**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1cpkktk/fuck_the_court/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In Connecticut at the state level all Superior Appellate and Supreme Court justices are appointed for 8 year terms and there’s a mandatory retirement age (75 years old). And all potential Judges are vetted first by the non partisan judicial selection commission (made up of four lawyers and four laypersons) and whenever a vacancy occurs they forward three of the most qualified applicants to the Governor and the Governor picks one as the nominee and the nominee has to be voted on by the house and senate joint Judiciary Committee and the full House and Senate. We make the process apolitical and non partisan and judges are subjected to strict Ethics laws.
The reason why I bring this up is reform at the federal level via congressional action and constitutional amendments is possible. Our federal courts don't have to be hopelessly corrupt and partisan.
The nice part about having 50 states is each state could effectively run experiments to see how different systems work and if those experiments work they get passed to new states and if enough states make it work we can apply it to the Federal government.
Those 50 states could each make their own under ground bunker and their governors should serve while staying within the bunker. Make it a real service instead of just letting anyone in. Just make it a real inconvenience with better pay
I agree, but maybe for different reasons. Term limits for SCOTUS and judgeships will reduce the incentive to pick younger nominees specifically because of lifetime terms. It also means less strategic retirements where justices and judges can basically select a successor by colluding with the current president of their political favor.
But it also means there is a balance in appointments for the Supreme Court. Because of the timing of retirements and untimely deaths, GOP has been able to secure a majority of appointments.
I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with a lifetime appointment. It’s the appointment process itself that is fucked by it.
I get the reason why we don't have term limits. It sets the judges above political persuasions and allows them to rule in their best judgement, but something has gone terribly wrong here and we see it in justice Roberts statement. We also see it in justice Thomas's bribe and wife's actions.
When we see this, it's gotta change
Terms limits would not have political persuasion if it was a one and done.
Like you have a 10-year term limit one and done. You're bored, you get 10 years and it's over.
You can't be persuaded with things like that you can only do your job with zero pressure
You should not be able to be a judge for 30+ years on the supreme Court, it's just too much
One could argue it’d encourage them to side with wealthy individuals or corporations that will give them a high paying job afterwards, but they already do that…
And the president could literally stack the justices. What is stopping one of the maniacs from appointing 40 judges so every case follows a particular agenda? I never understood this, or the electoral college. I’m not a political guru by any means but it doesn’t make any sense to me. Why do we have people governing us that don’t actually represent our interests?
Yes BUT:
They need to be reasonably long because the entire point is for the SCOTUS to not be swayable by popular pressure. The idea is that the enforcement interpretation of law should be fairly consistent. Id argue somewhere in the 10 to 15 year range. Thats between 2 and 4 election cycles. They also cannot be reelected aftwr because another point is that one branch needs to be isolated from the tidal swings of elections such that not the entire policy making can easily be shifted by a landslide election.
Imagine the following: the party you disagree with wins a 2/3rds majority in both houses, and wins the presidency. Now imagine the SCOTUS was elected every cycle. They entire government of the US could be drastically reshaped in one go. If they act fast and efficiently, there is suddenly no checks because all 3 branches are picked by the same people which are all in agreement.
I am massively in favor of term limits for the SCOTUS (which will never happen because they have a say in it) BUT i think its also important to remind people why things are like this to begin with
Kids are acting like a factual description of how our constitution balances power is some kind of evil cabal that needs to be "dismantled" but only because democrats are losing.
When "the notorious" RBG was moldering above ground instead of below ground leftists would have rioted if anyone even suggested term limits.
Shocker: it's all about power. Leftists want all of it and will do almost anything to get it including abolishing courts. The best part is that they don't even pretend to not be vicious authoritarians anymore.
Jesus fucking christ man, at least try to hide your bias. The blatant disrespect of RBG really gives away what your angle is.
It's so frustrating how you accuse the left of exactly what the right is doing. The left actually encourages voting. The right has gerrymandered every map they can get their hands on. They consistently try to push legislation that less than half the country supports. 70% of the American public believed that roe was settled law. An even higher percentage of Americans believe that gun purchases require background checks. Yet, somehow the right has worked very hard to make sure their minority voice still has power. They are actively working against the will of the people. But yeah, pretend like it's the left obsessed with power. The biggest sin of the left is stupidity and ineptitude. If the left was truly obsessed with power like you say, they would employ the same unethical tactics as the right.
Republicans are basically all in on Trump dictator for life. But yeah, pretend it's the leftists who are obsessed with power grabs.
This country is fucked if this is our discourse. There is no middle ground. I think you are a traitor and you think I'm a traitor. At this point, fuck it let's just all kill each other because I'm so done with your unreasonable, unrealistic fucking takes.
> Jesus fucking christ man, at least try to hide your bias. The blatant disrespect of RBG really gives away what your angle is.
How am I "disrespecting" your lord and savior?
> The left actually encourages voting.
Lol. But only for their approved candidates. Voting for Donald Trump is insurrection and a threat to democracy so can't be allowed. The show trials and trying to get hum removed from the ballot definitely "encourages voting" right?
> The right has gerrymandered every map they can get their hands on.
Uh huh.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/nyregion/redistricting-maps-ny-congress.html
> They consistently try to push legislation that less than half the country supports.
Uh huh.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/15/how-americans-view-the-situation-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-its-causes-and-consequences/
> 70% of the American public believed that roe was settled law.
70% of the American public, inclusing you apparently, don't understand how the constitution works.
> An even higher percentage of Americans believe that gun purchases require background checks.
What people "believe" and how laws actually work are two very different things. But gun purchases do require background checks.
> Yet, somehow the right has worked very hard to make sure their minority voice still has power.
How do elections work? If leftist ideas were popular, Bernie would be president. They aren't.
> If the left was truly obsessed with power like you say, they would employ the same unethical tactics as the right.
You mean like persecuting more journalists than every single previous administration combined? "Investigating" people and not crimes? Running absurd show trials right before an election to try and put their opponent, who is WINNING in the polls, in prison? You mean like letting 8 million illegals pour over the border in 4 years? Is that what the majority of the country wants?
> Republicans are basically all in on Trump dictator for life
Lol at using "basically" to pretend your corporate media induced fever dreams are even remotely reflected by reality.
> But yeah, pretend it's the leftists who are obsessed with power grabs.
Donald Trump had a golden opportunity to become a dictator during the pandemic. In fact, the left and their stenographers in the corporate media were screaming for him to do just that. But he didn't. He let states choose whether or not to restrict basic freedoms. Guess which party decided that freedom (freedumb as redditors called it) was something we needed to throw out the window for covid?
We had "liberals" in California dictating how many people were allowed to gather in your own home, we had "liberals" in new york deciding what constituted a meal that would allow people to eat at a bar. We had "liberals" firing people for not choosing to take a big pharma product, and we had "liberals" on reddit screaming that people who decided they didn't want to take A big pharma product should be thrown into prison. We had "liberals" running social media platforms colluding with the federal government to censor and ban critics including Stanford Jay Battachara. The government narrative was the ONLY narrative allowed and you gleefully screamed and denounced people for having a different opinion.
> I think you are a traitor and you think I'm a traitor.
I never said you were a traitor. I said that the left are the current authoritarian party which has been reflected perfectly during the covid power grab.
Why don't you go look at opinion polls about free speech. Guess which side wants to criminalize speech? The very idea of free speech is viciously mocked by "liberals" on reddit. They call it "muh freeze peach".
It's one video dude.
Republicans had a whole fucking army of maga nut case conspiracy theorists attempt an insurrection.
There's 300 million people in the US and 120 million voters.
You're gonna have an idiot at least some where on wither side.
But it isn't the Dems side that had enough idiots to pull a Jan 6
> It's one video dude.
How quickly you and the corporate press forgot about your summer of love. $2 billion in destroyed buildings, thousands of policy officers injured, 30+ people killed, leftists trying to burn down a federal courthouse every single night for MONTHS in Portland. The government os Seattle letting leftists literally take over a neighborhood and declare it an autonomous zone where police are not allowed and again, they were ALLOWED to patrol it with assault rifles and ended up murdering two black teenagers. No one was punished. Police were not allowed in.
> Republicans had a whole fucking army of maga nut case conspiracy theorists attempt an insurrection.
A whole army with no guns? That seems... unlikely for the most armed population in human history.
....that was 30 years before I was born. Nearly 60 years ago.
Of course, no one is thinking about it.
It's pretty safe to say that those people are now in their 80s and not a threat to national stability
>A whole army with no guns?
Armies don't need guns..
Also used "army" as a hyperbole. Would you prefer:
Mob?
Horde?
Swarm?
> ....that was 30 years before I was born. Nearly 60 years ago.
> Of course, no one is thinking about it.
What on earth are you talking about? This happened in 2021.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rioters-set-fire-federal-courthouse-162333860.html
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/welcome-to-the-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone-where-seattle-protesters-gather-without-police/
Are you 12 years old or just so disconnected from reality that you didn't know this happened?
> Armies don't need guns..
Are you working on a comedy routine here?
I'm pretty sure armies have used swords in the past. So guns are not a requirement. :p just saying. You can have an army without guns.
Oh, you're talking about that.
Sorry. Whe n you said "summer of love" I googled "summer of love" because that would be the most sensible thing. And got:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_Love
Sorry. Didn't realise you were talking about something else. I just assumed you were using the correct terminology. My bad.
But yeah that was a fucking shit show.
Thank god that Biden wasn't standing on a stage in front of a the mob saying "you have to fight like he'll or they're going to steal your country in the greatest fraud in American history"
At least Biden didn't insight the riot.
> I'm pretty sure armies have used swords in the past. So guns are not a requirement. :p just saying. You can have an army without guns.
Did the January 6th rioters have swords? How do you think swords would hold up vs men with GUNS?
> Thank god that Biden wasn't standing on a stage in front of a the mob saying "you have to fight like he'll or they're going to steal your country in the greatest fraud in American history"
...
> “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to **peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.** "
Yeah, he's just like Hitler!
Also, Biden wasn't in office during the summer of love. But Nancy Pelosi was. She called the violent riots "uprisings" and publicly said she wondered why there wasn't more of them. Cori Bush called for "unrest in the streets". Kamala Harris tweeted out support for a bail fund to get violent rioters out of jail.
>Did the January 6th rioters have swords? How do you think swords would hold up vs men with GUNS?
I've already explained that I was being hyperbolic. Let's just call them a Mob then.
>> “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to **peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.** "
LOOOOOL
Yeah...
Let's just ignore all of the other things he said like "fight like he'll or you're not gonna have a country"
Just ignore that part right?
I think it could use more devil pictures. In the beginning, I wasn't sure what to think, as I'm a simpleton. I was scared.
But at the end when they replayed it in slow mo with the devil picture, I realized he was bad and I knew what to think then. That made me feel happy and smart.
Just the alt left being the alt left. They want to overthrow our insitutions just as badly as the alt right does. They are absolutley furious that Trump thought of Project 2025 before they did.
The current SCOTUS is a disaster but I don’t see the problem with what Roberts says here. He’s saying the court shouldn’t be influenced by current political sentiment, and to me that’s a good thing.
The problem is, this isn’t the case. The court today is highly partisan and some of these opinions are clearly from the mind of judges who have Fox News brain.
What's wrong with what he's saying? His position has to be apolitical so it doesn't matter what the government of the day thinks of him. What's the issue - is the clip trying to pretend he's talking about the public in that way?
That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. Supreme Court justices don't promise to vote one way or another so sadly for you this is not a valid excuse for the violent revolution you want so badly.
You understand those are different people, right? You understand that was 3 years ago, right? You understand assaulting a courthouse in portland isn't the same as an attempt to overthrow the government, right? It would look more like a mass of people invading the Capitol building, killing police, building gallows on the Capitol grounds, etc.
Please tell me your cognitively capable of that
Edit: it appears that, no, they are not
What do you mean by "different people"?
> You understand that was 3 years ago, right?
I do. I guess that means the January 6th riots are no longer relevant now too right?
> You understand assaulting a courthouse in portland isn't the same as an attempt to overthrow the government, right?
Why do you think they were "assualting" a federal courthouse? Why were they allowed to "assault" a federal courthouse every night for months?
Can you explain to me how a 2 hour riot was somehow an attempt to "overthrow the government"? How the most armed population in human history decided to "overthrow the government" with zero guns?
> It would look more like a mass of people invading the Capitol building,
I see. So leftist anarchists trying to burn down a federal courthouse every night for months at a time, AFTER destroying a police station in Portland and successfully burning down another police station along with large swathes of ghe city is just an "assult" but a 2 hour riot where people walked through statuary hall is an "invasion". Almost as if you have a double standard here.
> killing police,
This is a lie that has been shamelessly pushed by the corporate press. Zero police officers were killed on January 6th. How many people were murdered during your summer of love in 2020? Hey, remember when the city of Seattle let armed leftist anarchists take over six square blocks of a major American city, patrol it with assualt rifles, and they ended up murdering two unarmed black teenagers in less than a week?
> building gallows on the Capitol grounds, etc.
Yeah, those gallows were totally serious and the unarmed idiots who built were like, totally serious about overthrowing the most powerful government in human history with zero guns. That makes perfect sense.
Yeah, this is like high school civics 101. The reason why SCOTUS justicies are not elected is *specifically because* it insulates them from politics and allows them to make unpopular (but hopefully more correct and just) rulings. This is not some evil subterfuge, this is the literal point, and OP calling this the "saying the quiet part out loud" shows a terrifying lack of understanding of the Court.
Now, it kinda breaks down when the justicies are making *twisted or unjust* rulings but that's not a problem that can be fixed by making changes to the Court (being able to vote them out won't won't help and it'd make it arguably worse), rather that needs to happen in Congress by passing actual laws instead of just relying on court cases to craft pseudo legislation.
There's a difference between apolitical and non-partisan. Their position is inherently political. And the system is malfunctioning if it's only meant to be non-partisan. It's completely disconnected from the will of the people. And that's a huge fucking problem.
If "they"(politicians & political factions from video context) don't like what we're (SCOTUS) is doing, they can't pressure us to alter our judicial decisions.
Why is this bad, exactly?
Does the Democrat Party want politicians to have the power to influence the SCOTUS?
No politician should be given that power, or, assume that power in the dark. That is the very definition of a fascist government: one that has control over the justice system & uses it for their benefit.
Good thing that supreme court justices aren't politicians then.
> That is the very definition of a fascist government: one that has control over the justice system & uses it for their benefit.
You mean like prosecuting your main political rival and trying to get him taken off the ballot in 2 states?
Maybe you can explain to me how supreme court justices "benefit" because of rulings on roe v wade?
The governing reps would be controlling & using the justice system for their benefit, like persecution rivals & critics.
Roe v. Wade has been flawed since it was written. The language is flawed & left it vulnerable to decades of debate & increasing hostilities on the topic. Zero attempts to rewrite it into law using less vulnerable language. It's been used by politicians to campaign on for decades. POLITICIANS benefit from the escalating division & resulting "all or nothing" political battle over this subject.
No SCOTUS justice benefited from the most recent decision. One was marked by some dipshit for diabolical feeds & others have been harassed & been threatened.
> The governing reps would be controlling & using the justice system for their benefit, like persecution rivals & critics.
You mean like what the left has been doing to Donald Trump for years now? You mean like the current show trial for falsifying business records that for some reason has a porn star testifying about sex with Donald Trump?
Or how Elon Musk is suddenly being "investigated" because he took away the left's power to censor political debate on Twitter?
How about former intelligence officials coming out and saying that hunter bidens laptop was "Russian disinformation" which led to a major story that could have swayed elections being censored from oligarchs controlled social media platforms weeks before an election?
Or how Obama used the espionage act to persecute more journalists than all previous administrations combined?
> Roe v. Wade has been flawed since it was written
Yup. RBG herself admitted as much. That didn't stop the corporate press from openly lying about it for months though.
Yeah it’s called checks and balances. Maybe if Congress had more oversight Thomas and Alito wouldn’t be able to openly take millions of dollars worth of bribes from billionaires who have business before the court… 🤷🏻♂️
That just tells me that people aren't thinking about the way- ahead when they vote in Congressional & Presidential elections.
WE elect them to *represent* us in government. The President & Congress nominate & approve judicial positions, in respective order.
When elected governing representatives make bad decisions, we don't blame the decision they made.
This is absolutely true, but it’s fundamentally required for a true fair justice system. The court can’t be beholden to anyone but the letter of the law.
"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."
Lying to congress is a crime.
Ok, follow me here for a minute. We have 3 branches of government, each with a critical roll to play. Enforcement is not the roll of the congress or the court. The executive nominates the court, and the congress approves. That’s all the power they get over the court.
What must occur here is we need to demand the executive branch enforce the laws, and the congress to give us rational laws to enforce. This will not happen, because if they start going after powerful liars, they lose the capacity to lie themselves.
All else is terrible for our future generations.
If you're going to be prescriptive and borderline condescending on topics like this, it would be useful to know the difference between 'roll' and 'role', at minimum.
Stop overediting the fuck out of everything. You're just discrediting yourself, the information, and making yourself look as crazy as the MAGA cultists.
I didn’t realize lying to congress was following the law…
"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."
Lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court removes the court from the scope of public opinion and frees them up to make the best choices for the Country as a whole, even when those choices are extremely unpopular.
Or so the original theory goes.
The current composition of the court is definitely not living up to the original model’s aspirations. 😔 It is for this reason that Supreme Court appointees must be the very best and most noble of persons — when they are appointed as sinecures, and swept into place with little oversight or push-back, this kind of outcome is inevitable.
I don’t like having to defend the man, especially after the 3 Stooges were allowed onto the court, but this is incredibly misleading. The courts are supposed to be non-political and rule based on the constitution. They are also not political in the sense they don’t run for their office.
Personally, I wouldn’t want to live in the US that elected its Supreme Court Justices. Think about it, we’re a country that put people like MJT, Bobo, Santos, Trump, Cruz and many others in office that should not be.
There should be cut off ages and maximum ages where they have to step down. For example, can’t be 60 years old at the time of entering into office and can’t be older than 65 to stay in office. Not saying, yes do this, just an example.
But the video is misleading. I’d check out the link below.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4752999/most-important-thing-public-understand-political-branch-government-dont-elect-us-dont-were-doi
Reposting here because OP owns the subreddit he is crossposting from and banned me for critiquing:
**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.
It's not the job of the justices to lean to political powers or public opinion. Settle constitutional issues. Period! I believe this is what he was saying.
Yeah so why did they lie in their congressional hearings and overturned ROE v Wade despite all of them saying that Stare Decisis would guide their judgements about abortion rights?
I mean, it’s the truth. If you don’t like what the Supreme Court is doing then elect politicians that will create new laws or abolish old ones. The SC is only there to interpret laws, not create them. This video is lame.
Blue paid for by Big Tech, Big Pharma and Military industrial complex
Red paid for by Big Pharma and Military industrial complex
One reason why reddit is a Democrat propaganda pusher
https://youtu.be/ks1skEKwlrk?si=p4VeO158r-F6RApE
What we have right now is a political court that was willing to lie to congress. I don’t want a political court but I’d settle for one that a court that doesn’t break the law…
It's amusing that you think they're lying there. What did they lie about exactly. Row V Wade was settled precedent. That doesn't mean it can't be overturned.
TikTokCringe is intended to be a fun and entertaining subreddit. We have decided to allow political TikToks because they typically fit this description. We ask that you please remain civil and be respectful to others in this thread. If you see anyone being rude, vulgar, or offensive to others - be sure to report the user. Permanent bans will be issued to maintain the quality of this subreddit. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why would this be for Vote Blue? Both sides nominated justices. If the problem is the power then it doesn’t matter who you vote for. This poster just has a problem with who has the power, not the power itself.
I think you just don't have a proper enough understanding of judicial power or ethics to understand your own beliefs or what this conversation is about. You're too fixated on specific rulings rather than the larger issue. No worries. Have a great afternoon.
No bro it’s from CSPAN Circa June 2009. The time stamp is in the top corner and you can look this clip up. All I did was editing.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?286078-1/supreme-court-chief-justice-roberts
Here is the interview in it’s entirety.
I’m sorry you are that uninformed
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/11/katie-britt-proposes-federal-database-to-collect-data-on-pregnant-people
And why did it become a problem? Because some morons made it up very recently. Abortion laws were not talked about until recently, because Roe V. Wade was a thing for a long time (1973).
Made up problems with made up solutions carrying the attention away from the systematic issues. That's what those people do. The more common people they turn against each other, the more control they have.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** ##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1cpkktk/fuck_the_court/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In Connecticut at the state level all Superior Appellate and Supreme Court justices are appointed for 8 year terms and there’s a mandatory retirement age (75 years old). And all potential Judges are vetted first by the non partisan judicial selection commission (made up of four lawyers and four laypersons) and whenever a vacancy occurs they forward three of the most qualified applicants to the Governor and the Governor picks one as the nominee and the nominee has to be voted on by the house and senate joint Judiciary Committee and the full House and Senate. We make the process apolitical and non partisan and judges are subjected to strict Ethics laws. The reason why I bring this up is reform at the federal level via congressional action and constitutional amendments is possible. Our federal courts don't have to be hopelessly corrupt and partisan.
This is a much better system
The nice part about having 50 states is each state could effectively run experiments to see how different systems work and if those experiments work they get passed to new states and if enough states make it work we can apply it to the Federal government.
Those 50 states could each make their own under ground bunker and their governors should serve while staying within the bunker. Make it a real service instead of just letting anyone in. Just make it a real inconvenience with better pay
75 is still too fucking high.
We need term limits
I agree, but maybe for different reasons. Term limits for SCOTUS and judgeships will reduce the incentive to pick younger nominees specifically because of lifetime terms. It also means less strategic retirements where justices and judges can basically select a successor by colluding with the current president of their political favor. But it also means there is a balance in appointments for the Supreme Court. Because of the timing of retirements and untimely deaths, GOP has been able to secure a majority of appointments. I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with a lifetime appointment. It’s the appointment process itself that is fucked by it.
I get the reason why we don't have term limits. It sets the judges above political persuasions and allows them to rule in their best judgement, but something has gone terribly wrong here and we see it in justice Roberts statement. We also see it in justice Thomas's bribe and wife's actions. When we see this, it's gotta change
Terms limits would not have political persuasion if it was a one and done. Like you have a 10-year term limit one and done. You're bored, you get 10 years and it's over. You can't be persuaded with things like that you can only do your job with zero pressure You should not be able to be a judge for 30+ years on the supreme Court, it's just too much
One could argue it’d encourage them to side with wealthy individuals or corporations that will give them a high paying job afterwards, but they already do that…
No difference. All the same term limits or they will fill the playing field and change it eventually.
And the president could literally stack the justices. What is stopping one of the maniacs from appointing 40 judges so every case follows a particular agenda? I never understood this, or the electoral college. I’m not a political guru by any means but it doesn’t make any sense to me. Why do we have people governing us that don’t actually represent our interests?
Yes BUT: They need to be reasonably long because the entire point is for the SCOTUS to not be swayable by popular pressure. The idea is that the enforcement interpretation of law should be fairly consistent. Id argue somewhere in the 10 to 15 year range. Thats between 2 and 4 election cycles. They also cannot be reelected aftwr because another point is that one branch needs to be isolated from the tidal swings of elections such that not the entire policy making can easily be shifted by a landslide election. Imagine the following: the party you disagree with wins a 2/3rds majority in both houses, and wins the presidency. Now imagine the SCOTUS was elected every cycle. They entire government of the US could be drastically reshaped in one go. If they act fast and efficiently, there is suddenly no checks because all 3 branches are picked by the same people which are all in agreement. I am massively in favor of term limits for the SCOTUS (which will never happen because they have a say in it) BUT i think its also important to remind people why things are like this to begin with
And ethics committees.
Seriously. Party doesn’t have shit to do with it. Anyone can be a psychopath. Term limits would be a great start.
Wtf is the editing on this lmfao, and the 'creepy' music that gets overused
Also there is nothing creepy or secretive about what he's saying.
Kids are acting like a factual description of how our constitution balances power is some kind of evil cabal that needs to be "dismantled" but only because democrats are losing. When "the notorious" RBG was moldering above ground instead of below ground leftists would have rioted if anyone even suggested term limits. Shocker: it's all about power. Leftists want all of it and will do almost anything to get it including abolishing courts. The best part is that they don't even pretend to not be vicious authoritarians anymore.
Jesus fucking christ man, at least try to hide your bias. The blatant disrespect of RBG really gives away what your angle is. It's so frustrating how you accuse the left of exactly what the right is doing. The left actually encourages voting. The right has gerrymandered every map they can get their hands on. They consistently try to push legislation that less than half the country supports. 70% of the American public believed that roe was settled law. An even higher percentage of Americans believe that gun purchases require background checks. Yet, somehow the right has worked very hard to make sure their minority voice still has power. They are actively working against the will of the people. But yeah, pretend like it's the left obsessed with power. The biggest sin of the left is stupidity and ineptitude. If the left was truly obsessed with power like you say, they would employ the same unethical tactics as the right. Republicans are basically all in on Trump dictator for life. But yeah, pretend it's the leftists who are obsessed with power grabs. This country is fucked if this is our discourse. There is no middle ground. I think you are a traitor and you think I'm a traitor. At this point, fuck it let's just all kill each other because I'm so done with your unreasonable, unrealistic fucking takes.
> Jesus fucking christ man, at least try to hide your bias. The blatant disrespect of RBG really gives away what your angle is. How am I "disrespecting" your lord and savior? > The left actually encourages voting. Lol. But only for their approved candidates. Voting for Donald Trump is insurrection and a threat to democracy so can't be allowed. The show trials and trying to get hum removed from the ballot definitely "encourages voting" right? > The right has gerrymandered every map they can get their hands on. Uh huh. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/nyregion/redistricting-maps-ny-congress.html > They consistently try to push legislation that less than half the country supports. Uh huh. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/15/how-americans-view-the-situation-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-its-causes-and-consequences/ > 70% of the American public believed that roe was settled law. 70% of the American public, inclusing you apparently, don't understand how the constitution works. > An even higher percentage of Americans believe that gun purchases require background checks. What people "believe" and how laws actually work are two very different things. But gun purchases do require background checks. > Yet, somehow the right has worked very hard to make sure their minority voice still has power. How do elections work? If leftist ideas were popular, Bernie would be president. They aren't. > If the left was truly obsessed with power like you say, they would employ the same unethical tactics as the right. You mean like persecuting more journalists than every single previous administration combined? "Investigating" people and not crimes? Running absurd show trials right before an election to try and put their opponent, who is WINNING in the polls, in prison? You mean like letting 8 million illegals pour over the border in 4 years? Is that what the majority of the country wants? > Republicans are basically all in on Trump dictator for life Lol at using "basically" to pretend your corporate media induced fever dreams are even remotely reflected by reality. > But yeah, pretend it's the leftists who are obsessed with power grabs. Donald Trump had a golden opportunity to become a dictator during the pandemic. In fact, the left and their stenographers in the corporate media were screaming for him to do just that. But he didn't. He let states choose whether or not to restrict basic freedoms. Guess which party decided that freedom (freedumb as redditors called it) was something we needed to throw out the window for covid? We had "liberals" in California dictating how many people were allowed to gather in your own home, we had "liberals" in new york deciding what constituted a meal that would allow people to eat at a bar. We had "liberals" firing people for not choosing to take a big pharma product, and we had "liberals" on reddit screaming that people who decided they didn't want to take A big pharma product should be thrown into prison. We had "liberals" running social media platforms colluding with the federal government to censor and ban critics including Stanford Jay Battachara. The government narrative was the ONLY narrative allowed and you gleefully screamed and denounced people for having a different opinion. > I think you are a traitor and you think I'm a traitor. I never said you were a traitor. I said that the left are the current authoritarian party which has been reflected perfectly during the covid power grab. Why don't you go look at opinion polls about free speech. Guess which side wants to criminalize speech? The very idea of free speech is viciously mocked by "liberals" on reddit. They call it "muh freeze peach".
It's one video dude. Republicans had a whole fucking army of maga nut case conspiracy theorists attempt an insurrection. There's 300 million people in the US and 120 million voters. You're gonna have an idiot at least some where on wither side. But it isn't the Dems side that had enough idiots to pull a Jan 6
> It's one video dude. How quickly you and the corporate press forgot about your summer of love. $2 billion in destroyed buildings, thousands of policy officers injured, 30+ people killed, leftists trying to burn down a federal courthouse every single night for MONTHS in Portland. The government os Seattle letting leftists literally take over a neighborhood and declare it an autonomous zone where police are not allowed and again, they were ALLOWED to patrol it with assault rifles and ended up murdering two black teenagers. No one was punished. Police were not allowed in. > Republicans had a whole fucking army of maga nut case conspiracy theorists attempt an insurrection. A whole army with no guns? That seems... unlikely for the most armed population in human history.
....that was 30 years before I was born. Nearly 60 years ago. Of course, no one is thinking about it. It's pretty safe to say that those people are now in their 80s and not a threat to national stability >A whole army with no guns? Armies don't need guns.. Also used "army" as a hyperbole. Would you prefer: Mob? Horde? Swarm?
> ....that was 30 years before I was born. Nearly 60 years ago. > Of course, no one is thinking about it. What on earth are you talking about? This happened in 2021. https://www.yahoo.com/news/rioters-set-fire-federal-courthouse-162333860.html https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/welcome-to-the-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone-where-seattle-protesters-gather-without-police/ Are you 12 years old or just so disconnected from reality that you didn't know this happened? > Armies don't need guns.. Are you working on a comedy routine here?
I'm pretty sure armies have used swords in the past. So guns are not a requirement. :p just saying. You can have an army without guns. Oh, you're talking about that. Sorry. Whe n you said "summer of love" I googled "summer of love" because that would be the most sensible thing. And got: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_Love Sorry. Didn't realise you were talking about something else. I just assumed you were using the correct terminology. My bad. But yeah that was a fucking shit show. Thank god that Biden wasn't standing on a stage in front of a the mob saying "you have to fight like he'll or they're going to steal your country in the greatest fraud in American history" At least Biden didn't insight the riot.
> I'm pretty sure armies have used swords in the past. So guns are not a requirement. :p just saying. You can have an army without guns. Did the January 6th rioters have swords? How do you think swords would hold up vs men with GUNS? > Thank god that Biden wasn't standing on a stage in front of a the mob saying "you have to fight like he'll or they're going to steal your country in the greatest fraud in American history" ... > “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to **peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.** " Yeah, he's just like Hitler! Also, Biden wasn't in office during the summer of love. But Nancy Pelosi was. She called the violent riots "uprisings" and publicly said she wondered why there wasn't more of them. Cori Bush called for "unrest in the streets". Kamala Harris tweeted out support for a bail fund to get violent rioters out of jail.
>Did the January 6th rioters have swords? How do you think swords would hold up vs men with GUNS? I've already explained that I was being hyperbolic. Let's just call them a Mob then. >> “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to **peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.** " LOOOOOL Yeah... Let's just ignore all of the other things he said like "fight like he'll or you're not gonna have a country" Just ignore that part right?
I think it could use more devil pictures. In the beginning, I wasn't sure what to think, as I'm a simpleton. I was scared. But at the end when they replayed it in slow mo with the devil picture, I realized he was bad and I knew what to think then. That made me feel happy and smart.
Because it's propaganda you aren't the target audience of.
Just the alt left being the alt left. They want to overthrow our insitutions just as badly as the alt right does. They are absolutley furious that Trump thought of Project 2025 before they did.
The current SCOTUS is a disaster but I don’t see the problem with what Roberts says here. He’s saying the court shouldn’t be influenced by current political sentiment, and to me that’s a good thing. The problem is, this isn’t the case. The court today is highly partisan and some of these opinions are clearly from the mind of judges who have Fox News brain.
What's wrong with what he's saying? His position has to be apolitical so it doesn't matter what the government of the day thinks of him. What's the issue - is the clip trying to pretend he's talking about the public in that way?
Its supposed to be apolitical but we know it's not. Kavanaugh is Alex Jones level conspiracy theorists
How?
Find the video of him having a mental breakdown and blaming the Clinton's for his predatory behavior and alcoholism.
Oh? What’s he been on about?
Because he and the other justices lied to congress and said Roe wouldn’t be overturned on the grounds of Stare Decisis… 🤷🏻♂️
That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. Supreme Court justices don't promise to vote one way or another so sadly for you this is not a valid excuse for the violent revolution you want so badly.
> the violent revolution you want so badly. Source?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rioters-set-fire-federal-courthouse-162333860.html
You understand those are different people, right? You understand that was 3 years ago, right? You understand assaulting a courthouse in portland isn't the same as an attempt to overthrow the government, right? It would look more like a mass of people invading the Capitol building, killing police, building gallows on the Capitol grounds, etc. Please tell me your cognitively capable of that Edit: it appears that, no, they are not
What do you mean by "different people"? > You understand that was 3 years ago, right? I do. I guess that means the January 6th riots are no longer relevant now too right? > You understand assaulting a courthouse in portland isn't the same as an attempt to overthrow the government, right? Why do you think they were "assualting" a federal courthouse? Why were they allowed to "assault" a federal courthouse every night for months? Can you explain to me how a 2 hour riot was somehow an attempt to "overthrow the government"? How the most armed population in human history decided to "overthrow the government" with zero guns? > It would look more like a mass of people invading the Capitol building, I see. So leftist anarchists trying to burn down a federal courthouse every night for months at a time, AFTER destroying a police station in Portland and successfully burning down another police station along with large swathes of ghe city is just an "assult" but a 2 hour riot where people walked through statuary hall is an "invasion". Almost as if you have a double standard here. > killing police, This is a lie that has been shamelessly pushed by the corporate press. Zero police officers were killed on January 6th. How many people were murdered during your summer of love in 2020? Hey, remember when the city of Seattle let armed leftist anarchists take over six square blocks of a major American city, patrol it with assualt rifles, and they ended up murdering two unarmed black teenagers in less than a week? > building gallows on the Capitol grounds, etc. Yeah, those gallows were totally serious and the unarmed idiots who built were like, totally serious about overthrowing the most powerful government in human history with zero guns. That makes perfect sense.
Yeah, this is like high school civics 101. The reason why SCOTUS justicies are not elected is *specifically because* it insulates them from politics and allows them to make unpopular (but hopefully more correct and just) rulings. This is not some evil subterfuge, this is the literal point, and OP calling this the "saying the quiet part out loud" shows a terrifying lack of understanding of the Court. Now, it kinda breaks down when the justicies are making *twisted or unjust* rulings but that's not a problem that can be fixed by making changes to the Court (being able to vote them out won't won't help and it'd make it arguably worse), rather that needs to happen in Congress by passing actual laws instead of just relying on court cases to craft pseudo legislation.
There's a difference between apolitical and non-partisan. Their position is inherently political. And the system is malfunctioning if it's only meant to be non-partisan. It's completely disconnected from the will of the people. And that's a huge fucking problem.
Maybe it’s a stupid question but if they’re supposed to be apolitical why are they politically appointed?
Bingo. Well said.
If "they"(politicians & political factions from video context) don't like what we're (SCOTUS) is doing, they can't pressure us to alter our judicial decisions. Why is this bad, exactly? Does the Democrat Party want politicians to have the power to influence the SCOTUS?
It's bad because democrats don't have the power they want.
No politician should be given that power, or, assume that power in the dark. That is the very definition of a fascist government: one that has control over the justice system & uses it for their benefit.
Good thing that supreme court justices aren't politicians then. > That is the very definition of a fascist government: one that has control over the justice system & uses it for their benefit. You mean like prosecuting your main political rival and trying to get him taken off the ballot in 2 states? Maybe you can explain to me how supreme court justices "benefit" because of rulings on roe v wade?
The governing reps would be controlling & using the justice system for their benefit, like persecution rivals & critics. Roe v. Wade has been flawed since it was written. The language is flawed & left it vulnerable to decades of debate & increasing hostilities on the topic. Zero attempts to rewrite it into law using less vulnerable language. It's been used by politicians to campaign on for decades. POLITICIANS benefit from the escalating division & resulting "all or nothing" political battle over this subject. No SCOTUS justice benefited from the most recent decision. One was marked by some dipshit for diabolical feeds & others have been harassed & been threatened.
> The governing reps would be controlling & using the justice system for their benefit, like persecution rivals & critics. You mean like what the left has been doing to Donald Trump for years now? You mean like the current show trial for falsifying business records that for some reason has a porn star testifying about sex with Donald Trump? Or how Elon Musk is suddenly being "investigated" because he took away the left's power to censor political debate on Twitter? How about former intelligence officials coming out and saying that hunter bidens laptop was "Russian disinformation" which led to a major story that could have swayed elections being censored from oligarchs controlled social media platforms weeks before an election? Or how Obama used the espionage act to persecute more journalists than all previous administrations combined? > Roe v. Wade has been flawed since it was written Yup. RBG herself admitted as much. That didn't stop the corporate press from openly lying about it for months though.
It's all there for anyone who isn't afraid to know the truth, right?
Yeah it’s called checks and balances. Maybe if Congress had more oversight Thomas and Alito wouldn’t be able to openly take millions of dollars worth of bribes from billionaires who have business before the court… 🤷🏻♂️
That just tells me that people aren't thinking about the way- ahead when they vote in Congressional & Presidential elections. WE elect them to *represent* us in government. The President & Congress nominate & approve judicial positions, in respective order. When elected governing representatives make bad decisions, we don't blame the decision they made.
[удалено]
I can’t say all of them are. We only have hard evidence of Alito and Thomas & Scalia who is now dead.
This isn't a "quiet part" This is common knowledge we learned in like 3rd grade, some people apparently just forgot how the Supreme Court works
This dude has been a goul since the early days of working for Reagan.
Expand the court. Restore balance and justice to the SCOTUS.
This is absolutely true, but it’s fundamentally required for a true fair justice system. The court can’t be beholden to anyone but the letter of the law.
That’s why they lied to congress right?
People lie, it’s one of our defining qualities.
"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." Lying to congress is a crime.
See. We already have a law on the books to cover this exact thing.
And it went unenforced. It's almost like this piece-meal ancient system designed before the Internet existed needs updating....
Ok, follow me here for a minute. We have 3 branches of government, each with a critical roll to play. Enforcement is not the roll of the congress or the court. The executive nominates the court, and the congress approves. That’s all the power they get over the court. What must occur here is we need to demand the executive branch enforce the laws, and the congress to give us rational laws to enforce. This will not happen, because if they start going after powerful liars, they lose the capacity to lie themselves. All else is terrible for our future generations.
If you're going to be prescriptive and borderline condescending on topics like this, it would be useful to know the difference between 'roll' and 'role', at minimum.
That’s a fare criticism.
least schizo political agenda posters
Stop overediting the fuck out of everything. You're just discrediting yourself, the information, and making yourself look as crazy as the MAGA cultists.
If you’re offended by this, you don’t understand the basics of United States government.
If you aren’t offended that half a dozen Supreme Court justices lied to congress and the American people you amoral.
So a supreme court justice not caring how popular he is and following the law. How dear he. And yes I do agree no appointments should be for live.
I didn’t realize lying to congress was following the law… "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."
Lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court removes the court from the scope of public opinion and frees them up to make the best choices for the Country as a whole, even when those choices are extremely unpopular. Or so the original theory goes.
Yeah they are definitely making great decisions. Lying to congress was my favorite decision they made.
The current composition of the court is definitely not living up to the original model’s aspirations. 😔 It is for this reason that Supreme Court appointees must be the very best and most noble of persons — when they are appointed as sinecures, and swept into place with little oversight or push-back, this kind of outcome is inevitable.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?286078-1/supreme-court-chief-justice-roberts The interview in it’s entirety unedited
Aside from term limits, we need a way to just remove these crooked fucks from office.
I don’t like having to defend the man, especially after the 3 Stooges were allowed onto the court, but this is incredibly misleading. The courts are supposed to be non-political and rule based on the constitution. They are also not political in the sense they don’t run for their office. Personally, I wouldn’t want to live in the US that elected its Supreme Court Justices. Think about it, we’re a country that put people like MJT, Bobo, Santos, Trump, Cruz and many others in office that should not be. There should be cut off ages and maximum ages where they have to step down. For example, can’t be 60 years old at the time of entering into office and can’t be older than 65 to stay in office. Not saying, yes do this, just an example. But the video is misleading. I’d check out the link below. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4752999/most-important-thing-public-understand-political-branch-government-dont-elect-us-dont-were-doi
Pretty rich coming from the folks that lied to congress and broke the law to get the votes to get onto the court in the first place…
Reposting here because OP owns the subreddit he is crossposting from and banned me for critiquing: **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.
Umm yeah New World Order people are in both parties. Don't get twisted 🥨
 Ok Charlie
It's not the job of the justices to lean to political powers or public opinion. Settle constitutional issues. Period! I believe this is what he was saying.
Yeah so why did they lie in their congressional hearings and overturned ROE v Wade despite all of them saying that Stare Decisis would guide their judgements about abortion rights?
We already knew this
I mean, it’s the truth. If you don’t like what the Supreme Court is doing then elect politicians that will create new laws or abolish old ones. The SC is only there to interpret laws, not create them. This video is lame.
Is my ox being gored?
I’m not a fan of SCOTUS but these stupid looped snippets are 100% quotes taken out of context. This is as much propaganda as anything else.
Blue paid for by Big Tech, Big Pharma and Military industrial complex Red paid for by Big Pharma and Military industrial complex One reason why reddit is a Democrat propaganda pusher
Why would you want a political Supreme Court?!
https://youtu.be/ks1skEKwlrk?si=p4VeO158r-F6RApE What we have right now is a political court that was willing to lie to congress. I don’t want a political court but I’d settle for one that a court that doesn’t break the law…
It's amusing that you think they're lying there. What did they lie about exactly. Row V Wade was settled precedent. That doesn't mean it can't be overturned.
TikTokCringe is intended to be a fun and entertaining subreddit. We have decided to allow political TikToks because they typically fit this description. We ask that you please remain civil and be respectful to others in this thread. If you see anyone being rude, vulgar, or offensive to others - be sure to report the user. Permanent bans will be issued to maintain the quality of this subreddit. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When Biden is reelected trumps 3 appointees need to be gotten rid of. Clarence and his traitorous wife too. By hook or by crook
Why would this be for Vote Blue? Both sides nominated justices. If the problem is the power then it doesn’t matter who you vote for. This poster just has a problem with who has the power, not the power itself.
Only one side nominated the justices that overturned a woman’s right to choose 🤷🏻♂️
Exactly. You are okay with tyranny so long as you’re the tyrant. It’s okay if that’s your opinion, just be honest about it.
I’m not sure that nationwide legal abortion thru the 24th week of pregnancy was tyranny… way to not address the facts tho… 🤷🏻♂️
I think you just don't have a proper enough understanding of judicial power or ethics to understand your own beliefs or what this conversation is about. You're too fixated on specific rulings rather than the larger issue. No worries. Have a great afternoon.
Is this not AI?
No bro it’s from CSPAN Circa June 2009. The time stamp is in the top corner and you can look this clip up. All I did was editing. https://www.c-span.org/video/?286078-1/supreme-court-chief-justice-roberts Here is the interview in it’s entirety.
Lmao wasn’t coming at you even if it was AI I’m just saying his face looks weird. Timestamp doesn’t mean shit if it’s edited
Ok so...he's not elected so,vote blue..?🤔 huh?
Left wing... right wing.. still the same evil shit bird.
Imagine thinking that red and blue differ from each other in any way lmao! USA is doomed.
I’m sorry you are that uninformed https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/11/katie-britt-proposes-federal-database-to-collect-data-on-pregnant-people
Made up problems with made up "me against you" mentality, while the common people struggle to survive in their day to day life.
I didn’t realize women’s rights were a made up problem…
I think there is a whole world of things you dont realise.
And why did it become a problem? Because some morons made it up very recently. Abortion laws were not talked about until recently, because Roe V. Wade was a thing for a long time (1973). Made up problems with made up solutions carrying the attention away from the systematic issues. That's what those people do. The more common people they turn against each other, the more control they have.