals simply cannot coexist with those outside of their cult. The right has also been more aggressive about dismantling the country in several areas as a means of takeover. They really do see this as a battle or a war.
And remember, it only takes one side to start a war. Once that happens, you fight to defend yourself or you die.
They accomplished the majority of it by simply showing up. They didn't need their guns or elaborate criminal conspiracies, they just applied for positions of power (however minor) and used that power to push their agenda and support their dogshit friends doing the same.
Meanwhile, progressivism on the internet has been taken over nihilistic neckbeards that just sit back and watch it all happen, making worthless promises about how if it gets too bad, their for-profit firearms will bail them out.
We used to get arrested.
I've got news, it's not progressives standing in the way of fighting this. It's the morons who cling to "bipartisanship" because they still think this is about protecting the corporate money hose with their GOP pals across the aisle.
Meanwhile every Republican will vote like an ideolouge whether they are ir not. Neoliberalism has failed, utterly and completely, to confront fascism. Instead they bury their heads in the sand, ignore their growing base of Millenials and GenZ, and think they can protect a status quo that's dissolving beneath their feet.
People like you need to wake up. You're not going to get "slow progress" out of the lesser of two evils, you're going to get a negligbly slower slide into fascism. There is no protecting your comfortable bubble at this point.
What progressives? There's about 3 of them in politics. They don't have the power to stand in the way of anything because they're hopelessly outnumbered by "neoliberalism but you can have crumbs and social things".
Who do you think I am?
Their message doesn't seem to be edited so I believe their ending of "we used to get arrested" speaks to what they think we should be doing. I don't think they care much for moderates if they're advocating violence.
Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
Plug for:
Liberalgunowners SRA
it is. you need to see it that way too if you want to win it.
Arm up, comrades. They'll surely fire the first round, but we need to fire the last.
I mean, the USA has a Supreme Court Justice literally taking bribes from a billionaire who has stakes in FOUR cases this judge has not recused himself.... and literally NOTHING has happened.
Do you really think this recording will do anything?
No. But that's not gonna stop me from complaining.
Totally fair... And honestly good practice, otherwise it just becomes "normal"
Illegitimate court. Every single ruling by them should be thrown out. Almost half of them are corrupt and compromised, letting personal beliefs and feelings sway law. Justice is supposed to be blind, not Christian nationalist. Get them all off the bench.
American evangelicals are the craziest bunch of kooks on the planet. As a Canadian I gotta wonder if normal Americans are embarrassed by their evangelicals. I mean it's all about money and maybe a little Jesus as long as you hate the gays.
It's nuts.
You're not giving them enough credit. They also hate trans, women, pregnant people, free-thought… the list goes on and on.
Out-groups. The more the better, apparently.
yes
Also a Canadian. I heard Rick Mercer tonight he spoke for about 1 hr and he did highlight the right evangelical nonsense. Shit is bleeding up here and has been for decades. It's scary AF. There are many people where there is no Canadian identity. It's a proxy for American Identity and as such they're as regressive as you would expect.
There isn't really a Canadian identity left at this point. I live in a tiny rural community where we consider ourselves to be keeping the torch in a way... We don't lock our doors, we share and help each other, call each other on the phone just to chat, we sit around and drink too much coffee or beer and wrench on old junk. Drive around in winter plowing driveways and pulling cars out of the ditch. If a neighbour needs a tool it's just "let yourself into the shop and it's in the red toolbox, bring it back when you're done"
The cities though? I have friends there and that community attitude is long dead. Any available resources are exploited and nothing given in return, everyone is poor and desperate and barely making rent. Our country is very sick.
I've been pondering this one because I grew up a country boy and now live in the city. What you're talking about still exists. I live in Newmarket, ON and still rarely lock my doors and so all the things you mention.
John Ralston Saul said, and I'm paraphrasing, what made Canadians special was the uniqueness in how we came to be. Our relationship with "the other" now defined as immigrants, comes from a natural place of understanding and respect. You become a Canadian but you also keep your identity because Canada is made stronger by that inter-weaving of social fabrics.
I will agree that our country is hurting but I would argue the biggest threat to our nation is the immigration of American style identity politics that started back in the 80's and has since escalated to a wave of "Fuck Trudeau".
I have said before what truly scares me is that the Conservative movement in all their bigoted while male centric policies has realized that they can synergize their vitriol with people who have come here from brutally regressive countries when it comes to the treatment of women, gays and minorities.
Big picture we are going in the right direction but it's going to be a rough decade or so.
also a Canadian. but I have nothing further to add.
Yes.
Yes
As an American I'm embarrassed by like 80% of my fellow citizens.
Yes
I know John Roberts has made some terrible rulings, but he deserves credit where it's due in that he won't literally tear up the Constitution. Unfortunately he's the exact kind of Justice the Trump-era GOP tries to avoid choosing, because he puts the Constitution above Trump.
Guy pealing big ribbons off the edge of the document for the last 19 years still hasn't shoved it wholesale through a shredder. And for that we should be grateful, maybe, unless oops he's in a 5-4 decision were the other justices decide to go at constitutional law with a blowtorch.
Excited for him to put on RGB's "I Dissent!" necklace in the SCOTUS decision that hands Trump Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia in 2024.
What he says, and what he does...
He's like the other right-leaning justices, where he is an originalist, but only as long as it fits his political belief system.
So weird that a justice, influenced by a party run by religious extremists, picks and chooses when to strictly follow a foundational text. Hmmmmmmmmmm.
Great reporting job by Lauren Windsor.
Seems like y'all going to need a well regulated militia.
Oh would you look at that, the Supreme Court just decided that opposition to the Supreme Court precludes participation in the well regulated militia. No more gun fights for dissenters!
Oh look at that. Illegitimate justices just started dropping dead outside their homes.....
you never needed permission to overthrow corrupt authority figures
You just have to be successful, otherwise you're a terrorist.
Literal prejudice in a judge.
Lordy, I hope there are tapes!
The article and the headline both clearly state that it was documented. No consequences will come of this either.
Who cares what Samuel Alito said? It's not like he's REWRITING Laws that our Elected Representatives already passed so it aligns more with HIS Bias instead of the text of the Constitution!
Ever wish you'd stumble onto a Death Note? To hell with that psycho manually scrawling the names of whoever pops into his head. Strategically study and pick off corrupt and fashy leaders with a variety of cardiovascular illnesses and aggressive cancers. Maybe the occasional shanking of a child molester, accidental head trauma for an ultra greedy megachurch pastor, or quiet suicide for life- & planet-wrecking ceos and tycoons. All randomly spread out and just enough to keep their organization stagnant or sliding backwards. I mean if you have the power of a deity at your disposal it's not that hard to use it strategically for the benefit of humanity.
find the part of the fantasy that doesn't require supernatural powers and manifest it into reality.
He said that was actually his wife speaking
"For everyone saying I have a stick up my ass I am here to correct the matter: it's no stick, it's my wife's arm."
Fuck this traitor piece of shit
Most of this kind of problem can be fixed with term limits - say 7 years. That way there would be a few changes of justices every presidential term.
That, and stop making the Supremes political appointees. The Australian parliament takes a shortlist of suitable candidates from a judicial review board. Our High Court is law-qualified and peer reviewed. The Government usually takes the first name off the recommended list. No particular political party has an advantage.
That's not to say that our governments love the high court. No government loves a hand brake. However, the people respect the bench, and the system works well.
I'm sure in America there would be a massive power struggle over which party would have majority control over the judicial review board. Agree with term limits though.
That's the thing. If political parties are involved it leads to corruption. It has to. The idea is to remove political interference. Let the law stand for itself without parties pushing it their preferred direction.
I know that this is probably impossible now in the US. It is probably even too big of a change to get your head around, However, such a system is common place around democracies.
The difference between the US and other countries is that there's more financial incentive to having political control in the US. Companies here have way too much freedom to exploit under the current system and a lot of money they can invest in keeping it that way. Whether that means bribing justices or building platforms for Ben Shapiros or making big donations to campaigns.
There's a way out for the US I think. We need to get people in office whose goal is to remove the incentives. Take money out of politics (no more donations, lobbying). Laws should be decided based on merit and debate alone, and if it's not near unanimous in the courts it should be a citizen vote.
The only difference between this and the US system is that this is done by the US Senate and not a judicial review board. And it can't change without a constitutional amendment as it's the Constitution that makes the Supreme Court lifetime political appointees. But even if that were to happen, the only thing is that the power struggle around appointing judges would just shift from the US senate to whatever review board you set up to accomplish the exact same thing.
With that said, at least in the US, making Supreme Court appointees term-limited would likely just make the situation worse, not better. At least until the current supermajority, the Supreme Court at least had some public trust and appearance of impropriety. If you think it's bad now, Term-limiting the judges would just make them take the masks off even more and openly make whatever partisan decisions they need to make to get re-elected/re-appointed.
Well, the only difference between the two systems are extremely significant.
Whoever controls congress makes the pick. Congress comprises political parties. So, political parties make a choice as to how it benefits them. That's the point.
In our system an independent process is in play, and it works and has done so since 1901. In our system, the government of the day rubber stamps the selected candidate. Even if it would rather not. That explains the public faith in the system. We also have an independent electoral system that draws up the electorate boundaries. No political power can gerrymander electorate boundaries to preserve power. The electorate system is independent of party interference. All a party can do is make a submission. But anybody can make a submission. Even an individual.
I think that the US got itself into these problems by letting the inmates run the prison. You distrust your institutions because party politics control them. In your answer above about if anyone besides Congress were to select judges they would become just as corrupt. In the free world this isn't a particular problem. It is in the US tho.
Peace out....
Edit: Soz, where I say Congress, I mean Senate.
Is this going to continue to be more evidence that there's a different justice system for the rich and powerful in the US than for everyone else?
This fucker understands that the fascist Republican will NOT compromise or ever get along with the majority of Americans. The fact he entertains their existence or bills at all means he's a fucking fascist.
They don't even give a thought to the optics at this point. They don't care about public sentiment and what most of us want, they'll do whatever they damned well please and asshats like Trollito will give you the metaphorical finger in the process.
That's ALL Republicans, by the way. This is why I've been saying for more than a decade now that not ONE of them should be allowed into office.
The way Alito and his wife feel about defending america, I feel about defending queer people. The way Alito and his wife feel about queer people, I feel about supreme court judges
Supreme count set in when? I wanna grill some seitan ribs and sell them for John Brown breakfast club donations in the justices' secret nepobaby room maybe light up a joint too. No poo poo on the walls please thou but I'm definitely gonna steal things 👺
Traitor.
Stupid question. I don't doubt the record is authentic, but how do we talk about 'recordings' in the age of rampant deepfake ai? There's no trustworthy method of validating these claims, right?
it may not be a stupid question, but it does seem like a disingenuous question (though you probably don't mean to do that on purpose, others would).
Just because deepfake technology exists doesn't mean that that all video and audio recordings are immediately untrustworthy. It does, however, mean that anyone trying to defend reprehensible behaviour will have an easy method of defense.
This technology WILL be used during the current U.S. election cycle, and the upcoming Canadian election cycle, and probably every other election cycle after that. Just remember that Roger Stone said "flood the zone with shit". Know your shit from your shinola.
How does such a plain question appear insincere? Especially when no one even addresses my second question? lmao
Are you sure? I only ask because you didn't really provide any kind of logic to justify this claim. If we can artificially generate anything we can imagine, how are we to distinguish what recordings are authentic vs artificially generated? I don't see a clear or easy solution to the dilemma, but am hoping others can shine light on the issue.
Alito seems so unhinged, guy looks cooked.
Of course we can’t compromise.
Which kinda puts alito on the wrong side of history, doesn’t. Since he’s the one compromising the shit out of the courts…
We all know nothing will happen from any of this.
If you don't vote on November, a lot will come out.
-You'll never be allowed to vote -Everybody will be afraid all the time -You'll live the handmaid's tale IRL
Oh absolutely. I’m definitely voting. Plugging my nose while doing it, but doing it anyways as is my responsibility to those who will suffer greatly under Trump.
Well, he's not wrong. Just not in the way he thinks.
Sounds like America is pretty compromised already.
And there will be no consequences.
ITT: children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren of settlers in America realizing that the separation between church and state was just a power grab between white people.
The state sucks, so does the church. Which is just the state with more rituals.
Surely this time, americans wont stand for it... Lets all hold our breath and see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyHSjv9gxlE
Giant nothing story
Good for him. Making America great again one day at a time.
America has never been a theocracy.
It would be one thing if there was no mechanism for accountability within the Supreme Court. Its a fundamental flaw in our constitution.
However: https://www.fastcompany.com/90243523/can-a-supreme-court-justice-be-removed-yes-and-heres-how
The way the Biden campaign is running to the right this election, Democrats will almost assuredly be losing the house and the senate, so removing any of these justices is a bit of a fantasy. If anything, we'll probably lose a liberal justice for a conservative one.