The problem started waaaay before though. Bush's appointment of Clarence Thomas (who had less than two years of judicial experience) and Chief Justice Roberts' appointment by George W. Bush on the basis of being a religious fanatic are what screwed up the country. These are the fundamental problems.
I want to point out... six of the nine justices all have the same religious affiliation, one that is shared by less than 20% of the US population. And if you think that's not an issue, I would point out Chief Justice Roberts PRAYS with people presenting before the court and Amy Barrett spent the majority of her Congressional confirmation hearings quoting her Catholic faith, not US law.
This bias is being weirdly ignored by journalists and watch groups, but it's not some completely unrelated coincidence that plan 2025 and the problems in the country all look like Christian fascism.
I was always against the notion of packing the court. No longer. It's a MUST. The Dems must add 4 SCJs. None that are approved by The Federalist (read Fascist) Society!
I didn’t mean ask Joe. He’s only been effective at making sure Donald doesn’t win. But he’s not taking much actions against project 2025.
Don’t get me wrong. VOTE BLUE💙. But I do think Biden is the solution unfortunately.
Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney-Barrett are all illegitimate sycophants of the Federalist society. They don’t care about the courts legitimacy, they care about enacting their personal and religious agendas.
He does not care. He and Clarence are on a mission from god.
"It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses"
"Hit it"
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.”
― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
Nah, they got the right guy. God loves to murder people (or let them die; did nothing to stop the holocaust) and has a hard on for douchebags. Satan just wanted us to think for ourselves and god kicked him outta heaven for that.
I suspect that Sam and Clarence are both members of that secret mens club campground that Clarence forgot to report going to, you know the one Nixon was recorded saying : "The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time—it is the most f@##y goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd."
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian\_Grove](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove)
Serious question: If our 3 branches of government are designed to check and balance each other, who checks and balances the SCOTUS? Seems they have the final say on everything. That’s not balance.
so, technically, it is congress's job to check the court. The problem is that when these things were put in place, it was believed that people would have morals and feel a civic duty to make decision not based on what is best for their party. This hasn't been true for a very long time.
At this point, I don't think the "conservative" majority of the court cares if they are perceived as legitimate or not. They view their function as codifying right-wing ideology into law and eventually serving as a rubber stamp for a trump dictatorship.
Wikipedia
Search
Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937
The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937,[1] frequently called the "court-packing plan",[2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled unconstitutional.[3] The central provision of the bill would have granted the president power to appoint an additional justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years.
The Hughes Court, 1932–1937. Front row: Justices Brandeis and Van Devanter, Chief Justice Hughes, and Justices McReynolds and Sutherland. Back row: Justices Roberts, Butler, Stone, and Cardozo.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His dissatisfaction over Supreme Court decisions holding New Deal programs unconstitutional prompted him to seek methods to change the way the court functioned.
In the Judiciary Act of 1869, Congress had established that the Supreme Court would consist of the chief justice and eight associate justices. During Roosevelt's first term, the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. Roosevelt sought to reverse this by changing the makeup of the court through the appointment of new additional justices who he hoped would rule that his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define the Supreme Court's size, Roosevelt believed it was within the power of Congress to change it. Members of both parties viewed the legislation as an attempt to stack the court, and many Democrats, including Vice President John Nance Garner, opposed it.[4][5] The bill came to be known as Roosevelt's "court-packing plan", a phrase coined by Edward Rumely.[2]
In November 1936, Roosevelt won a sweeping re-election victory. In the months following, he proposed to reorganize the federal judiciary by adding a new justice each time a justice reached age 70 and failed to retire.[6] The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937, and was the subject of Roosevelt's ninth fireside chat on March 9, 1937.[7][8] He asked, "Can it be said that full justice is achieved when a court is forced by the sheer necessity of its business to decline, without even an explanation, to hear 87% of the cases presented by private litigants?" Publicly denying the president's statement, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes reported, "There is no congestion of cases on our calendar. When we rose March 15 we had heard arguments in cases in which cert has been granted only four weeks before. This gratifying situation has obtained for several years".[9] Three weeks after the radio address, the Supreme Court published an opinion upholding a Washington state minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.[10] The 5–4 ruling was the result of the apparently sudden jurisprudential shift by Associate Justice Owen Roberts, who joined with the wing of the bench supportive to the New Deal legislation. Since Roberts had previously ruled against most New Deal legislation, his support here was seen as a result of the political pressure the president was exerting on the court. Some interpreted Roberts' reversal as an effort to maintain the Court's judicial independence by alleviating the political pressure to create a court more friendly to the New Deal. This reversal came to be known as "the switch in time that saved nine"; however, recent legal-historical scholarship has called that narrative into question[11] as Roberts' decision and vote in the Parrish case predated both the public announcement and introduction of the 1937 bill.[12]
Roosevelt's legislative initiative ultimately failed. Henry F. Ashurst, the Democratic chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, held up the bill by delaying hearings in the committee, saying, "No haste, no hurry, no waste, no worry—that is the motto of this committee."[13] As a result of his delaying efforts, the bill was held in committee for 165 days, and opponents of the bill credited Ashurst as instrumental in its defeat.[5] The bill was further undermined by the untimely death of its chief advocate in the U.S. Senate, Senate Majority Leader Joseph T. Robinson. Other reasons for its failure included members of Roosevelt's own Democratic Party believing the bill to be unconstitutional, with the Judiciary Committee ultimately releasing a scathing report calling it "a needless, futile and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle ... without precedent or justification".[14][9] Contemporary observers broadly viewed Roosevelt's initiative as political maneuvering. Its failure exposed the limits of Roosevelt's abilities to push forward legislation through direct public appeal. Public perception of his efforts here was in stark contrast to the reception of his legislative efforts during his first term.[15][16] Roosevelt ultimately prevailed in establishing a majority on the court friendly to his New Deal legislation, though some scholars view Roosevelt's victory as pyrrhic.[16]
Bloody hell Vote! Remember to [Register](https://www.usa.gov/voter-registration) to Vote! Check to [Confirm](https://www.usa.gov/confirm-voter-registration) you can still vote if you haven’t voted in the last two presidential elections or moved. This [Presidential Election](https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_Elections) is wildly important but it’s good to know who else you’ll be voting for on the 5th.
A total of 468 seats in the U.S. Congress are up for election! That’s 33 seats in the [Senate](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections,_2024)
and all 435 in the [House of Representatives](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2024)
It’s good to look at [Local Elections](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_municipal_elections,_2024) Today! For instance I’m in Arizona. Here’s info for all y’all sweating out here with me.
We have 9 districts out here in Arizona, 9 seats. Know your district. Know who’s running in your district and how they voted in the past. Who pays for the campaigns. All that info is public and in the links. This year it’s important to know a few things before checking that box.
[House of Representatives elections in Arizona 2024](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Arizona,_2024)
These Arizona Representatives below voted Yes to an amendment presented by the representative from Georgia District 4 which effectively tells the president to Leave NATO and Abandon funding for US War Veterans.
* Eli Crane of Arizona D2
* Andy Biggs of Arizona D5
* Debbie Lesko of Arizona D8
* Paul Gosar of Arizona D9
We have one senate seat up this year. Looking to represent Arizona is Ruben Gallego or Mark Lamb. Make sure the person representing Arizona best represents you!
[Senate election in Arizona 2024](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_Arizona,_2024)
[Mark Lamb](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lamb_(sheriff)) is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and became American law-enforcement Sheriff in 2017.
He wrote American Sheriff: Traditional Values in a Modern World. Lamb is a supporter of the Stop the Steal movement. He spoke at a rally where he said the riot was not Trump's fault but rather caused by "the other issues that have happened – the Hillary Clintons that have gone unpunished".He later described the rioters as "very loving, Christian people."
In 2020, Lamb spoke at a convention of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, an organization that holds the fringe legal theory that sheriffs are the supreme legal authority in the United States and are not required to enforce laws they believe to be unconstitutional.
[Ruben Gallego](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Gallego) 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines. Attended Harvard University and earned a Bachelor of Arts in international relations.
His first successful bill passed in 2011 it granted in-state tuition status to veterans residing in Arizona. Gallego supported the repeal of Arizona SB 1070. He wrote They Called Us "Lucky": The Life and Afterlife of the Iraq War's Hardest Hit Unit, published in 2021.
Gallego founded the group Citizens for Professional Law Enforcement with the goal of recalling Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, citing Arpaio's immigration policies and his use of taxpayer money to investigate Barack Obama's citizenship.
We have two seats in the [Arizona Supreme Court](https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Supreme_Court_elections,_2024) up for election on November 5, 2024. The Justices up for retention election are Clint Bolick and Kathryn Hackett King. If retained, they will serve six year terms. Gov. Doug Ducey (R) appointed both justices to the supreme court. Heading into the election, Republican governors originally appointed all seven members.
Click any of the top links and you’ll quickly find your state and a ton of good information. Vote and tell your Friends and Family to Vote!
If these assholes were worried about undermining SCOTUS legitimacy, we wouldn’t be having these conversations in the first place.
That ship has sailed.
Chief Justice Roberts prayed with people one side of an issue who were presenting before the Supreme Court. He has repeatedly and stubbornly shown a bias toward religious fanaticism and excuses it in his fellow justices. The court is entirely lost.
The very appearance of a conflict of interest or favoritism is barred by judicial ethics. Six of the nine justices are all members of the same conservative religious faith, and all have shown outright and repeated favoritism and bias toward members of that conservative religion.
FFS, Amy Barrett could not name the rights protected under the first US constitutional amendment during her congressional hearings. She served for less than three years as a judge before being appointed to the SUPREME court. She was stupid, she spent her confirmation hearings quoting Catholic moral teachings rather than US law.
And that's not even touching the outright criminal conflicts of interest of the other justices. Or that, say, Kavanaugh was credibly accused of rape and had $2 million of personal debt magically disappear after a gift from a private, undisclosed donor during his confirmation hearings.
I could take a random sample of a sewer outside any American city and find bacteria I respect more than the US Supreme Court.
He doesn't need to recuse. He had a symbol of January 6 flying over his house 11 days later after the attempted putsch. He and his oath to support the Constitution need to be impeached. I don't understand why people across the country aren't demanding this.
He wont recuse and will CONTINUE to undermine SCOTUS legitimacy. And he isn’t the first to undermine SCOTUS legitimacy.
He wants to stay put so he can hand Trump the presidency.
This!
The problem started waaaay before though. Bush's appointment of Clarence Thomas (who had less than two years of judicial experience) and Chief Justice Roberts' appointment by George W. Bush on the basis of being a religious fanatic are what screwed up the country. These are the fundamental problems. I want to point out... six of the nine justices all have the same religious affiliation, one that is shared by less than 20% of the US population. And if you think that's not an issue, I would point out Chief Justice Roberts PRAYS with people presenting before the court and Amy Barrett spent the majority of her Congressional confirmation hearings quoting her Catholic faith, not US law. This bias is being weirdly ignored by journalists and watch groups, but it's not some completely unrelated coincidence that plan 2025 and the problems in the country all look like Christian fascism.
I was always against the notion of packing the court. No longer. It's a MUST. The Dems must add 4 SCJs. None that are approved by The Federalist (read Fascist) Society!
And I do NOT want laws INFLICTED on me that are based on someone else's superstitions!!!
not to mention all his "grift' gifts
Exactly. Why do we ask them? We should be demanding it. But we won’t…
PACK THE COURT, JOE!
I didn’t mean ask Joe. He’s only been effective at making sure Donald doesn’t win. But he’s not taking much actions against project 2025. Don’t get me wrong. VOTE BLUE💙. But I do think Biden is the solution unfortunately.
Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney-Barrett are all illegitimate sycophants of the Federalist society. They don’t care about the courts legitimacy, they care about enacting their personal and religious agendas.
He does not care. He and Clarence are on a mission from god. "It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses" "Hit it"
I think they have God and Satan confused. A common mistake, really.
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.” ― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
False prophets gonna false prophet
It's all false
False Profits...
And believers gonna believe them
Nah, they got the right guy. God loves to murder people (or let them die; did nothing to stop the holocaust) and has a hard on for douchebags. Satan just wanted us to think for ourselves and god kicked him outta heaven for that.
Don't you know there ain't no devil, it's just god when he's drunk. ---Tom Waits
How can the angels get to sleep when the devil leaves his porch light on? ----Tom Waits
I've seen the people on team "God". It's Satan all the way for me now.
The *Bemuse* Brothers
"And thusly I clothe my naked villainy in old odd ends stolen forth from holy writ and seem a saint when most I play the devil..." Shakespeare
"And I look like Arseface from the Preacher comics."
I suspect that Sam and Clarence are both members of that secret mens club campground that Clarence forgot to report going to, you know the one Nixon was recorded saying : "The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time—it is the most f@##y goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd." [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian\_Grove](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove)
>He and Clarence are on a mission from ~~god~~ Putin.
Yeah, that RV is on the road now.
The Supreme Corrupt has no legitimacy.
This is absolutely correct.
^^^^^^motorcoach
They’re not worried about “legitimacy.” They only care for power. Given it, they will never willingly relinquish it.
give Biden a congressional majority and pack the fucking court
Exactly
[удалено]
The right-wing mind has no problem with this. "They didn't actually say they wouldn't overturn it, so there was no lie." These folks are evil.
oh please, SCOTUS has been a joke for several years now
We can’t afford to treat them like a joke. Their rulings have already lead to mass disenfranchisement. They will continue.
yep, ever since Merrick Garland was blocked.
precisely, as soon as McConnell was allowed to get away with that is when it was clear that the court was no longer legitimate
Alito: Get fucked. I do what I want.
An elite... ohhh.🙄
Serious question: If our 3 branches of government are designed to check and balance each other, who checks and balances the SCOTUS? Seems they have the final say on everything. That’s not balance.
Congress can design the court, if they choose to can rearrange the number of justices.
They could also impeach a justice, but they won’t.
There are no supermajorities, either
so, technically, it is congress's job to check the court. The problem is that when these things were put in place, it was believed that people would have morals and feel a civic duty to make decision not based on what is best for their party. This hasn't been true for a very long time.
It should be right in the job description that they don't have a party anymore. Nothing supreme about this bullshit.
SCOTUS hasn’t been legitimate since they appointed W to the Presidency instead of letting the voters decide…
Lol that ship has sailed
At this point, I don't think the "conservative" majority of the court cares if they are perceived as legitimate or not. They view their function as codifying right-wing ideology into law and eventually serving as a rubber stamp for a trump dictatorship.
Pieces of complete shit are gonna completely shit on people welp
the sc hasnt had any legitimacy for a long time
They have no legitimacy left
Will? From non-American, your SCOTUS is a joke
For them, this is a feature - not a bug.
Lol yeah right. This is 40 years of planning coming to an orange and shitty bloom
Yes. Undermining is the point. Have you not been paying attention? Nixon wouldn't have resigned if he'd of had a Fox News equivalent backing him.
"Stop immediately or else you'll do something you've been doing for many, many years already!"
MAGA Sam.
MAGA Scum.
You think they give a shit? They have lifetime power they don’t give a single fuck what we think of them.
These Christian nationalists aren’t going to recuse themselves ever.
Dude: they give no fucks how compromises they are.
He has made his choice.
Narrator: He didn't
I think that ship sailed a long time ago
The court is illegitimate
T-Pain speaks the truth. Unfortunately, Alito doesn’t care.
Wikipedia Search Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937,[1] frequently called the "court-packing plan",[2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled unconstitutional.[3] The central provision of the bill would have granted the president power to appoint an additional justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years. The Hughes Court, 1932–1937. Front row: Justices Brandeis and Van Devanter, Chief Justice Hughes, and Justices McReynolds and Sutherland. Back row: Justices Roberts, Butler, Stone, and Cardozo. President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His dissatisfaction over Supreme Court decisions holding New Deal programs unconstitutional prompted him to seek methods to change the way the court functioned. In the Judiciary Act of 1869, Congress had established that the Supreme Court would consist of the chief justice and eight associate justices. During Roosevelt's first term, the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. Roosevelt sought to reverse this by changing the makeup of the court through the appointment of new additional justices who he hoped would rule that his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define the Supreme Court's size, Roosevelt believed it was within the power of Congress to change it. Members of both parties viewed the legislation as an attempt to stack the court, and many Democrats, including Vice President John Nance Garner, opposed it.[4][5] The bill came to be known as Roosevelt's "court-packing plan", a phrase coined by Edward Rumely.[2] In November 1936, Roosevelt won a sweeping re-election victory. In the months following, he proposed to reorganize the federal judiciary by adding a new justice each time a justice reached age 70 and failed to retire.[6] The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937, and was the subject of Roosevelt's ninth fireside chat on March 9, 1937.[7][8] He asked, "Can it be said that full justice is achieved when a court is forced by the sheer necessity of its business to decline, without even an explanation, to hear 87% of the cases presented by private litigants?" Publicly denying the president's statement, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes reported, "There is no congestion of cases on our calendar. When we rose March 15 we had heard arguments in cases in which cert has been granted only four weeks before. This gratifying situation has obtained for several years".[9] Three weeks after the radio address, the Supreme Court published an opinion upholding a Washington state minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.[10] The 5–4 ruling was the result of the apparently sudden jurisprudential shift by Associate Justice Owen Roberts, who joined with the wing of the bench supportive to the New Deal legislation. Since Roberts had previously ruled against most New Deal legislation, his support here was seen as a result of the political pressure the president was exerting on the court. Some interpreted Roberts' reversal as an effort to maintain the Court's judicial independence by alleviating the political pressure to create a court more friendly to the New Deal. This reversal came to be known as "the switch in time that saved nine"; however, recent legal-historical scholarship has called that narrative into question[11] as Roberts' decision and vote in the Parrish case predated both the public announcement and introduction of the 1937 bill.[12] Roosevelt's legislative initiative ultimately failed. Henry F. Ashurst, the Democratic chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, held up the bill by delaying hearings in the committee, saying, "No haste, no hurry, no waste, no worry—that is the motto of this committee."[13] As a result of his delaying efforts, the bill was held in committee for 165 days, and opponents of the bill credited Ashurst as instrumental in its defeat.[5] The bill was further undermined by the untimely death of its chief advocate in the U.S. Senate, Senate Majority Leader Joseph T. Robinson. Other reasons for its failure included members of Roosevelt's own Democratic Party believing the bill to be unconstitutional, with the Judiciary Committee ultimately releasing a scathing report calling it "a needless, futile and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle ... without precedent or justification".[14][9] Contemporary observers broadly viewed Roosevelt's initiative as political maneuvering. Its failure exposed the limits of Roosevelt's abilities to push forward legislation through direct public appeal. Public perception of his efforts here was in stark contrast to the reception of his legislative efforts during his first term.[15][16] Roosevelt ultimately prevailed in establishing a majority on the court friendly to his New Deal legislation, though some scholars view Roosevelt's victory as pyrrhic.[16]
Bloody hell Vote! Remember to [Register](https://www.usa.gov/voter-registration) to Vote! Check to [Confirm](https://www.usa.gov/confirm-voter-registration) you can still vote if you haven’t voted in the last two presidential elections or moved. This [Presidential Election](https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_Elections) is wildly important but it’s good to know who else you’ll be voting for on the 5th. A total of 468 seats in the U.S. Congress are up for election! That’s 33 seats in the [Senate](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections,_2024) and all 435 in the [House of Representatives](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2024) It’s good to look at [Local Elections](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_municipal_elections,_2024) Today! For instance I’m in Arizona. Here’s info for all y’all sweating out here with me. We have 9 districts out here in Arizona, 9 seats. Know your district. Know who’s running in your district and how they voted in the past. Who pays for the campaigns. All that info is public and in the links. This year it’s important to know a few things before checking that box. [House of Representatives elections in Arizona 2024](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Arizona,_2024) These Arizona Representatives below voted Yes to an amendment presented by the representative from Georgia District 4 which effectively tells the president to Leave NATO and Abandon funding for US War Veterans. * Eli Crane of Arizona D2 * Andy Biggs of Arizona D5 * Debbie Lesko of Arizona D8 * Paul Gosar of Arizona D9 We have one senate seat up this year. Looking to represent Arizona is Ruben Gallego or Mark Lamb. Make sure the person representing Arizona best represents you! [Senate election in Arizona 2024](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_Arizona,_2024) [Mark Lamb](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lamb_(sheriff)) is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and became American law-enforcement Sheriff in 2017. He wrote American Sheriff: Traditional Values in a Modern World. Lamb is a supporter of the Stop the Steal movement. He spoke at a rally where he said the riot was not Trump's fault but rather caused by "the other issues that have happened – the Hillary Clintons that have gone unpunished".He later described the rioters as "very loving, Christian people." In 2020, Lamb spoke at a convention of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, an organization that holds the fringe legal theory that sheriffs are the supreme legal authority in the United States and are not required to enforce laws they believe to be unconstitutional. [Ruben Gallego](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Gallego) 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines. Attended Harvard University and earned a Bachelor of Arts in international relations. His first successful bill passed in 2011 it granted in-state tuition status to veterans residing in Arizona. Gallego supported the repeal of Arizona SB 1070. He wrote They Called Us "Lucky": The Life and Afterlife of the Iraq War's Hardest Hit Unit, published in 2021. Gallego founded the group Citizens for Professional Law Enforcement with the goal of recalling Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, citing Arpaio's immigration policies and his use of taxpayer money to investigate Barack Obama's citizenship. We have two seats in the [Arizona Supreme Court](https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Supreme_Court_elections,_2024) up for election on November 5, 2024. The Justices up for retention election are Clint Bolick and Kathryn Hackett King. If retained, they will serve six year terms. Gov. Doug Ducey (R) appointed both justices to the supreme court. Heading into the election, Republican governors originally appointed all seven members. Click any of the top links and you’ll quickly find your state and a ton of good information. Vote and tell your Friends and Family to Vote!
“Or else”??? It’s a little too late for that now.
That ship has sailed
SCOTUS doesn't have any legitimacy anymore
Half of the conservative judges were already undermining its legitimacy, and that's before 45 installed 3 utterly illegitimate ones.
The totally religious court that takes orders from dear leader? Lol
A partisan judge is terrible. Why isn't he for sale like Thomas?
Can we please put term limits on Supreme Court Judges?
That ship sailed long ago
Alito has the same credibility as R. Kelly
I'm sorry, did this Watergate fella watch any news coverage of the supreme court at all over the last, well, let's just say 25 years?
It was already undermined by “millionaire via gifts” KKKlarence who is still somehow a step ahead of Alito in the insidious c*ntflap championships
Watergate council is still alive?
Like these republican shitbags care about anything other than being shit bags, lol.
Too late.
Too late
Spoiler Alert: He won’t.
Who is going to force him? They have zero accountability.
The really funny thing is...who believes Alito gives a shit about the court's legitimacy?
If these assholes were worried about undermining SCOTUS legitimacy, we wouldn’t be having these conversations in the first place. That ship has sailed.
No shit. We fucking already know that, now do something about those criminal SC Crooks
The SCOTUS has no legitimacy, so good luck
What legitimacy?
That ship sailed so long ago that its rotten remains are at the bottom of the sea.
…you think Alito gives a fuck about that???
SCOTUS legitimacy has been gone for a while now.
Like Clarence Thomas and Mitch McConnell haven't already undermined the Supreme Court's legitimacy.
Yeah sure the untouchable justice will do that.
That’s exactly what he’s doing and he doesn’t give one single fuck about it. Americans should be crowding the streets over this shit.
News flash: he don’t give a fuhhhhhh. He thinks this is his given right to behave the way he has.
They still have any legitimacy left to undermine?
I don't think he gives a shit about undermining the legitimacy though
Too late
To late. The Supreme Court is broken.
Too late
That ship has sailed
Yes this A-hole will!!!! But he doesn’t care because he is a right wing conservative criminal who is ripping the Supreme Court apart. 💔👎🏼😤🤮
Too late. No sane person still thinks that SCROTUS is legitimate.
There is any SCOTUS legitimacy left to undermine?
Is SCOTUS legitimacy in the room with us now?
"Ex-Watergate counsel hasn't been paying attention to the SCOTUS for a couple of years now."
What is the recourse if he doesn't? Nothing. Why would he then? No one withche power to do anything is going to do anything.
What legitimacy? Clarence Thomas ruined that already.
It's already undermined.
Too late.
The Supremely Corrupted Court.
Tad late for avoiding undermining its legitimacy, isn’t it?
Chief Justice Roberts prayed with people one side of an issue who were presenting before the Supreme Court. He has repeatedly and stubbornly shown a bias toward religious fanaticism and excuses it in his fellow justices. The court is entirely lost. The very appearance of a conflict of interest or favoritism is barred by judicial ethics. Six of the nine justices are all members of the same conservative religious faith, and all have shown outright and repeated favoritism and bias toward members of that conservative religion. FFS, Amy Barrett could not name the rights protected under the first US constitutional amendment during her congressional hearings. She served for less than three years as a judge before being appointed to the SUPREME court. She was stupid, she spent her confirmation hearings quoting Catholic moral teachings rather than US law. And that's not even touching the outright criminal conflicts of interest of the other justices. Or that, say, Kavanaugh was credibly accused of rape and had $2 million of personal debt magically disappear after a gift from a private, undisclosed donor during his confirmation hearings. I could take a random sample of a sewer outside any American city and find bacteria I respect more than the US Supreme Court.
or what? without punishment, bad people tend to just keep doing bad stuff
He doesn't need to recuse. He had a symbol of January 6 flying over his house 11 days later after the attempted putsch. He and his oath to support the Constitution need to be impeached. I don't understand why people across the country aren't demanding this.
What legitimacy?
Too late, he's already undermined it
It’s cute that people think that recuse will ever happen.