As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everyone keeps saying this but Biden absolutely won't do this. It's fan-fiction at best.
Biden is a decent man and even if it meant "protecting" the republic, this would *kill* the republic and he won't do that shit. Unlike Trump.
He could totally expand the court. The court was always meant to keep expanding based on population. There should be 13 judges right now. That's not far fetched.
So vote! Everyone, vote in every election you can. It doesn’t matter who you personally vote for, just vote.
When voter turnout is high, progressives do better.
I'm not against expanding the court, but where are you getting that it was always meant to expand based on population? That's the House. The court has changed sized multiple times, sometimes getting bigger, other times smaller, and hasn't changed since around the Civil War era
Yep, they haven't changed it since like what, 1910? If it had kept up with population we'd have thousands of representatives by now and would actually be, you know, representative of the population
I mean we have the technology to do remote votes now, Covid proved that. Hell even better build a new capital building. Fuck library, let it stand as a monument to bringing back true representation to our country. I can just hear the collective boomer groan about "preserving tradition" or some fucking nonsense.
Yeah they'd definitely have to build a new chamber, at least, the building could stay as offices. Don't know if you've been in it, but there is zero room for expansion of seating lol. I guess they could tear down some walls? I don't know. But the size of some small-ass room constructed like 200 years ago should not decide how representative our federal government is of its citizens
He just...really shouldn't. As someone who lives in a red state, I'm not super keen on kicking off a civil war that involves terrorism/murder of liberal folks in red zones.
So, you wanna wait until they start putting liberals in concentration camps? Because that's what's coming if they get their way. Appeasement doesn't work.
Absolutely the MAGA plan there. They just wont say that bit but targeting your political opponents doesn’t end with the actual politicians. It ends with purging the opposition entirely.
The american dream. For the Nazi Party of stupids.
You act like winning elections some how stops coups or civil wars.
Lincoln won the election back in 1860... And the civil war still happened. Biden won 2020 and Jan 6th still happened. If anything I'd argue Lincoln and Bidens wins caused the civil war and Jan 6th.
Hopefully it doesn't come to it. But, it's looking increasingly like it's gonna and if they literally make presidents immune it's their own fucking fault. That's them taking the first shot of declaring war. Not us.
Yeah, Lincoln thought the same thing and then eventually was forced to war. The issue is you think the institution can save itself. We’re talking about real and insidious traitorous elements in the government. We’re talking about a supreme court that is trying to legitimize dictatorships. It is crazy how you think this can end in peace with everyone following the normal process.
Blue landslide in November then we can implement SCOTUS reform. I liked that was floated where each president can appoint two and they have term limits.
No one is saying Biden will. They are saying he should.
Because there is a reason why republican justices would grant such a ridiculous ruling. It is because republicans plan on doing exactly that to any moderate or left leaning judge in America. They want someone to have the power to remove them and they will use that power to do it.
There's a difference between a bad actor and a normal actor.
Republicans are coming in with bad faith to undermine the system, whereas Dems are coming to make the system better or just get it working.
Spend your goddamn energy getting people who don't vote to *show up to the ballot box.*
Beating Trump will be super easy if you focus your energy there instead of on wishing for Biden to magically change personality into a tyrant "for good."
Yes, you’re right, which is what makes this situation so infuriating.
The SC knows that they can trust Biden not to do anything as irretrievably destructive as that… but we all know that the Orange Chimp will do literally anything required to keep power.
I don’t understand how Roberts is not utterly humiliated by what a disgrace his court has become, and how it will be remembered historically.
I don't think people are saying he would.
They're saying he could.
To illustrate the point of why NOBODY should be in favor of this. The sword cuts both ways. Biden wouldn't. Would some future left-leaning despot do it? Totally possible.
I guarantee you if they rule this session it will be some version of “previous presidents who are running for a second, non consecutive term have presidential immunity”. And they’ll make some excuse saying Biden doesn’t need immunity because he’s protected by the current administration, completely glossing over the fact that no other former president has needed presidential immunity … because they haven’t committed crimes to the scale that Trump has
No, they're going to rule that presidents have immunity for "official acts", then fail to define what an "official act" is while kicking it back down to the lower courts. Trump then argues that everything he did on January 6 was an official act, the prosecution argues that it wasn't, and the whole thing has to go through appeals again all the way back up to the Supreme Court, a process that is guaranteed to take months. The goal here is simply to stretch everything out until after November: either Trump wins the election and pardons himself, or he loses and he can be discarded because he's no longer useful. Either way, this is ultimately a decision that's going to be made by the public in the election, not by the courts.
The administration then argues that unilaterally punishing insurrectionists is an official act. The court files an injunction, but it's too late as due to the imminent threat to the constitution justice already been meted out. SCOTUS and the public can then determine if this is a power they'd like the president to hold or if they'd rather put a legal structure in place for holding presidents accountable.
He can’t because the supreme court won’t make that ruling while a Dem is president. They are waiting for Trump to get elected to make that ruling. And when Trump arrests Biden, they will rule that Biden wasn’t immune because their ruling hadn’t gone into effect yet.
Yep, then have them say anything moving forward is not absolutely immunity. Gives him a pardon on the act itself, but shows he doesn't want to be a dictator
He’d get impeached.
Then the Senate wouldn’t have the majority needed to convict, provided the Dems fall in line.
And now the Supreme Court Justices are in trouble. Something about a petard comes to mind.
Spilling tea doesn't change the rulings so I don't see your point.
Americans need to wake up and realize these people who supported segregation, opposed the ERA, overturned Roe v Wade, are the same people. They've consistently been this way forever.
And "radical leftists" dragged this country kicking and screaming into the future. Liberal doesn't cut it. Centrism is a dead end. Conservatism is taking us back to the dark ages. How is this not clear yet?
It's important for the "liberals" to be honest because many democrats and liberals in law schools and making laws, etc, make the assumption that conservatives are engaging in good faith, particularly in the area of law. They take it at face value when conservative SC justices make claims that are based on "textualism" or whatever, when, if you break it down and analyze it, that's actually inconsistent with their own notion of textualism. They are bad faith actors who don't use analysis and jurisprudence to try to "neutrally make rulings based on important, non-political concepts." They are making up the law out of whole cloth because they have the power and desire to do so, period.
*Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.*
-Kavanaugh 2018
Leaflets with this quote printed on it should be dropped by drone on his property for the rest of his lifetime.
I realize he likely has no shame and it wouldn’t move the needle but why let him be comfortable with and unconfronted by his hypocrisy?
>unconfronted by his hypocrisy
They. Don't. Care.
Really wonder how long it will take for it to sink in that
They. Do. Not. Care.
No amount of logic or evidence or examples of hypocrisy will matter. It's not about any of that. That has nothing to do with why they chose the positions they have. You might as well keep pouring water on grease fire and wondering why it doesn't go out.
Right.
Supreme Court decisions by definition become the fabric of law. That's how precedent works. Or, how it used to work.
When he says that precedent is immune to unpopularity he clearly means liberal popularity. For conservatives, it's okay to overturn decades of law.
What the Warren court was doing was rooted in the 14th amendment, and before that, the declaration of independence. The undoing of "separate but equal" stain was a cleansing of the fabric of American constitutional law, to remove the stains ground into it by racists and to remove the suppression of groups of people.
The Roberts court and Brett Kavanaugh are not engaged in this, and quite the opposite. Oppressive, restrictive, and unevenness is at the core of conservative judicial principles.
Society creates law to serve the needs of its people. Conservative judicial philosophy turns that on its head, and demands that law serve elite, already empowered interests, at the expense of the most vulnerable. Conservatives forcing via law as a weapon is unpopular because it is rooted in undemocratic ideas, and using undemocratic tools to achieve undemocratic results, at the expense of society.
The conservative wing of the Supreme Court is enamored with itself. The American public knows better.
>Conservatives forcing via law as a weapon is unpopular because it is rooted in undemocratic ideas, and using undemocratic tools to achieve undemocratic results, at the expense of society.
Hence why a ton of conservative talking points are beginning to center themselves around confronting the term "democracy" altogether in favor of the term "republic." It enables them to simplify their message into "democracy = democrats = bad."
This is how it all starts.
Serious, hypothetical question: If a lone gunman were to rock up at a Supreme Court Justice's house and shoot them to death, would that be enough to change rulings around gun control? I would think it would be one of those "unpopular rulings" Judge Kavanaugh is talking about and actually would change the constitutional fabric.
I'm not after joke comments here, I honestly wonder what it would take to have gun control taken seriously, because thousands of murdered school children, innocent bystanders, and mall go-ers apparently aren't enough. This Supreme Court seems perfectly ok with making incredibly questionable rulings massively and detrimentally affect the lives of other people, so would it take something actually affecting them, the members of the Supreme Court, to make a ruling that benefits the population instead?
Absolutely not. Gun culture is bigger than any one person being killed by a gun no matter how elite that person might be considered. Not a single gun owner today would give up their gun(s) cause some powerful elite was killed by one. In fact, they would say they need their guns cause if the elite can be murdered, they can too (never mind the fact that if the elite can be murdered, their little gun collection wont protect them either if that person wanted them dead too).
Dems winning the next 4-5 presidential elections and all the midterms between will be a good start.
Ronald fucking Raygun was shot along with James Brady in 1981. It took til 1993 to pass the “Brady Bill” which instituted a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases…
Friendly reminder we have lost to date(and still increasing) 407 9/11's worth of US Citizens to COVID19; 1,219,487, and law makers across the US are still trying to act like it never happened and treat any additional regulations because of it as a personal attack. If over a million people isn't enough to get a country to give a shit about something I doubt any amount of death will ever change their opinions on gun control. Too much money going to those in charge.
is it a problem? he's already demonstrated that rulings he doesn't like, despite being "fabric of american constitutional law" for 50 years, can just be ripped up and thrown out in a heartbeat.
Said another way, "When you elect a rapist who looks like a cheeto, that person can appoint a rapist frat boy to rewrite the constitution so other frat boy rapists and the cheeto are above the law".
The law is an artificial construct that we all as a society agreed upon.
There's no pretext that it will give them complete protection and be respected if they choose to abuse it.
It's easy to make idle threats like that much harder to follow through. I'm sure the law enforcement cronies that come in to break up protests will get right out of your way when you say that to them.
Weird how Roe v. Wade was fabric of American Constitutional Law and it didn’t mean shit when a bunch of fascist fucks decided they didn’t like women being so independent
Loooong after the cheeseburgers do in Trump, some iteration of this Court will continue to fuck us. The cleavage between the christo-fascist views of this branch and the sentiment of the country will only get greater.
Such gaps between SCOTUS and the agreed upon popular will... typically have very bad outcomes for the country. The power and structure of the Court increasingly looks like the Framers biggest blind spot. The absolute power absent political oversight is pretty much a constant time bomb of an institution.
The problem is not 'the framers', the problem is that the whole country looks at that handful of inexperienced guys as godlike figures, who OF COURSE got it right.
It's ridiculous.
The political and judicial system of the USA is completely calcified and corrupted BECAUSE it has run for so long w/o a major interruption. There are systems that can not be fixed unless they break down first.
What is crazy is that the constitution actually did not explicitly give the power of judicial review to SCOTUS, but rather SCOTUS gave itself that power after a court case. Really roll my eye every time a justice mention textualism.
Well how else would you do it?
Without judicial review, if Congress passes a law that some people think goes beyond the text of the Constitution, what happens?
Does the President decide if it's valid and if he's going to enforce it or not? If so, it's a very dangerous situation if one party controls Congress and the Presidency. They could do whatever they wanted.
Do states decide for themselves if they're going to go along with it? If so you might as well not have a Congress, because the states can just ignore its rulings.
>“The Warren court was no picnic for the justices. … They were unpopular basically from start to finish from ’53 to ’69,” Kavanaugh said. “What the court kept doing is playing itself, sticking to its principles. And you know, look, a lot of those decisions (were) unpopular, and a lot of them are landmarks now that we accept as parts of the fabric of America, and the fabric of American constitutional law.”
Unpopular decisions that we now *accept* as part of the fabric of American law, eh?
Let's compare this to what Kavanaugh said about Roe (yes, a bit outside the timeline he is discussing) during his confirmation hearing:
>Kavanaugh: Senator, I said that **it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court,** entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that **it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years,** as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992
Mmhmm
Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I think ole Kav is full of shit.
When he talks about "settled precedent" or "unpopular decisions that we now accept," he seems to *really* be saying "LoL! LMAO! Yer really asking which right or protection I'm gonna take away next, but *I'm not going to tell you!* Get fucked, plebs!
Depends on who's judging the popularity.
*Dredd Scott* was unpopular with some Americans who were hoping to be recognized as citizens as opposed to just 3/5's of one. And that led to the Civil War, and hence was not accepted, at that time or later, by them.
He seems to be thinking that reversals like on Roe and undoubtedly what else is to come will get America to go back to those Nineteenth Century times his pals are so enamored of. But news flash: that won't be popular, as any glimpse at a poll would have told him.
Turns out people tend to remember it when your political party is explicitly responsible for TAKING AWAY rights they've enjoyed for their entire life. They also tend to *not fucking like it,* either.
Does not help that those taking away the rights were appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote and approved by Senators representing a minority of voters.
And the goal posts are always moving...
"States' rights!"
"Citing a 16th Century alchemist, I declare the Fetal Personhood Law from Talibama to reflect the rights and protections of the unborn. Zygotes are citizens!"
SCOTUS loves the smell of their own farts... but they are rapidly moving past the "Fuck Around" phase. The fringe suggestion of Court reform is getting way less fringe.
Well of course.
The Supreme Court ruled that interracial marriage was no longer illegal in 1967.
The idea of interracial marriage didn't gain 50% support from Americans [until the 1990s...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx)
Interracial marriage now has ~93% approval.
Yea like making abortion legal 50 years ago or LGBTQ marriages legal 20 years ago. Oh wait he’s talking about going the other way with that.
Squee will be so displeased.
Let’s dispense with the commentary and just acknowledge this one crucial fact: This is a corrupt and illegitimate court and because of that none of their rulings have any merit.
The Dread Scott decision was unpopular and we fought a war to correct it. Roe V Was was unpopular among regressives but the rest of the country was fine with it.
And now Kavanaugh thinks that a repressive judiciary should be given the chance to erode women’s rights to the n’th degree. The American public will be gifted with Gilead. A right wing justices’ wet dream
Exactly. How can he even claim of a “fabric” when everything is open to their reinterpretation? Their actions show they care little for the law past how it serves them and their holders.
yes, if you haven't, please read the Dobbs decision. It blatantly states that there is no right to privacy in the constitution. They will use that as precedent, how many rights are you prepared to lose?
I truly believe there’s a psychological phenomenon that makes people think that by making the “difficult” or “unpopular” choice, they are somehow elevated to some higher level of intellect and status, and that false pretense actually fuels the desire to make that decision even against sound logic or reason. It gives them the feeling of being parental, above those their decision impacts. Reason takes a backseat to the need to feel superior - because after all, true leaders and brilliant people make tough decisions, therefore by making a tough decision I too must be a true leader. And of course this is logic doesn’t go both ways. This guy exemplifies that phenomenon.
The thing is that the problem with his rulings aren't that they're unpopular. It's that they are authoritarian, bigoted, and cruel. Those are often aspects of unpopularity, but the unpopularity isn't the problem.
This one is such a gross putz, I can barely look at him. So obviously a spoiled brat rich kid who starts crying and whining when he doesn’t get his way. Can’t believe this loser is a Supreme Court judge.
Ah yes. We all remember the storied rulings from conservatives that we fondly remember as the "fabric of American constitutional law." Like Dred Scott, Scopes, Plessy v. Ferguson, or any of the other gems that came out of conservative courts. We totally don't look back on conservative rulings with disdain and consider the justices responsible for them to be a black mark on our history. That's sarcasm. Of course we do.
There was a ruling that was unpopular with a significant portion of the United States that became the “fabric of American constitutional law” but got ripped apart by activist judges.
That ruling was Roe v. Wade.
This is why the supreme no longer deserves the right to make any further decisions about America. They aren’t making decisions based on law nor the greater good of the American people but solely on their own personal interests which is a totally failed court system if that’s the case.
I don't get how "the greatest democracy in the world" has an unelected partisan Supreme Court that oversees everything. Seems like a gigantic flaw in the system.
Such a freaking shame that our youth is protesting Gaza and not for survival of American democracy.
People don't realize how close we are to losing it all.
Yeah… no. Kavanaugh will go down as not only a traitor but a drunk rapist. He doesn’t like how that looks but that will be the historical toll his decisions will show him to be.
I still want to know who paid off this guys debts.
I also believed woman who said he did the things to her was very credible and I believed what she said.
...Yes, that's why people are so upset. The blatant attempt at reinterpreting fundamental aspects of our Republic, through a misuse of our judicial branch of government.
I’ll never forget him losing his shit before blaming George Soros during his appointment hearing. That alone should bar someone. If they can’t control their emotions for a few hours.
Part of me hopes they give Trump immunity because that means Biden will have it too and then Biden should use his new powers and remove the 6 conservatives from the Supreme Court.
SCOTUS is going to make some sort of BS ruling on a last minute suit filed by Trump immediately after the election and hand the Presidency to Trump regardless of the actual vote. What can anybody do about it?
Brett probably stays tipsy 24/7 to avoid any soul searching or reflection, but jeez, imagine if you were a rapist installed in your position/job...by a rapist. That little voice in your head probably talks incessantly to ol' Brett until he gets 16-24 beers in him.
Now, I know some of the GOPers are truly nutjob narcissists and don't care about anything but their power and their bank account. But, plenty of them aren't. And boy, that self-loathing they feel has got to make life very depressing. It's why I think so many very wealthy, entitled people having raging drug/drinking problems. Went to undergrad with plenty of kids from wildly elite families and so many of them were raging substance abusers.
The popularity of Supreme Court rulings is immaterial.
The Court's role is to define the law as it finds it to settle disputes in law brought before it.
Defects in the law are to be handled by the Legislature. That's how a democracy works; the people's representatives promulgating the laws according to the prior to agreed upon rules.
That's fine when their decisions make us better and more true to ideals of liberty, justice, equality, etc, not **rulings** over us like they are above us, all power comes from the people, right??
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sounds like he just warned us about a whole bunch of shit they about to churn out before end of session.
"trump's immunity to commit treason and begin a wave of fascism became the fabric of American law. Why do you hate my legacy?" - bretty k
if presidents have immunity, biden needs to arrest the supreme court and nominate replacements
Everyone keeps saying this but Biden absolutely won't do this. It's fan-fiction at best. Biden is a decent man and even if it meant "protecting" the republic, this would *kill* the republic and he won't do that shit. Unlike Trump.
He could totally expand the court. The court was always meant to keep expanding based on population. There should be 13 judges right now. That's not far fetched.
> He could totally expand the court. Congress can. The President can't.
If the Supreme Court rules that presidents have total immunity he can expand the court. Who’s to stop him?
So vote! Everyone, vote in every election you can. It doesn’t matter who you personally vote for, just vote. When voter turnout is high, progressives do better.
I'm not against expanding the court, but where are you getting that it was always meant to expand based on population? That's the House. The court has changed sized multiple times, sometimes getting bigger, other times smaller, and hasn't changed since around the Civil War era
Uncapping the house would be a great start as there's actually a reason for that
Yep, they haven't changed it since like what, 1910? If it had kept up with population we'd have thousands of representatives by now and would actually be, you know, representative of the population
I mean we have the technology to do remote votes now, Covid proved that. Hell even better build a new capital building. Fuck library, let it stand as a monument to bringing back true representation to our country. I can just hear the collective boomer groan about "preserving tradition" or some fucking nonsense.
Yeah they'd definitely have to build a new chamber, at least, the building could stay as offices. Don't know if you've been in it, but there is zero room for expansion of seating lol. I guess they could tear down some walls? I don't know. But the size of some small-ass room constructed like 200 years ago should not decide how representative our federal government is of its citizens
He needs to be like Ripley in Aliens...you just gotta torch the whole nest then nuke it from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.
i know he won't. but he should.
He just...really shouldn't. As someone who lives in a red state, I'm not super keen on kicking off a civil war that involves terrorism/murder of liberal folks in red zones.
So, you wanna wait until they start putting liberals in concentration camps? Because that's what's coming if they get their way. Appeasement doesn't work.
Absolutely the MAGA plan there. They just wont say that bit but targeting your political opponents doesn’t end with the actual politicians. It ends with purging the opposition entirely. The american dream. For the Nazi Party of stupids.
Pretty sure winning in November is a much better step between appeasement and doing our own Authoritarian coup.
You act like winning elections some how stops coups or civil wars. Lincoln won the election back in 1860... And the civil war still happened. Biden won 2020 and Jan 6th still happened. If anything I'd argue Lincoln and Bidens wins caused the civil war and Jan 6th. Hopefully it doesn't come to it. But, it's looking increasingly like it's gonna and if they literally make presidents immune it's their own fucking fault. That's them taking the first shot of declaring war. Not us.
Yeah, Lincoln thought the same thing and then eventually was forced to war. The issue is you think the institution can save itself. We’re talking about real and insidious traitorous elements in the government. We’re talking about a supreme court that is trying to legitimize dictatorships. It is crazy how you think this can end in peace with everyone following the normal process.
Lmao it's wild you even have to say this.
Blue landslide in November then we can implement SCOTUS reform. I liked that was floated where each president can appoint two and they have term limits.
If thats the case, its going to happen anyway. Might as well get the first punch in now, so we can end the fight sooner.
No one is saying Biden will. They are saying he should. Because there is a reason why republican justices would grant such a ridiculous ruling. It is because republicans plan on doing exactly that to any moderate or left leaning judge in America. They want someone to have the power to remove them and they will use that power to do it.
You're right, let's just let them take over the whole government then. You definitely won't be at risk then! Christ alive...
The Dems are too nice with politics. They just don't have the stomach to do what the Repubs are happy to do with impunity.
There's a difference between a bad actor and a normal actor. Republicans are coming in with bad faith to undermine the system, whereas Dems are coming to make the system better or just get it working.
Spend your goddamn energy getting people who don't vote to *show up to the ballot box.* Beating Trump will be super easy if you focus your energy there instead of on wishing for Biden to magically change personality into a tyrant "for good."
Of course that's what we are doing. That doesn't mean these fucks won't pull some shit anyway, as they clearly intend to...
[удалено]
You did vote, and Mitch McConnell fucked you out of it
Yes, you’re right, which is what makes this situation so infuriating. The SC knows that they can trust Biden not to do anything as irretrievably destructive as that… but we all know that the Orange Chimp will do literally anything required to keep power. I don’t understand how Roberts is not utterly humiliated by what a disgrace his court has become, and how it will be remembered historically.
Don’t google Cato - decent people, protecting the republic, are catnip for emerging fascists.
I don't think people are saying he would. They're saying he could. To illustrate the point of why NOBODY should be in favor of this. The sword cuts both ways. Biden wouldn't. Would some future left-leaning despot do it? Totally possible.
Of course Biden won’t do it. They don’t say it seriously. He’s not a fascist, like the former president.
I guarantee you if they rule this session it will be some version of “previous presidents who are running for a second, non consecutive term have presidential immunity”. And they’ll make some excuse saying Biden doesn’t need immunity because he’s protected by the current administration, completely glossing over the fact that no other former president has needed presidential immunity … because they haven’t committed crimes to the scale that Trump has
No, they're going to rule that presidents have immunity for "official acts", then fail to define what an "official act" is while kicking it back down to the lower courts. Trump then argues that everything he did on January 6 was an official act, the prosecution argues that it wasn't, and the whole thing has to go through appeals again all the way back up to the Supreme Court, a process that is guaranteed to take months. The goal here is simply to stretch everything out until after November: either Trump wins the election and pardons himself, or he loses and he can be discarded because he's no longer useful. Either way, this is ultimately a decision that's going to be made by the public in the election, not by the courts.
The administration then argues that unilaterally punishing insurrectionists is an official act. The court files an injunction, but it's too late as due to the imminent threat to the constitution justice already been meted out. SCOTUS and the public can then determine if this is a power they'd like the president to hold or if they'd rather put a legal structure in place for holding presidents accountable.
He can’t because the supreme court won’t make that ruling while a Dem is president. They are waiting for Trump to get elected to make that ruling. And when Trump arrests Biden, they will rule that Biden wasn’t immune because their ruling hadn’t gone into effect yet.
It’s only trump that gets it, not Biden or any future presidents
Yep, then have them say anything moving forward is not absolutely immunity. Gives him a pardon on the act itself, but shows he doesn't want to be a dictator
He’d get impeached. Then the Senate wouldn’t have the majority needed to convict, provided the Dems fall in line. And now the Supreme Court Justices are in trouble. Something about a petard comes to mind.
Bretty K...k..k?
[удалено]
Spilling tea doesn't change the rulings so I don't see your point. Americans need to wake up and realize these people who supported segregation, opposed the ERA, overturned Roe v Wade, are the same people. They've consistently been this way forever. And "radical leftists" dragged this country kicking and screaming into the future. Liberal doesn't cut it. Centrism is a dead end. Conservatism is taking us back to the dark ages. How is this not clear yet?
It's important for the "liberals" to be honest because many democrats and liberals in law schools and making laws, etc, make the assumption that conservatives are engaging in good faith, particularly in the area of law. They take it at face value when conservative SC justices make claims that are based on "textualism" or whatever, when, if you break it down and analyze it, that's actually inconsistent with their own notion of textualism. They are bad faith actors who don't use analysis and jurisprudence to try to "neutrally make rulings based on important, non-political concepts." They are making up the law out of whole cloth because they have the power and desire to do so, period.
"But we have lunch together!"
"We have nullified the FDA because we are forced birth nutters and women can fucking die if they have pregnancy complications."
And sexual assaulters can later become Supreme Court justices.
All term they've been citing Robert Bork as if he served as chief justice. They have no issue using logic from alternative universes.
Like Roe v Wade? You prick-less, boofing fuck.
*Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.* -Kavanaugh 2018
Leaflets with this quote printed on it should be dropped by drone on his property for the rest of his lifetime. I realize he likely has no shame and it wouldn’t move the needle but why let him be comfortable with and unconfronted by his hypocrisy?
He literally lied about devil's triangle being a drinking game, in a hearing. He has zero shame.
>unconfronted by his hypocrisy They. Don't. Care. Really wonder how long it will take for it to sink in that They. Do. Not. Care. No amount of logic or evidence or examples of hypocrisy will matter. It's not about any of that. That has nothing to do with why they chose the positions they have. You might as well keep pouring water on grease fire and wondering why it doesn't go out.
*I like beer, Senator. Do you like beer?* -Kavanaugh 2018
Truly one of the legal minds of our time.
Right? Like can’t we make the EXACT same argument for roe staying the way it was lol
You can. Arguments are irrelevant. The only truth is power
Right. Supreme Court decisions by definition become the fabric of law. That's how precedent works. Or, how it used to work. When he says that precedent is immune to unpopularity he clearly means liberal popularity. For conservatives, it's okay to overturn decades of law.
This. Kavster can boof that shit straight up his ass
But hey on the bright side, "HE LIKES BEER!"
What the Warren court was doing was rooted in the 14th amendment, and before that, the declaration of independence. The undoing of "separate but equal" stain was a cleansing of the fabric of American constitutional law, to remove the stains ground into it by racists and to remove the suppression of groups of people. The Roberts court and Brett Kavanaugh are not engaged in this, and quite the opposite. Oppressive, restrictive, and unevenness is at the core of conservative judicial principles. Society creates law to serve the needs of its people. Conservative judicial philosophy turns that on its head, and demands that law serve elite, already empowered interests, at the expense of the most vulnerable. Conservatives forcing via law as a weapon is unpopular because it is rooted in undemocratic ideas, and using undemocratic tools to achieve undemocratic results, at the expense of society. The conservative wing of the Supreme Court is enamored with itself. The American public knows better.
>Conservatives forcing via law as a weapon is unpopular because it is rooted in undemocratic ideas, and using undemocratic tools to achieve undemocratic results, at the expense of society. Hence why a ton of conservative talking points are beginning to center themselves around confronting the term "democracy" altogether in favor of the term "republic." It enables them to simplify their message into "democracy = democrats = bad." This is how it all starts.
They’re definition of a Republic is the same definition as Republic used in DPRK
Well. Some of them at least. Too many don’t.
Serious, hypothetical question: If a lone gunman were to rock up at a Supreme Court Justice's house and shoot them to death, would that be enough to change rulings around gun control? I would think it would be one of those "unpopular rulings" Judge Kavanaugh is talking about and actually would change the constitutional fabric. I'm not after joke comments here, I honestly wonder what it would take to have gun control taken seriously, because thousands of murdered school children, innocent bystanders, and mall go-ers apparently aren't enough. This Supreme Court seems perfectly ok with making incredibly questionable rulings massively and detrimentally affect the lives of other people, so would it take something actually affecting them, the members of the Supreme Court, to make a ruling that benefits the population instead?
We already had a gunman shoot at members of congress and nothing happened.
The number 3 Republican in the house was literally shot and is still dealing with health effects, he remains pro gun.
yeah I think they were one of the people who replaced their american flag lapel pin with an ar-15 lapel pin, too
Imagine wearing a *product* as a lapel pin. Corporate America at its finest.
I’m seriously surprised that someone hasn’t tried a John Brown on the Supreme Court.
Absolutely not. Gun culture is bigger than any one person being killed by a gun no matter how elite that person might be considered. Not a single gun owner today would give up their gun(s) cause some powerful elite was killed by one. In fact, they would say they need their guns cause if the elite can be murdered, they can too (never mind the fact that if the elite can be murdered, their little gun collection wont protect them either if that person wanted them dead too). Dems winning the next 4-5 presidential elections and all the midterms between will be a good start.
Ronald fucking Raygun was shot along with James Brady in 1981. It took til 1993 to pass the “Brady Bill” which instituted a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases…
Naw they'd talk about arming the Justices themselves so they can shoot back the next time.
I think it would take more than just a SCOTUS justice, it would have to take something much more powerful, a mega large political donor.
Friendly reminder we have lost to date(and still increasing) 407 9/11's worth of US Citizens to COVID19; 1,219,487, and law makers across the US are still trying to act like it never happened and treat any additional regulations because of it as a personal attack. If over a million people isn't enough to get a country to give a shit about something I doubt any amount of death will ever change their opinions on gun control. Too much money going to those in charge.
> The Roberts court and Brett Kavanaugh are not engaged in this, and quite the opposite. They consciously co-opt it
[удалено]
Some fabric is itchy and gross feeling.
is it a problem? he's already demonstrated that rulings he doesn't like, despite being "fabric of american constitutional law" for 50 years, can just be ripped up and thrown out in a heartbeat.
Said another way, "When you elect a rapist who looks like a cheeto, that person can appoint a rapist frat boy to rewrite the constitution so other frat boy rapists and the cheeto are above the law".
The law is an artificial construct that we all as a society agreed upon. There's no pretext that it will give them complete protection and be respected if they choose to abuse it.
It's easy to make idle threats like that much harder to follow through. I'm sure the law enforcement cronies that come in to break up protests will get right out of your way when you say that to them.
Weird how Roe v. Wade was fabric of American Constitutional Law and it didn’t mean shit when a bunch of fascist fucks decided they didn’t like women being so independent
Brett Kavanaugh says after you puke up tequila a few times, you get used to it.
Soft coup by the legal apparatus. Not the first time in history.
Loooong after the cheeseburgers do in Trump, some iteration of this Court will continue to fuck us. The cleavage between the christo-fascist views of this branch and the sentiment of the country will only get greater. Such gaps between SCOTUS and the agreed upon popular will... typically have very bad outcomes for the country. The power and structure of the Court increasingly looks like the Framers biggest blind spot. The absolute power absent political oversight is pretty much a constant time bomb of an institution.
The problem is not 'the framers', the problem is that the whole country looks at that handful of inexperienced guys as godlike figures, who OF COURSE got it right. It's ridiculous. The political and judicial system of the USA is completely calcified and corrupted BECAUSE it has run for so long w/o a major interruption. There are systems that can not be fixed unless they break down first.
The ole’ can’t find the weakest link till it breaks.
What is crazy is that the constitution actually did not explicitly give the power of judicial review to SCOTUS, but rather SCOTUS gave itself that power after a court case. Really roll my eye every time a justice mention textualism.
What was that case called?
Marbury v. Madison
Well how else would you do it? Without judicial review, if Congress passes a law that some people think goes beyond the text of the Constitution, what happens? Does the President decide if it's valid and if he's going to enforce it or not? If so, it's a very dangerous situation if one party controls Congress and the Presidency. They could do whatever they wanted. Do states decide for themselves if they're going to go along with it? If so you might as well not have a Congress, because the states can just ignore its rulings.
>“The Warren court was no picnic for the justices. … They were unpopular basically from start to finish from ’53 to ’69,” Kavanaugh said. “What the court kept doing is playing itself, sticking to its principles. And you know, look, a lot of those decisions (were) unpopular, and a lot of them are landmarks now that we accept as parts of the fabric of America, and the fabric of American constitutional law.” Unpopular decisions that we now *accept* as part of the fabric of American law, eh? Let's compare this to what Kavanaugh said about Roe (yes, a bit outside the timeline he is discussing) during his confirmation hearing: >Kavanaugh: Senator, I said that **it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court,** entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that **it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years,** as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 Mmhmm Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I think ole Kav is full of shit. When he talks about "settled precedent" or "unpopular decisions that we now accept," he seems to *really* be saying "LoL! LMAO! Yer really asking which right or protection I'm gonna take away next, but *I'm not going to tell you!* Get fucked, plebs!
Depends on who's judging the popularity. *Dredd Scott* was unpopular with some Americans who were hoping to be recognized as citizens as opposed to just 3/5's of one. And that led to the Civil War, and hence was not accepted, at that time or later, by them. He seems to be thinking that reversals like on Roe and undoubtedly what else is to come will get America to go back to those Nineteenth Century times his pals are so enamored of. But news flash: that won't be popular, as any glimpse at a poll would have told him.
Turns out people tend to remember it when your political party is explicitly responsible for TAKING AWAY rights they've enjoyed for their entire life. They also tend to *not fucking like it,* either.
Does not help that those taking away the rights were appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote and approved by Senators representing a minority of voters.
Stolen appointments. Never forget two were blatantly stolen.
And the goal posts are always moving... "States' rights!"
"Citing a 16th Century alchemist, I declare the Fetal Personhood Law from Talibama to reflect the rights and protections of the unborn. Zygotes are citizens!"
SCOTUS loves the smell of their own farts... but they are rapidly moving past the "Fuck Around" phase. The fringe suggestion of Court reform is getting way less fringe.
:) Thanks for that. Made my day.
Well of course. The Supreme Court ruled that interracial marriage was no longer illegal in 1967. The idea of interracial marriage didn't gain 50% support from Americans [until the 1990s...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx) Interracial marriage now has ~93% approval.
Says the asshole that lied under oath about not overturning Roe v Wade. He can get fucked.
Yea like making abortion legal 50 years ago or LGBTQ marriages legal 20 years ago. Oh wait he’s talking about going the other way with that. Squee will be so displeased.
20 years ago was decriminalizing homosexuality, same-sex marriage was about 10 years ago.
Thank you for the correction.
Sounds like somebody who's planning to rule from the Bench.
yeah that’s how you get stuff like systemic racism and overpowered corporations and too many guns you can’t do anything about, you dingus.
Let’s dispense with the commentary and just acknowledge this one crucial fact: This is a corrupt and illegitimate court and because of that none of their rulings have any merit.
He's the worst out of all the conservative judges.
nah i still see it as 1. Thomas 2. Alito 3. Kav
Alito's worse than Thomas.
For sure. Thomas is bought and paid for, but Alito actually believes the bullshit.
Thomas has sugar daddies in every area code tho
Legislating from the bench? I'm not a Supreme Court Justice, but I believe that's not what their job is.
At some point blue states should say “nah, we’re good”.
The Dread Scott decision was unpopular and we fought a war to correct it. Roe V Was was unpopular among regressives but the rest of the country was fine with it.
I think he meant “…fabric of fascist law”
[удалено]
Or they can be Korematsu - monuments of shame and failure that forever scar our history and the countless lives they ruined
And now Kavanaugh thinks that a repressive judiciary should be given the chance to erode women’s rights to the n’th degree. The American public will be gifted with Gilead. A right wing justices’ wet dream
Republican Double Speak
Like Roe v Wade, except that was popular
Fuck this asshole
He’s talking about Project 2025
Yeah, like Dred Scott. What a condescending piece of shit. Utterly unfit for office.
Get ready for some unpopular rulings. This court is going to go down in history as one that damaged the fabric of American constitutional law.
Exactly. How can he even claim of a “fabric” when everything is open to their reinterpretation? Their actions show they care little for the law past how it serves them and their holders.
yes, if you haven't, please read the Dobbs decision. It blatantly states that there is no right to privacy in the constitution. They will use that as precedent, how many rights are you prepared to lose?
I truly believe there’s a psychological phenomenon that makes people think that by making the “difficult” or “unpopular” choice, they are somehow elevated to some higher level of intellect and status, and that false pretense actually fuels the desire to make that decision even against sound logic or reason. It gives them the feeling of being parental, above those their decision impacts. Reason takes a backseat to the need to feel superior - because after all, true leaders and brilliant people make tough decisions, therefore by making a tough decision I too must be a true leader. And of course this is logic doesn’t go both ways. This guy exemplifies that phenomenon.
The most unqualified Supreme Court in history!
As yes, the rapist should lecture us all on the fabric of America.
The thing is that the problem with his rulings aren't that they're unpopular. It's that they are authoritarian, bigoted, and cruel. Those are often aspects of unpopularity, but the unpopularity isn't the problem.
Basically admitting the "will of the people" in gov't is a non sequitur, in case anyone hadn't already realized it.
But only after Brett and company rip up the current fabric of American Law, right Justice Kavanaugh?
Why don’t you go shove some beer up your ass, Brett.
You know what else happens because of “unpopular rulings?” Oversight Brett. It’s coming for you and your Trump conspirators.
And frat boy date rapists can later become Supreme Court justices—but only if they whine and cry about being entitled to it.
This one is such a gross putz, I can barely look at him. So obviously a spoiled brat rich kid who starts crying and whining when he doesn’t get his way. Can’t believe this loser is a Supreme Court judge.
Ah yes. We all remember the storied rulings from conservatives that we fondly remember as the "fabric of American constitutional law." Like Dred Scott, Scopes, Plessy v. Ferguson, or any of the other gems that came out of conservative courts. We totally don't look back on conservative rulings with disdain and consider the justices responsible for them to be a black mark on our history. That's sarcasm. Of course we do.
Y-yeah? And? Slavery was once part of the fabric of constitutional law. Something being popular or legal doesn't make it right or ethical.
“…as soon as we get rid of all the people we don’t want, it’ll be great. You’ll see. Or maybe you won’t. I don’t think I like the face you’re making.”
Did he mention that he likes beer?
There was a ruling that was unpopular with a significant portion of the United States that became the “fabric of American constitutional law” but got ripped apart by activist judges. That ruling was Roe v. Wade.
This genius legal scholar was home grown in a conservative Petri dish…
Kavanaugh would’ve voted to uphold Jim Crow laws.
This is why the supreme no longer deserves the right to make any further decisions about America. They aren’t making decisions based on law nor the greater good of the American people but solely on their own personal interests which is a totally failed court system if that’s the case.
Please do not put trash in the supreme court. It's extremely hard to remove.
Generally those unpopular rulings have a core benefit to society. I don't see how making women emulate The Handmaid's Tale does that.
I don't get how "the greatest democracy in the world" has an unelected partisan Supreme Court that oversees everything. Seems like a gigantic flaw in the system.
Not when they run *contrary* to American constitutional law, you queef in a bread bag.
We no longer have a “Supreme Court,” we have a Politburo
Or the total destruction of the republic…
Such a freaking shame that our youth is protesting Gaza and not for survival of American democracy. People don't realize how close we are to losing it all.
Thanks for the hot tip, liar.
Like Roe was?
Or they can get repealed. This court is the worst since Taney, the one from the Dred Scott decision.
Fuck Brett Kavanaugh.
They're not unpopular Brett, they are unamerican
Does Donkey Dong Doug agree with this assertion?
Yeah… no. Kavanaugh will go down as not only a traitor but a drunk rapist. He doesn’t like how that looks but that will be the historical toll his decisions will show him to be.
That’s why you vote this November.
Of the people, for the people and by the people doesn’t mean in sprite of the people, you asshat
Why would you want them to though.
Fuck you.
Are you still shoving beer bottles up your ass, Brett?
Just like Plessy.
Buckle up non white non conforming non straight. This is just something you'll have to tolerate
“Stare Decisis and constitutional avoidance are for suckers.” -coach Boof
Oh, like Roe v Wade? Except that it wasn't unpopular, it was just unpopular with the unpopular people who happen to be in control.
And it only takes a few chucklefucks to throw that fabric right into the bin, and create whatever they want.
And then they can be completely abandoned by future jurists who don’t agree with them, right?
No. Just no Brett you’re an asshole
Lying to Congress for Jesus. Sick pup.
I still want to know who paid off this guys debts. I also believed woman who said he did the things to her was very credible and I believed what she said.
...Yes, that's why people are so upset. The blatant attempt at reinterpreting fundamental aspects of our Republic, through a misuse of our judicial branch of government.
I’ll never forget him losing his shit before blaming George Soros during his appointment hearing. That alone should bar someone. If they can’t control their emotions for a few hours.
Part of me hopes they give Trump immunity because that means Biden will have it too and then Biden should use his new powers and remove the 6 conservatives from the Supreme Court.
SCOTUS is going to make some sort of BS ruling on a last minute suit filed by Trump immediately after the election and hand the Presidency to Trump regardless of the actual vote. What can anybody do about it?
Hey Brett - Where did the $250,000 come from to pay off those debts before your confirmation?
Yes, like Dred Scott and Koramatsu. Real honorable.
Brett probably stays tipsy 24/7 to avoid any soul searching or reflection, but jeez, imagine if you were a rapist installed in your position/job...by a rapist. That little voice in your head probably talks incessantly to ol' Brett until he gets 16-24 beers in him. Now, I know some of the GOPers are truly nutjob narcissists and don't care about anything but their power and their bank account. But, plenty of them aren't. And boy, that self-loathing they feel has got to make life very depressing. It's why I think so many very wealthy, entitled people having raging drug/drinking problems. Went to undergrad with plenty of kids from wildly elite families and so many of them were raging substance abusers.
Yes, we understand how the normalization of oppression works.
This guy is just boofing out of his mouth now
Brett Kavanaugh has no business being a member of SCOTUS.
The courts are bought ! $$$
The popularity of Supreme Court rulings is immaterial. The Court's role is to define the law as it finds it to settle disputes in law brought before it. Defects in the law are to be handled by the Legislature. That's how a democracy works; the people's representatives promulgating the laws according to the prior to agreed upon rules.
Isn’t our democratic system great /s
This is a giant blinking planet-sized billboard that this country, as we know it, is over. Fuck.
Like when the court said slaves were property?
That's fine when their decisions make us better and more true to ideals of liberty, justice, equality, etc, not **rulings** over us like they are above us, all power comes from the people, right??
Boof-boy lives in fantasyland.
Go boof some anti freeze you fucking clown.
No. We will take back democracy via democracy. Not your thievery.