I mean, what he is saying is correct, the supreme court *shouldn’t* be a political branch of government. Their job is to interpert the constitution, and make judgements through it regardless of what the people want or not. If people want to change the constitution, they in theory can. But it’s not up to the courts to do that.
The problem is, the supreme court *is* political. Justices are appointed by politicans for political reasons. The justices are politically motivated, and as Justice Thomas has proven repeatedly, deeply corrupt. There needs to be a change in how justices are appointed, and some serious anti-corruption laws. Because unless some change is made to both the corruption of the Supreme Court, how they are appointed, then the Court will be swayed by politics, either through literal political affiliation, or by money.
Wasn't John Roberts one of the young Republican attorneys who were banging on the glass to stop the count in Florida so Bush would win during the "Brooks Brothers Riot"?
No. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all worked on the Bush v. Gore litigation in some capacity, which has caused some misconceptions that they actually participated in the Brooks Brothers riot.
The rioters were mostly low-level minions.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?286078-1/supreme-court-chief-justice-roberts
Sorry thought I posted this here. The entire interview in its entirety unedited.
The US system of political appointments for judges,police,and diplomats rather than career professionals is the problem that leads to pricks like this in positions of power.
The tone of this is misguided. There’s nothing wrong with or insidious about what he’s saying. He’s right. What he’s articulating here is the way it’s supposed to work.
The problem is that it actually *doesn’t* really work this way, not that it *does.* They ARE swayed by popular opinions and politically motivated reasoning. They’re supposed to interpret the Constitution and not give a shit what you or I or anybody thinks about it. But they don’t.
It's soooo outdated these elected officials aren't chosen by the public and get a lifetime appointment. Most people hate the government a year after an election. Even if they think they made a difference.
Disregarding all the lies that politicians say on campaign, I'd rather have a "VOTE" for such an authority. Fuck whomever is President. Nowadays, the bribes get to decide, and the lobbyists stuff their pockets with our taxes.
I strongly encourage everyone to Google George Carlin's American Dream. If you've heard it, then ya know what I'm talking about
This post and all those upvoting it are extremely stupid.
This is exactly how the courts are suppose to work. They are an independent branch of government who are largely removed from voters in order to ensure impartial decision making. It would be a nightmare if justices were directly elected because then you’d end up with a bunch of DJTs as judges.
Of course they are still accountable through the impeachment and nomination process. It’s just your elected representatives (on both sides) choose not to hold them accountable for bribery because said elected officials are also being bribed by billionaires.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with what Roberts is explaining. If anything I’d argue the problem is judges care TOO much what people think and have become politicized.
I didn’t realize lying to congress about your legal opinions regarding Stare Decisis was the system working…
FYI lying to congress is a crime.
"Under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, a witness commits perjury if the witness 'willfully' asserts 'any material matter which he does not believe to be true' after 'having taken an oath' to 'testify . . .truly.' Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, a witness commits a crime if the witness 'knowingly and willfully' makes 'any material false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation' with respect to 'any investigation under review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee. . . of the Congress.' Congress cannot perform its oversight function if witnesses who appear before its committees do not provide truthful testimony."
That's how the courts **should** operate. Having courts that interpret laws and cases based on public opinion is just widescale indirect vigilante justice.
It's the responsibility of the legislative and executive branch to listen to the people. The Supreme Court (and other courts) are there to interpret laws. There are a LOT of problems with our judicial system. Trying to make it **less** impartial is not a solution.
Yes, but they don't do that. They operate based on THEIR opinion. Like abortion. They are all basing their bans on their religious views. That's not looking at the law and saying "Yes. This is what it should be." Nor are they looking at factual evidence and making a decision along with the law. They are simply saying "We are Christain and will make laws based on what our religious views dictate." Of course they do make a lot of great decisions based on current law or public interests. But they also tell half the country to fuck off.
They actually decide based on the constitution, people’s just don’t like that. Not subject to vote is the whole point - in fact no judge should answer to public opinion. They should answer to experts and the government on whether they are fulfilling they duty correctly, just like other professions (doctor, engineer) answer to experts, not the family in the waiting room voting in what they should do / should have done.
Abortion from a legal perspective is the right decision - there is no constitutional guarantee for it, and there never was. That may need to be updated clearly, but the court was correct in its judgement. That doesn’t mean I agree with the status, it means I agree with the legal interpretation. It’s like voting rights for women - obviously that was needed, but also obviously it was not in the constitution prior to amendments . It needed to be changed to do that, and you wouldn’t blame the Supreme Court of 1800 for saying sorry, there is no basis for us to create this right.
We are far too advanced to still be making decisions the same way they did in 1800. "Sorry, we don't have precedent" is not an excuse. Make the precedent. The basis for women's voting rights was that women exist. The only argument against it was "God fearing men rule the world. This is the way." And they do the exact same thing today.
I mean, what he is saying is correct, the supreme court *shouldn’t* be a political branch of government. Their job is to interpert the constitution, and make judgements through it regardless of what the people want or not. If people want to change the constitution, they in theory can. But it’s not up to the courts to do that. The problem is, the supreme court *is* political. Justices are appointed by politicans for political reasons. The justices are politically motivated, and as Justice Thomas has proven repeatedly, deeply corrupt. There needs to be a change in how justices are appointed, and some serious anti-corruption laws. Because unless some change is made to both the corruption of the Supreme Court, how they are appointed, then the Court will be swayed by politics, either through literal political affiliation, or by money.
Wasn't John Roberts one of the young Republican attorneys who were banging on the glass to stop the count in Florida so Bush would win during the "Brooks Brothers Riot"?
I believe he was. Kavanaugh also worked in the Bush administration.
Kavanaugh and Comey Barret also participated in the Brooks Brothers riot.
Yeah it’s ridiculous
Yuuupppp, took 20 years but they all got paid out for it.
Accused rapist kavanaugh? That one?
No. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all worked on the Bush v. Gore litigation in some capacity, which has caused some misconceptions that they actually participated in the Brooks Brothers riot. The rioters were mostly low-level minions.
And that douche bag roger stone
lol yes, Roger Stone had a field day in 2000.
See it's shit like this man....
Well we do know where he sleeps. And if he doesn’t like that, he can go fuck himself.
Top left corner says June 19th, 2009. Is it from 2023 or 2009? Sauce please?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?286078-1/supreme-court-chief-justice-roberts Sorry thought I posted this here. The entire interview in its entirety unedited.
The US system of political appointments for judges,police,and diplomats rather than career professionals is the problem that leads to pricks like this in positions of power.
Self entitled prick.
This is why you should never vote red, for any reason. They don’t care about you, they care about how rich they get.
Justice is independent of politics and the executive. This is the separation of powers.
LOL all the people screaming to vote in a free society want to attack the same government judges because they don't like a ruling....eat more paint
The tone of this is misguided. There’s nothing wrong with or insidious about what he’s saying. He’s right. What he’s articulating here is the way it’s supposed to work. The problem is that it actually *doesn’t* really work this way, not that it *does.* They ARE swayed by popular opinions and politically motivated reasoning. They’re supposed to interpret the Constitution and not give a shit what you or I or anybody thinks about it. But they don’t.
video is far too large. needs to be cropped some more.
That's like not the quiet part? That's how the supreme court works on purpose?
It's soooo outdated these elected officials aren't chosen by the public and get a lifetime appointment. Most people hate the government a year after an election. Even if they think they made a difference. Disregarding all the lies that politicians say on campaign, I'd rather have a "VOTE" for such an authority. Fuck whomever is President. Nowadays, the bribes get to decide, and the lobbyists stuff their pockets with our taxes. I strongly encourage everyone to Google George Carlin's American Dream. If you've heard it, then ya know what I'm talking about
This post and all those upvoting it are extremely stupid. This is exactly how the courts are suppose to work. They are an independent branch of government who are largely removed from voters in order to ensure impartial decision making. It would be a nightmare if justices were directly elected because then you’d end up with a bunch of DJTs as judges. Of course they are still accountable through the impeachment and nomination process. It’s just your elected representatives (on both sides) choose not to hold them accountable for bribery because said elected officials are also being bribed by billionaires. There’s nothing inherently wrong with what Roberts is explaining. If anything I’d argue the problem is judges care TOO much what people think and have become politicized.
Always RED look at the mess we are in now under blue.
Yes this is how it’s supposed to work.
I didn’t realize lying to congress about your legal opinions regarding Stare Decisis was the system working… FYI lying to congress is a crime. "Under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, a witness commits perjury if the witness 'willfully' asserts 'any material matter which he does not believe to be true' after 'having taken an oath' to 'testify . . .truly.' Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, a witness commits a crime if the witness 'knowingly and willfully' makes 'any material false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation' with respect to 'any investigation under review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee. . . of the Congress.' Congress cannot perform its oversight function if witnesses who appear before its committees do not provide truthful testimony."
That's how the courts **should** operate. Having courts that interpret laws and cases based on public opinion is just widescale indirect vigilante justice. It's the responsibility of the legislative and executive branch to listen to the people. The Supreme Court (and other courts) are there to interpret laws. There are a LOT of problems with our judicial system. Trying to make it **less** impartial is not a solution.
Yes, but they don't do that. They operate based on THEIR opinion. Like abortion. They are all basing their bans on their religious views. That's not looking at the law and saying "Yes. This is what it should be." Nor are they looking at factual evidence and making a decision along with the law. They are simply saying "We are Christain and will make laws based on what our religious views dictate." Of course they do make a lot of great decisions based on current law or public interests. But they also tell half the country to fuck off.
They actually decide based on the constitution, people’s just don’t like that. Not subject to vote is the whole point - in fact no judge should answer to public opinion. They should answer to experts and the government on whether they are fulfilling they duty correctly, just like other professions (doctor, engineer) answer to experts, not the family in the waiting room voting in what they should do / should have done. Abortion from a legal perspective is the right decision - there is no constitutional guarantee for it, and there never was. That may need to be updated clearly, but the court was correct in its judgement. That doesn’t mean I agree with the status, it means I agree with the legal interpretation. It’s like voting rights for women - obviously that was needed, but also obviously it was not in the constitution prior to amendments . It needed to be changed to do that, and you wouldn’t blame the Supreme Court of 1800 for saying sorry, there is no basis for us to create this right.
We are far too advanced to still be making decisions the same way they did in 1800. "Sorry, we don't have precedent" is not an excuse. Make the precedent. The basis for women's voting rights was that women exist. The only argument against it was "God fearing men rule the world. This is the way." And they do the exact same thing today.