So I'm guessing Alito is A-OK with Project 2025 being implemented after he & the other Justices do their best to help Trump win. No integrity, no ethics, no shame. Just an arrogant, MAGA Justice flying political flags and blatantly ruling on cases he has a vested interest in.
"Flags and other 'things my wife is responsible for' (wink wink)" 🤦♂️
How many “Stop the Steal” flags does Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito need to fly over one of his multiple homes before it’s a problem?
However, as the old-time comedians used to say, "But seriously, folks . . ."
Impeaching Alito seems rather pie-in-the-sky to me, as much as I wouldn't mind seeing it.
An overview of some quite serious considerations is, I think, in order:
The role of the Supreme Court in American democracy is both profound and paradoxical. As the highest judicial authority in the land, the court wields significant power in interpreting the Constitution, shaping legal precedent, and arbitrating contentious issues of national importance. Yet, despite its central role in the governance of the nation, the court remains largely insulated from direct accountability to the electorate, raising fundamental questions about the nature of judicial power and the principles of democratic governance.
To understand the current state of affairs, one must first recognize the intricate historical tapestry that has woven the Supreme Court into the fabric of American democracy. The court's evolution, from its inception to its present form, reflects a dynamic interplay between legal doctrine, political ideology, and societal norms. As society has evolved, so too has the court, adapting its jurisprudence to address the changing needs and values of the American people.
In recent years, calls for judicial reform have grown louder, driven by a growing recognition of the court's shortcomings and deficiencies. Critics point to a range of issues, from the politicization of judicial appointments to the lack of transparency in the court's decision-making processes. Moreover, concerns about the court's composition, particularly its lack of diversity and representativeness, have raised questions about its legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of the public.
A variety of proposals have been put forward to address these challenges, reflecting diverse perspectives on the court's proper role and function in American society. Some advocate for expanding the size of the court, commonly referred to as court packing, as a means of rebalancing its ideological composition. Others argue for imposing term limits on justices to promote turnover and prevent the court from becoming entrenched in partisan gridlock. Still, others call for reforms aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability in the court's decision-making processes, such as requiring justices to adhere to a code of conduct or making oral arguments and deliberations more accessible to the public.
Beneath the legal and policy debates lie deeper ethical questions about the role of the judiciary in a democratic society. What obligations do justices owe to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the public interest? How should the court navigate the competing demands of judicial independence and accountability? And what responsibility do justices bear for upholding democratic norms and values in an increasingly polarized and contentious political environment? These weighty questions demand thoughtful reflection and principled action from all who seek to reform the Supreme Court.
Moving forward, the implementation of judicial reform faces several formidable obstacles. Constitutional constraints limit the scope of potential reforms, requiring either a constitutional amendment or legislative action. Moreover, entrenched partisan divisions and institutional norms surrounding judicial appointments and confirmations present significant barriers to meaningful change. The process of confirming judicial nominees has become increasingly contentious and politicized in recent decades, with both parties resorting to procedural tactics to advance their respective agendas. Additionally, the tradition of senatorial courtesy, whereby senators from the nominee's home state have significant influence over the confirmation process, further complicates efforts to diversify the bench and promote merit-based selection criteria.
Furthermore, the culture of legal conservatism within the judiciary, particularly at the appellate and Supreme Court levels, can serve as a barrier to reform efforts. Many judges and justices adhere to a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, which eschews judicial activism and emphasizes deference to legislative bodies. This conservative legal ideology, combined with the principle of stare decisis, or respect for precedent, can inhibit the court's willingness to embrace novel legal theories or depart from established doctrine. As a result, reform advocates must navigate a complex landscape of legal doctrine, institutional norms, and political dynamics in their efforts to effect meaningful change.
Moreover, recent controversies surrounding Justice Samuel Alito's display of provocative symbols have further fueled debate over the court's impartiality and ethical standards. Chief Justice John Roberts's proposed code of ethics, while ostensibly aimed at addressing concerns about judicial impartiality, falls short of providing meaningful guidance or enforcement mechanisms. Unlike lower federal courts, the Supreme Court operates largely outside the purview of existing ethical guidelines and oversight mechanisms, leaving justices with wide latitude to interpret and apply ethical standards as they see fit. This lack of accountability undermines public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the court, raising questions about its legitimacy and credibility as an institution of justice.
As the nation grapples with these complex issues, the future of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. How Congress and the courts navigate the challenges of judicial reform will shape the course of American democracy for generations to come, leaving an indelible mark on the fabric of our legal system and the soul of our nation. By engaging in a rigorous and inclusive dialogue, grounded in evidence-based research and guided by democratic values, we can chart a path forward toward a judiciary that is both responsive to the needs of society and faithful to the principles of justice, equity, and the rule of law upon which our nation was founded.
Endnotes:
Expansion of the Supreme Court: In the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court in response to a series of decisions striking down New Deal legislation. While this proposal faced significant opposition from Congress and the public, it highlighted the political challenges of changing the composition of the court and the potential backlash from opponents.
Term Limits for Judges: Several states have implemented term limits for judges on state supreme courts or appellate courts. For example, in Arizona, judges on the state supreme court serve a single term of six years before facing a retention election. These term limits aim to promote turnover on the bench and prevent judges from becoming too entrenched in office. However, they also raise questions about judicial independence and the potential for political interference in the judiciary.
Bush v. Gore (2000): The Supreme Court's decision to halt the recount of disputed ballots in Florida effectively determined the outcome of the presidential election, raising concerns about the court's role in partisan politics and its impact on the democratic process.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, which held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, has had a profound impact on the role of money in politics. This decision has led to the proliferation of dark money in political campaigns, allowing wealthy individuals and special interest groups to funnel unlimited funds into influencing elections and policy-making. The influx of dark money into the political process has raised concerns about the integrity and independence of the judiciary, as it may influence the selection and confirmation of judicial nominees and undermine public trust in the impartiality of the courts.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): The Supreme Court's landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide underscored the court's role in shaping social and cultural norms, as well as its power to advance civil rights and expand individual freedoms.
The main problem with the current court is that it doesn't represent the will of the majority. That is an issue of the electoral college and gerrymandering,, issues which need addressing through Congressional acts and/or Constitutional amendments.
I submit that you overlook one slime bag America-hater named Mitch mcConnell. He delivered the "double-tap" on the hopes for the future of the "Republic." First, that no S. Ct. Justice could ever be even interviewed in an election year! (but "The Handmaiden" was fine, in, what, a week?) Second, that impeachment wasn't needed: we had a criminal justice system....
Originally never opposed to be (one man - one vote)… Only property owners or those with college degrees could vote. Women weren’t even in the picture yet…
Excellent! Thank you for taking the time to inform the readers here. It is very apparent that the Supreme Court has inordinate amounts of power, and that the morally weak appointed to these positions do not have the moral fiber to stand up for what is right and what is wrong because enhancing their own jaded sense of authority and power is uppermost in their minds. In my opinion, Kavanaugh's appointment should be rescinded. Clarence Thomas's appointment should be rescinded, and he should be subpoenaed to testify before Congress about his role in his wife's efforts to help overthrow a free and fair election. Plenty to impeach HIM on! Let's start with Harlan Crowe's illegal largesse in Thomas's life while on the SC. And go from there . . . Alito -- same. Rescind appointment, and subpoena him to appear before Congress to be questioned about his very active role in aiding and abetting Trump to stay in office in 2020, and to return there again (God help us all!). If enough people question and oppose their rulings, both past and present, and complain to their representatives in office, that SHOULD be enough to get the Dems and Independents in office moving! We need to sweep the court clean of these (at least for now) five conservatives. Ketanji (sp?) Brown Jackson is married to a white man. Does anyone know what his political affiliations and persuasions are??
Emotionally, I feel you. Certainly I have ideas about "the way things should be."
It's clear that there is a lot of frustration and disappointment with some recent Court appointments and decisions. Of course, it's worth noting that as things now are, the process of rescinding appointments and subpoenaing justices is complex and governed by legal and constitutional considerations. No easy answers or quick fixes. And I'd posit we've needed change for some time . . .
Rather than focusing on specific justices, I wonder whether there's any real appetite to advocate for broader reforms to ensure a fair and impartial judiciary? This could include discussions about term limits, transparency measures, and efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics on judicial appointments. It's all frustratingly slow, incremental.
As for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, one could posit that it's important to evaluate her qualifications and judicial record on their own merits, rather than wondering about her spouse --although SCOTUS spouses, notably Ginni Thomas, have assumed outsized and inappropriate roles. Patrick Jackson, wife of KBJ, is a surgeon, last time I looked. Should our goal be to ultimately promote a judiciary that upholds the principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law for all Americans, or run out with pitchforks and torches and sweep away what we don't like? Some would say both. But if both, what of the rule of law?
One might consider this exchange from Robert Bolt's 1960 play "A Man for All Seasons", the exchange between Roper and Sir Thomas More:
William Roper : So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More : Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper : Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More : Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
A truly brilliant play. Particularly pertinent for the present British ruling class in government under the Conservative party since 2010. They have been cutting down protective laws and passing ill thought out others that break international ones indiscriminately. A lack of a written constitution and absolute power of the UK’s political Executive has always been an open door to abuse of power. However, until now no one postwar has chosen to walk through it, save in regard to the governance of Northern Ireland. This is already tearing the UK social fabric to shreds on the ground in poorer areas and it is simply a matter of time before the more insulated morbidly wealthy London and the Home Counties follow suit.
Greg, but when do we decide that "tweaking" is insufficient and start over? I see your point giving the Devil the benefit of law, but that is concerning a particular case.
I don't have an answer to that, Gloria. There is what is likely, what is possible, and then there's everything else.
As much as I don't like it, I think that starting over falls into the latter category; starting over with SCOTUS is extremely unlikely, as I'm sure you know -- and that fact is indeed frustrating and exasperating.
You raise an important point about the limits of incremental reform versus the potential need for more radical changes. In discussing judicial reform, I aimed to highlight various approaches and the complexities involved in implementing them -- within the realm of the possible, even if unlikely.
When it comes to the question of whether "tweaking" is sufficient or if we need to start over, I think it's a matter of balancing practical feasibility with the urgency of the issues at hand. Incremental reforms can often be more achievable and less disruptive, gradually improving transparency, accountability, and diversity within the judiciary. And I hate that. There are certainly arguments for more comprehensive changes, especially when foundational issues of legitimacy and public trust are at stake.
Ultimately, the path forward would involve a robust dialogue that considers both the immediate need for reform and the long-term vision for a judiciary that truly serves the principles of justice and democracy. It's crucial to weigh the potential benefits of incremental changes against the risks and challenges of more radical restructuring. But who among our elected officials --let alone those appointed-- is willing to have that dialogue, let alone without the bickering, vitriol, recriminations, and so on?
Your concern underscores the importance of this ongoing discussion and the need to remain open to a range of solutions as we strive to improve our judicial system. I wish we could do some things a little more dramatically and quickly. This patient has been bleeding out for decades --how much longer can we keep it in the lobby?
Who died and appointed you the QUESTION POLICE??? In case you have been living in a cave for the last ten years, Virginia and Clarence Thomas cause me to question EVERYTHING ABOUT THE "SUPREME" COURT THESE DAYS! VIRGINIA THOMAS AND HER PLOTS AND PLANS WITH TRUMP TO OVERTHROW THE 2020 ELECTION LED TO MURDER AND DEATH AND TONS OF DESTRUCTION! SHE OUGHT TO BE ON FEDERAL DEATH ROW AWAITING EXECUTION, AS SHOULD TRUMP!! WHERE IS SHE INSTEAD?? TAKING EVERY BIT OF LARGESSE HARLAN CROWE HAS TO OFFER HER! WHERE IS TRUMP?? RUNNING FOR ELECTION AGAIN BECAUSE THE "JUDICIAL" SYSTEM IN WASHINGTON IS SO CORRUPT, THEY ONLY TAKE ON SMALL MATTERS THAT THEY CAN HANDLE, NOT THE BIG ONES LIKE MASSIVE CORRUPTION IN SC WORLD OR TRUMP WORLD! As for Ketanji Brown Jackson, all I can say is UGH! "Black on white," "white on black" has ALWAYS turned me off and always will! I don't like her. Not a one of the liberals on the SC stood up for Colorado's efforts (or Maine's or 16 other states') to remove Trump from their ballots in November! I find that shocking! I thought she might cast a dissenting vote, but no-o-oo . . . some people will do anything to go along to get along! I find her disappointing, to say the least. Her husband is so pale and grey he looks like a ghost!
Let's see . . . are you and Rose Maly the QUESTION POLICE???
Mmm . . . Why would it NOT cause me to question his political affiliations? Virginia and Clarence Thomas are the classic examples for questioning the "Supreme" Court's reasons for everything they do!! I can't stand the black-as-night PORN PERVERT CLARENCE THOMAS!! HE GIVES ME THE FRICKIN' CREEPS!!!!! HE HAS TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE COURT (THANKS TO BIDEN, WHO RAN ALL OVER ANITA HILL TO GET HIM THERE!) EVERY WHICH WAY HE CAN, CALLING UPON HIS SAD STORY OF BOYHOOD AND GROWING UP POOR (OH, BOO-HOO!) TO TAKE ALL THE MONEY AND TRIPS AND GIFTS AND HOUSE BUY-UPS HARLAN CROWE CAN GIVE HIM!!! AND HE DOES IT WITH IMPUNITY, THUMBING HIS NOSE AT EVERYONE!!! SOUNDS LIKE YOUR TYPICAL BLACK GANGSTA STREET THUG TO ME! (WHAT ELSE DOES GANGSTA THOMAS ENGAGE IN??? DRUG DEALING AND PIMPING?? I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED!) THE LEVEL OF CORRUPTION ON THE SUPREME COURT HAS GONE WA-A-A-AY OVER THE TOP BY NOW!! I have no idea how your "LGBTQ" comment applies here. See my comment to Rose Maly.
Thanks so much for this thoughtful and informative post. I was not aware of stare decisis.
Akin to the British system of government but unlike the UK, US citizens possess the legal protections of a written constitution. This deferral to legal precedent combined with a conflict based (rather than Code Napoleon) legal system creates openings and gives easy cover for abuses of power by any individual with murky personal motives.
I could not like it because my ability to like fellow posts on substack was switched off a few days back. 🐈⬛
Greg Maier— thank you for all the very thought provoking points.
Of course, the difference between respect for precedent and embracing novel legal theories or depart from established doctrine is a big jump. But that’s just what these, conservative, paid for judges want. Their desire is a departure from established doctrine. And I for one believe that’s what this Court has been doing in an in your face way.
These conservative judges are there for the long game. When Congress fails to turn our country around quickly enough, the Supreme Court can cherry pick just the right cases to do the conservative dirty work and make sure their agendas come to fruition before the new Fuhrer takes office.
In another few years we won’t even recognize this country if both Congress and the courts keep both blocking and reversing meaningful legislation to the majority of the people in our country. The GOP and the present Supreme Court are definitely setting the stage for a dictatorship.
It is looking that way, isn't it? They've been playing chess ever since Roe v. Wade. The Democrats have wasted many opportunities with the Court and many other things, including writing freedom for women to choose into law. We shall see how it evolves.
Greg : In short, get rid of misogynists and racists who are appointed by illegitimate 'presidents' by those who support the Federalist Society and other billionaire backers!
Ideally, yes. In reality, determining misogyny and racism and establishing the mechanisms to remove those who exhibit such traits is much messier and slower, especially with all the billionaire backers and current legal ambiguities. Unfortunately, we've seen SCOTUS nominees known to have severe views on many issues sail right through their confirmations. We've also seen subpar nominees embroiled in legal controversy clinch their appointments. For every person who finds Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito repugnant, there are others who find Kagan, KBJ, and Sotomayor wildly dangerous or threatening.
Who will get to decide? How will the tools we have work to preserve or remove these justices? The process of addressing these concerns is fraught with challenges...add to that the deeply divided perspectives in our society., and one has quite a job ahead.
Your proposed remedy is much worse than the problem. We need reform, not revolution. Revolutions don't tend to be bloodless nor very effective. The American Revolution was the exception, and the US constitution, though in need of reform, gets the big things mostly right. If you look at history, the Constitution has been modified multiple times (amendments), though not recently.
(a) jail trump without access to electronics except for the same period that other prisoners are allowed to use the phone
(b) scuttle Citizens United and institute public finance of campaigns
(c) scuttle Corporate Personhood
(d) reinstate public control of the airwaves
(e) allow private schools but only without vouchers
(or give me a voucher for being forced to support undeclared wars)
(f) force chemical companies to remove forever chemicals from the market. Period. (and any chemical that is untested for human consumption from big AG).
(g) force fossil fuel barons to kowtow to climate change like they should have in the beginning as a result of their own research. Maybe jail them all.
(h) help the south replant clear cut forests which became "sustainable energy"
(i) remove insurance companies from Medicare. Period. Use tax on oil barons to support it.
(j) smack down pro life advocates who refuse to invest in school lunches, SNAP AND WIC, or early childhood programs that allow single mothers to go to work. AT LEAST: publish the schizophrenic vote of most republicans on these issues.
(k) smack down proven (evidence based) liars in congress and public office. They should be censured three times, then removed from office
(l) remove insurrectionist aiders and abetters from ANY office they hold.
(m) remove corporate looters from the housing market.
SORRY! Once I get started, it's hard to stop! I'm sure you have your own wish list.
Your list reflects a powerful vision for transformative change, and I appreciate the passion and thought behind each point. Many of these reforms would address deep-seated issues in our political, social, and economic systems. However, as you noted, implementing such a comprehensive set of changes is incredibly challenging in the current political and legal landscape.
(a) The idea of jailing Trump and limiting his access to electronics highlights the desire for accountability, but achieving this would require navigating a complex legal process with no guaranteed outcome.
(b) Scuttling Citizens United and instituting public campaign finance would certainly reduce the influence of money in politics, but it would necessitate significant legal and constitutional changes that face substantial opposition.
(c) Ending Corporate Personhood and reinstating public control of the airwaves are both ambitious goals that would involve major legislative and judicial shifts.
(d) The voucher system for private schools is a contentious issue with strong arguments on both sides. Your perspective underscores the need for equitable funding in education, particularly public education.
(e) Forcing chemical companies to remove harmful chemicals and holding fossil fuel companies accountable for climate change are crucial for environmental protection, but achieving these goals would require overcoming powerful industry lobbies and implementing stringent regulations.
(f) Addressing deforestation, improving public healthcare funding, and ensuring comprehensive support for families reflect essential social justice concerns, but again, these require significant policy changes and political will.
(g) The idea of holding pro-life advocates accountable for their broader social policy positions is compelling, but it would be difficult to enforce legislatively.
(h) Enforcing accountability for lies in Congress and removing insurrectionist supporters are vital for maintaining integrity in government, yet implementing these measures would involve complex legal and procedural hurdles.
(i) Tackling corporate influence in the housing market is another important issue, but it would require robust regulatory frameworks and enforcement mechanisms. I don't see anything or anyone hell-bent on confronting this, with the necessary political and financial backing.
While your reforms may seem like a wish list, they underscore the importance of striving for systemic change. It's crucial to keep advocating for these goals, even if they seem out of reach, because progress often starts with bold ideas. Incremental steps toward these objectives can still make a significant difference and pave the way for more substantial changes in the future . . . . even when the incrementalism is killing us.
In some ways the American Revolution was more of a divorce from the English Monarchy rather than a full on Revolution. As an agreement reached between ruling classes it was relatively peaceful at its instigation but because all Revolutions are rarely anything but predictable and always a murderous deep cut that creates centuries of civil war of one kind or another, I see a direct historical trajectory between it and the later outbreak of the US Civil War. In many ways the political chaos that we are experiencing in the US, the UK and across the world, is simply a further iteration of the rolling out of the rule of law and individual sovereignty Enlightenment philosophies against the kickbacks from those who still prefer a social system of top down patriarchal hierarchies.
Uh, if we had another full on revolution it wouldn't end up the way you think.
A good chunk of the military would side with the fascists, for one. And there wouldn't be pitched battles that end in clean (and I'm using that term EXTREMELY LOOSELY) victories either way.
Cities would become giant killboxes, militia groups would be stalking rural areas slaughtering anyone they damn well pleased, transporting anything any real distance would be a nightmare because every shipment of anything even remotely valuable like FOOD AND MEDICINE would have to be guarded.
Fascist terrorists would destroy infrastructure left, right, and center, our schools would end up even more dangerous than they are now since they're prime targets for Republicans, and on top of all that there's the fact that entities like orban and Putin would be THROWING money and resources at Republicans and stealing national secrets and fuck only knows what else along the way.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Now, to be clear, I have no moral problem with forcefully removing Republicans from the positions of power they stole. Dethroning the illegitimate Republican politicians (yes, I know, tautology) that have lied, cheated, and slaughtered their way to power down south is the only kind of regime change I'm okay with. Unfortunately, it just doesn't end well in reality.
Too subtle. Those who object to this should fly flags, perhaps his neighbors, TRAITOR ALITO....and others to the point, in his face, messages. DEMENTIA ALITO, UN-AMERICAN ALITO, PRAYING FOR YOUR DEATH, ALITO, .......
Those trained in mathematics, logic and science, are not surprised that even mathematics is incomplete, as proved by Godel a century ago, long after the Constitution was written. How much less is the English language, or any language for that matter, capable of reason?
What Alito has shown is that he lives in an emotional world of religion and fantasy. While we must, for the time being, live with SCOTUS, we must recognize that Alito has no place on it.
Yeah. If Justices are added to justly achieve balance, the loud supporters of the wrong that needed to be righted will squeal "Stack! Stack!" We say "balance."
If I were in charge I would have an even number of justices, say 12, 6 to be named by each party, and if they got to a stalemate, we could lock them up in a room with only pizza to eat until they came to agreement.
It is not simple and easy which is why the Equal Rights Amendment never becane part of the US Constitution.
An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose.
The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.
Christian Nationalism is purely political and has nothing to do with Christianity. It's a deliberate misnomer. There is a new documentary coming out (I need to find the name and update) that features an evangelical preacher from North Carolina who has made it his mission to expose the un-Christian nature of Christian Nationalism. It sounds so obvious, as thinking people know there is a difference, but the film discusses the origins and the insidious nature of their goals. It has a lot in common with how the Nazis used Christianity to advance their ideology. It was discussed on a Michael Tomasky podcast ... I hope I book marked it because that bit alone was eye opening. I must see the film.
Thanks for the link. Was not surprised to see Paul Weyrich in the beginning: "Make no mistake about it - we are Christianizing America" - see him also on - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw.
Lisa, I wish your analysis were correct, but unfortunately it isn't true, at least not entirely. I speak as a shocked follower of Christ who attends a church which formed the "Christians Against White Christian Nationalism" group to fight this. Much of this IS being taught in churches. I suggest reading Tim Alberta's "The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory". This goes back to Jerry Falwell and tbe Moral Majority.
Hi, David! I understand that. It goes even farther back than Falwell, et al. It goes back to the Southern Strategy. It had already gained a toe hold by the time the Moral Majority became well known. The KKK was really the first organization to wrap their evil ideology in a cloak of Christianity, using the Bible as a weapon, but completely ignoring the teachings of Christ in the New Testament.
All true. I recommend 2 books: "White Too Long" by Robert P Jones (examines history of White Christian Nationalism and its supporting "theology" in the South and its lasting impact), and "And there Was Lignt" by John Meachum, which is a biography of Lincoln with an emphasis on the theological battle between North and South. White Christian Nationalism is deeply rooted in this nation's history, to even before its founding.
I see the distinction you feel. To employ the ancient metaphor, the strayed sheep don't know they are far, far away from The Shepherd. The demon is the father of lies.
Not purely political. Onishi has a good youtube video on the subject. They do put policy and power ahead of morality and values. They support Jews because Jesus, if he existed, came from Israel and believe the 2nd coming will be there (LDSers believe 2nd coming will be on the banks of the Missouri River, last i checked). So israel needs to be protected. Jesus will show up and either convert, subjugate or kill them all.
Love the idea of flying a flag saying Demented traitorous Alieto
Interesting enough there is some mathematics to the supreme court. The presidency is determined by the electoral college which currently gives a +35 advantage to Republicans via small state senate representation. In the Senate there is a +10 advantage to republicans giving them more power to approve or not even bring a nominee to the floor. Every election electorally republicans get a 6.5% advantage over dems. Senate wise they get a 10% advantage. Going through past elections via electoral George W Bush should never have been elected, knocking out Alito and Roberts. The Senate should have been democrat when Garland was denied which would have negated Gorsuch. I am sure there there is a way to use probability to figure out the odds are on the makeup of the supreme court with the current "ahem" rules or lack there of. With 3 liberal justices it would be 6 to 3 exactly the opposite of what it is now. If we went by popular vote for president then the court would be 8-1. Democrat to Republican.
There is a stake in the heart of trust in the Court and indeed our entire justice system. The fourteenth amendment, section three should be followed. Traitors should not be in the People's House/Congress! The MAGAs are all disabled!
Yes, and what a horrible travesty of justice that was! I jumped for absolute joy the day we all heard that Scalia had died from a massive heart attack down at a faux "hunting" ranch in Texas! Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy! That TERRIBLE decision -- to stop Florida's recount, which in my opinion should not have come under SC consideration in the first place! -- opened up the Middle East and the rest of the world to terrorism, and changed the course of history for many years to come. We should begin agitating for SC impeachments IMMEDIATELY!
Not just the tragedies in the Middle East. I can not but grieve for the lost chance to begin to stop the destruction of our fragile shared planet and all its fellow life forms. But it seems Big Oil Barons always ‘win’.
Alito is a religious zealot who lied at his confirmation hearing about his respect for precedent. He apparently views all who disagree with his antiquated and biased views as enemies to be eliminated from the body politic. He doesn't belong on SCOTUS since his first and probably last loyalty isn't to the Constitution but some religious ideal that only he holds.
Angela, and Republicans love Alito because he can be counted on to go with whatever their issue flavor of the day is. He should never have been nominated let alone approved for the SC. I know a lot of Democrats used to go with nearly every nominee because of some loyalty to the court or something ridiculous like that. It seems, though that the SC conservatives pretty much all lied in their hearings, so why even have a hearing. Clearly none of the Senators really paid attention and when Republicans have the majority as they did for most of the Cons, the approval was a foregone conclusion. As for Thomas, Senators voted for him either because they knew it was a slap in the face for Black Americans or because they were afraid they would be seen as racist if they didn't vote for him. That is no way to get an SC justice, but clearly it worked well and 33 years later that fool is still causing havoc on the SC. Alito is around 20 years. Both should be gone. Term limits of 18 years as has been recommended would take care of that for us all.
If only a few good men could, would do what should be done for the greater good, then we would not be in this world of mess.
I want to believe that our laws and our constitution had and has the guardrails to stop this highjacking of our country.
And day in and day out it’s the same shock of WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING all over again. They don’t play fair, they lie and steal. They manipulate and convince themselves and others that Democrats do it too
Bull dinky. The supreme court’s lack of oversight is the result of a sleepy nation not watching the watchers.
I screamed loudly when Clarence Thomas was put on the bench and screaming ever since.
One bad man: Mitch McConnell. Sadly, when you call up Thomas' confirmation, you call up: Joe Biden! But Dodd may have waked up the sleepy nation. I wonder about the sleepy male vote: plenty of guys were grateful to be able to give the lady a ride and a few bucks, no hard feelin's.....
We vote Blue every opportunity to get a majority in both houses of Congress and retain the White House. Then we change the McConnell filibuster rule. Finally, impeach Alito and Thomas for their unethical and unprincipled behaviors.
Add 4 more justices, 1 for each federal district. Have them serve a time and the rotste off, to be replaced by appeals court justices...Elizabeth Warren proposed this plan some time ago.
Well that was then and this is now. And in a few months he will start his second term. With a large enough democratic majority in both houses, it might be possible to expand the court. Without majorities in Congress, the president cannot do it alone.
Then we must get VERY loud, and even louder each passing day. He has done amazing things for our country in a short period of time, but it's past time for him to make bold choices in order to neutralize the clear and present danger of MAGA Nazism.
Reforming the Supreme Court: requiring ethical standards, providing a "reality test” to Supreme Court opinion, and separating the Judicial Branch of government from the Executive has to become a high priority for Chuck Schumer-- to get a Senate bill passed so that when it stalls in the House this issue can be forefront in the election. The Senate Bill should create the position of the “Grand Foreman of the American Juries,” the first position elected directly by all people to run the Judicial Branch, with the power to send opinions back to the Supreme Court to rewrite to conform to precedent and provable facts, leaving the Attorney General to the position of advising the President. The law should specifically outlaw executive interference, thereby restoring law and order after the partisan medaling to preventing a slide to dictatorship.
One of the first things the Grand Forman should do would be to send the Dred Scott and the Citizen’s United decisions back to the Supreme Court, and thus eliminate the absolute absurdity that exists of Supreme Court Rulings that gave to corporations the civil rights they took away from Blacks.
One COULD argue that Alito might even be more senile/infantile in his "judgment" than Trump... but/however, there seems to be no viable mechanism to nullify his opinion in any of the Trump-related cases or impeach him—the latter will not pass through the Senate (durn!). He is an ongoing dangerous element in the Court (as are five other "justice")... and our hands are tied! So frustrating and demoralizing!
It is becoming more and more apparent that there exists within our government a subversive group of individuals who want to change the country as we know it. How deep does their influence go? Only Trump and time will tell.
Valid poin! Once again big media is so busy being a tool of the wealthy that important reports claims and facts are withheld from the the average citizen.
Maybe enough neighbors who knew about them came forward. Even those who live in upscale communities don't want fascism, I imagine! The women get pregnant without meaning to there, too! tRUMP wants to kill with impunity! Imagine if he had an edict that you all have to dye your hair to look like his latest aide? You know, like Hope Hicks? And what about Burkas? It's the American Taliban!
It’s truly shocking that Alito didn’t even think to hide his radical biased views. I favor finding a way to remove him or render him in effective by changing the number of justices. He will go down in history as one of the worst Supreme Court justices ever. In a way we are lucky to have his bias on full display. There can be no question about what we are dealing with now.
Peter: true!: the MAGAs are disabled by their violations of their oaths to uphold the Constutution! They are disqualified! Our former , illegitimate 'president' tried to force his Vice president to refuse to certify President Biden's win. The SCOTUS sycophant 6 'majority' have erased (?) The14th amendment, section 3 , to allow their criminal activity on the bench, and keep the MAGA 'razor thin' majority in power, since they would also be removed from Congress for their obvious disability. Corruption at work! They have not conducted themselves in good behavior. And should be removed from the bench of the Supreme Court! It is in the Constitution, and that is why they support the lawless MAGA actors! If they can get away with this, we don,'t need to try to expand the court, or do term limits! Lawlessness prevails! The Court is dysfunctional! Irrelevant! We will have an Emperor! Or Ayatolla! Or 😈 Demon! In Chief! Yikes!!!
Post script ; Tonight on MSNBC, I again heard a pundit say, on Deadline Whitehouse, that the Supreme court Have lifetime tenure. This is a lie! There is nothing in the Constitution that says this! The only mention of service length is that they remain on the Court with "Good Behavior". Professor Lawrence Tribe was on in another segment, saying basically the same thing in my recorded programs from last night. Just when I feel that there is good information in this network TV 'news', I am reminded of who owns the network ; Billionaires, who do not want US to know the truth!, not just some facts, but the whole truth, and nothing But the Truth! It is important! We can do things if we know these things! We can remove them from the Court! They have not done Good behavior and are disqualified! they are traitors! Long ago our founders would have hung them until dead! As our former guy pointed out!
A guy who gets his legal arguments from 'Witch hunters' in the 17th century, England, to justify ending Roe!? What is he doing on the Court in the 21st Century?!?
Yay, paying attention sister! Hale became Chief Justice in England in 1671. America separated dramatically from England, hello, 1776 ring a bell? Alito whoop-de-dooed back to: “Two treatises by Sir Matthew Hale likewise described abortion of a quick child who died in the womb as a ‘great crime’ and a ‘great misprision,’” Alito wrote. https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale (It gets worse about how despicable females are...)
They are frightened, insecure cowards. And they are bitterly disappointed in themselves for being so. So they project and rationalize. Trump is a weak old man who never broke out of the dysfunctional cycle of desperately trying to gain the attention of and please his father. I don’t know anything about Alito’s upbringing, but I’m willing to bet he’s stuck in a similar dynamic.
So what to do? The CORRUPT 6 just ignore anything that calls them out! And keep on doing what they are doing, but expect the rest of us to follow their rulings. They just go on ruling in favor of the people who have bought and paid for them and against most Americans and American public opinion. Maybe what has to happen is that Americans say NO WAY - you are so CORRUPT that we cannot and will not follow your rulings - to their rulings and ignore them as well. If they will not follow the ethics that all other courts have to then they are NOT legitimate and therefore have NO standing! Go ahead and play being a Supreme Court, but since you cannot and will not follow any ethics too bad you don't have any standing with the American public and we will ignore you as well! This will just continue until Americans rise up and put an end to it! Congress has been of no help and looks impotent to do anything about this.
In defense of Kavanaugh,?Roberts, Barrett and Gorsuch, while I despise their political bent on many cases, I do not consider them to be unethical like Thomas and Alito.
Gorsuch, really?he who has never sided with an individual’s rights over corporation, and he who ruled against the funding of the Consumer Protection Bureau in favor of payday lenders’ predatory practices ?
I don't trust them either. Barret suggested that she would not upend "settled law". Roberts seems asleep as the 'Chief Justice' of this Court. They were, all 6, appointed by illegitimate 'presidents'.
He's a "fellow traveller." Won his Chief Justice spurs leading the "Brooks Bro's Riots" that gave Rehnquist and Scalia cover that there was a real problem in Florida. Roberts' only dilemma is how bad is he going to look, and does he care?
"The public’s trust in the Supreme Court is at stake"? I think you'll find that the Supreme Court died around the year 2000, after Bush v. Gore . . .
So I'm guessing Alito is A-OK with Project 2025 being implemented after he & the other Justices do their best to help Trump win. No integrity, no ethics, no shame. Just an arrogant, MAGA Justice flying political flags and blatantly ruling on cases he has a vested interest in.
"Flags and other 'things my wife is responsible for' (wink wink)" 🤦♂️
How many “Stop the Steal” flags does Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito need to fly over one of his multiple homes before it’s a problem?
Hey Samuel: Next time try with this flag 👇
libtees-2.creator-spring.com/listing/wtpmelb
Agreed H.B.
However, as the old-time comedians used to say, "But seriously, folks . . ."
Impeaching Alito seems rather pie-in-the-sky to me, as much as I wouldn't mind seeing it.
An overview of some quite serious considerations is, I think, in order:
The role of the Supreme Court in American democracy is both profound and paradoxical. As the highest judicial authority in the land, the court wields significant power in interpreting the Constitution, shaping legal precedent, and arbitrating contentious issues of national importance. Yet, despite its central role in the governance of the nation, the court remains largely insulated from direct accountability to the electorate, raising fundamental questions about the nature of judicial power and the principles of democratic governance.
To understand the current state of affairs, one must first recognize the intricate historical tapestry that has woven the Supreme Court into the fabric of American democracy. The court's evolution, from its inception to its present form, reflects a dynamic interplay between legal doctrine, political ideology, and societal norms. As society has evolved, so too has the court, adapting its jurisprudence to address the changing needs and values of the American people.
In recent years, calls for judicial reform have grown louder, driven by a growing recognition of the court's shortcomings and deficiencies. Critics point to a range of issues, from the politicization of judicial appointments to the lack of transparency in the court's decision-making processes. Moreover, concerns about the court's composition, particularly its lack of diversity and representativeness, have raised questions about its legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of the public.
A variety of proposals have been put forward to address these challenges, reflecting diverse perspectives on the court's proper role and function in American society. Some advocate for expanding the size of the court, commonly referred to as court packing, as a means of rebalancing its ideological composition. Others argue for imposing term limits on justices to promote turnover and prevent the court from becoming entrenched in partisan gridlock. Still, others call for reforms aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability in the court's decision-making processes, such as requiring justices to adhere to a code of conduct or making oral arguments and deliberations more accessible to the public.
Beneath the legal and policy debates lie deeper ethical questions about the role of the judiciary in a democratic society. What obligations do justices owe to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the public interest? How should the court navigate the competing demands of judicial independence and accountability? And what responsibility do justices bear for upholding democratic norms and values in an increasingly polarized and contentious political environment? These weighty questions demand thoughtful reflection and principled action from all who seek to reform the Supreme Court.
Moving forward, the implementation of judicial reform faces several formidable obstacles. Constitutional constraints limit the scope of potential reforms, requiring either a constitutional amendment or legislative action. Moreover, entrenched partisan divisions and institutional norms surrounding judicial appointments and confirmations present significant barriers to meaningful change. The process of confirming judicial nominees has become increasingly contentious and politicized in recent decades, with both parties resorting to procedural tactics to advance their respective agendas. Additionally, the tradition of senatorial courtesy, whereby senators from the nominee's home state have significant influence over the confirmation process, further complicates efforts to diversify the bench and promote merit-based selection criteria.
Furthermore, the culture of legal conservatism within the judiciary, particularly at the appellate and Supreme Court levels, can serve as a barrier to reform efforts. Many judges and justices adhere to a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, which eschews judicial activism and emphasizes deference to legislative bodies. This conservative legal ideology, combined with the principle of stare decisis, or respect for precedent, can inhibit the court's willingness to embrace novel legal theories or depart from established doctrine. As a result, reform advocates must navigate a complex landscape of legal doctrine, institutional norms, and political dynamics in their efforts to effect meaningful change.
Moreover, recent controversies surrounding Justice Samuel Alito's display of provocative symbols have further fueled debate over the court's impartiality and ethical standards. Chief Justice John Roberts's proposed code of ethics, while ostensibly aimed at addressing concerns about judicial impartiality, falls short of providing meaningful guidance or enforcement mechanisms. Unlike lower federal courts, the Supreme Court operates largely outside the purview of existing ethical guidelines and oversight mechanisms, leaving justices with wide latitude to interpret and apply ethical standards as they see fit. This lack of accountability undermines public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the court, raising questions about its legitimacy and credibility as an institution of justice.
As the nation grapples with these complex issues, the future of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. How Congress and the courts navigate the challenges of judicial reform will shape the course of American democracy for generations to come, leaving an indelible mark on the fabric of our legal system and the soul of our nation. By engaging in a rigorous and inclusive dialogue, grounded in evidence-based research and guided by democratic values, we can chart a path forward toward a judiciary that is both responsive to the needs of society and faithful to the principles of justice, equity, and the rule of law upon which our nation was founded.
Endnotes:
Expansion of the Supreme Court: In the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court in response to a series of decisions striking down New Deal legislation. While this proposal faced significant opposition from Congress and the public, it highlighted the political challenges of changing the composition of the court and the potential backlash from opponents.
Term Limits for Judges: Several states have implemented term limits for judges on state supreme courts or appellate courts. For example, in Arizona, judges on the state supreme court serve a single term of six years before facing a retention election. These term limits aim to promote turnover on the bench and prevent judges from becoming too entrenched in office. However, they also raise questions about judicial independence and the potential for political interference in the judiciary.
Bush v. Gore (2000): The Supreme Court's decision to halt the recount of disputed ballots in Florida effectively determined the outcome of the presidential election, raising concerns about the court's role in partisan politics and its impact on the democratic process.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, which held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, has had a profound impact on the role of money in politics. This decision has led to the proliferation of dark money in political campaigns, allowing wealthy individuals and special interest groups to funnel unlimited funds into influencing elections and policy-making. The influx of dark money into the political process has raised concerns about the integrity and independence of the judiciary, as it may influence the selection and confirmation of judicial nominees and undermine public trust in the impartiality of the courts.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): The Supreme Court's landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide underscored the court's role in shaping social and cultural norms, as well as its power to advance civil rights and expand individual freedoms.
The main problem with the current court is that it doesn't represent the will of the majority. That is an issue of the electoral college and gerrymandering,, issues which need addressing through Congressional acts and/or Constitutional amendments.
I submit that you overlook one slime bag America-hater named Mitch mcConnell. He delivered the "double-tap" on the hopes for the future of the "Republic." First, that no S. Ct. Justice could ever be even interviewed in an election year! (but "The Handmaiden" was fine, in, what, a week?) Second, that impeachment wasn't needed: we had a criminal justice system....
Originally never opposed to be (one man - one vote)… Only property owners or those with college degrees could vote. Women weren’t even in the picture yet…
Excellent! Thank you for taking the time to inform the readers here. It is very apparent that the Supreme Court has inordinate amounts of power, and that the morally weak appointed to these positions do not have the moral fiber to stand up for what is right and what is wrong because enhancing their own jaded sense of authority and power is uppermost in their minds. In my opinion, Kavanaugh's appointment should be rescinded. Clarence Thomas's appointment should be rescinded, and he should be subpoenaed to testify before Congress about his role in his wife's efforts to help overthrow a free and fair election. Plenty to impeach HIM on! Let's start with Harlan Crowe's illegal largesse in Thomas's life while on the SC. And go from there . . . Alito -- same. Rescind appointment, and subpoena him to appear before Congress to be questioned about his very active role in aiding and abetting Trump to stay in office in 2020, and to return there again (God help us all!). If enough people question and oppose their rulings, both past and present, and complain to their representatives in office, that SHOULD be enough to get the Dems and Independents in office moving! We need to sweep the court clean of these (at least for now) five conservatives. Ketanji (sp?) Brown Jackson is married to a white man. Does anyone know what his political affiliations and persuasions are??
Emotionally, I feel you. Certainly I have ideas about "the way things should be."
It's clear that there is a lot of frustration and disappointment with some recent Court appointments and decisions. Of course, it's worth noting that as things now are, the process of rescinding appointments and subpoenaing justices is complex and governed by legal and constitutional considerations. No easy answers or quick fixes. And I'd posit we've needed change for some time . . .
Rather than focusing on specific justices, I wonder whether there's any real appetite to advocate for broader reforms to ensure a fair and impartial judiciary? This could include discussions about term limits, transparency measures, and efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics on judicial appointments. It's all frustratingly slow, incremental.
As for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, one could posit that it's important to evaluate her qualifications and judicial record on their own merits, rather than wondering about her spouse --although SCOTUS spouses, notably Ginni Thomas, have assumed outsized and inappropriate roles. Patrick Jackson, wife of KBJ, is a surgeon, last time I looked. Should our goal be to ultimately promote a judiciary that upholds the principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law for all Americans, or run out with pitchforks and torches and sweep away what we don't like? Some would say both. But if both, what of the rule of law?
One might consider this exchange from Robert Bolt's 1960 play "A Man for All Seasons", the exchange between Roper and Sir Thomas More:
William Roper : So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More : Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper : Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More : Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
A truly brilliant play. Particularly pertinent for the present British ruling class in government under the Conservative party since 2010. They have been cutting down protective laws and passing ill thought out others that break international ones indiscriminately. A lack of a written constitution and absolute power of the UK’s political Executive has always been an open door to abuse of power. However, until now no one postwar has chosen to walk through it, save in regard to the governance of Northern Ireland. This is already tearing the UK social fabric to shreds on the ground in poorer areas and it is simply a matter of time before the more insulated morbidly wealthy London and the Home Counties follow suit.
Greg, but when do we decide that "tweaking" is insufficient and start over? I see your point giving the Devil the benefit of law, but that is concerning a particular case.
I don't have an answer to that, Gloria. There is what is likely, what is possible, and then there's everything else.
As much as I don't like it, I think that starting over falls into the latter category; starting over with SCOTUS is extremely unlikely, as I'm sure you know -- and that fact is indeed frustrating and exasperating.
You raise an important point about the limits of incremental reform versus the potential need for more radical changes. In discussing judicial reform, I aimed to highlight various approaches and the complexities involved in implementing them -- within the realm of the possible, even if unlikely.
When it comes to the question of whether "tweaking" is sufficient or if we need to start over, I think it's a matter of balancing practical feasibility with the urgency of the issues at hand. Incremental reforms can often be more achievable and less disruptive, gradually improving transparency, accountability, and diversity within the judiciary. And I hate that. There are certainly arguments for more comprehensive changes, especially when foundational issues of legitimacy and public trust are at stake.
Ultimately, the path forward would involve a robust dialogue that considers both the immediate need for reform and the long-term vision for a judiciary that truly serves the principles of justice and democracy. It's crucial to weigh the potential benefits of incremental changes against the risks and challenges of more radical restructuring. But who among our elected officials --let alone those appointed-- is willing to have that dialogue, let alone without the bickering, vitriol, recriminations, and so on?
Your concern underscores the importance of this ongoing discussion and the need to remain open to a range of solutions as we strive to improve our judicial system. I wish we could do some things a little more dramatically and quickly. This patient has been bleeding out for decades --how much longer can we keep it in the lobby?
Thank you for this very relevant quotation.
Why would the interracial marriage of SCJ Brown Jackson cause you to question her spouse’s political affiliations and persuasion?
Who died and appointed you the QUESTION POLICE??? In case you have been living in a cave for the last ten years, Virginia and Clarence Thomas cause me to question EVERYTHING ABOUT THE "SUPREME" COURT THESE DAYS! VIRGINIA THOMAS AND HER PLOTS AND PLANS WITH TRUMP TO OVERTHROW THE 2020 ELECTION LED TO MURDER AND DEATH AND TONS OF DESTRUCTION! SHE OUGHT TO BE ON FEDERAL DEATH ROW AWAITING EXECUTION, AS SHOULD TRUMP!! WHERE IS SHE INSTEAD?? TAKING EVERY BIT OF LARGESSE HARLAN CROWE HAS TO OFFER HER! WHERE IS TRUMP?? RUNNING FOR ELECTION AGAIN BECAUSE THE "JUDICIAL" SYSTEM IN WASHINGTON IS SO CORRUPT, THEY ONLY TAKE ON SMALL MATTERS THAT THEY CAN HANDLE, NOT THE BIG ONES LIKE MASSIVE CORRUPTION IN SC WORLD OR TRUMP WORLD! As for Ketanji Brown Jackson, all I can say is UGH! "Black on white," "white on black" has ALWAYS turned me off and always will! I don't like her. Not a one of the liberals on the SC stood up for Colorado's efforts (or Maine's or 16 other states') to remove Trump from their ballots in November! I find that shocking! I thought she might cast a dissenting vote, but no-o-oo . . . some people will do anything to go along to get along! I find her disappointing, to say the least. Her husband is so pale and grey he looks like a ghost!
My thoughts too. I assume they are married because they love one another. Has loving someone become political now too ? Oh, LGBTQ 🏳️🌈
Let's see . . . are you and Rose Maly the QUESTION POLICE???
Mmm . . . Why would it NOT cause me to question his political affiliations? Virginia and Clarence Thomas are the classic examples for questioning the "Supreme" Court's reasons for everything they do!! I can't stand the black-as-night PORN PERVERT CLARENCE THOMAS!! HE GIVES ME THE FRICKIN' CREEPS!!!!! HE HAS TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE COURT (THANKS TO BIDEN, WHO RAN ALL OVER ANITA HILL TO GET HIM THERE!) EVERY WHICH WAY HE CAN, CALLING UPON HIS SAD STORY OF BOYHOOD AND GROWING UP POOR (OH, BOO-HOO!) TO TAKE ALL THE MONEY AND TRIPS AND GIFTS AND HOUSE BUY-UPS HARLAN CROWE CAN GIVE HIM!!! AND HE DOES IT WITH IMPUNITY, THUMBING HIS NOSE AT EVERYONE!!! SOUNDS LIKE YOUR TYPICAL BLACK GANGSTA STREET THUG TO ME! (WHAT ELSE DOES GANGSTA THOMAS ENGAGE IN??? DRUG DEALING AND PIMPING?? I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED!) THE LEVEL OF CORRUPTION ON THE SUPREME COURT HAS GONE WA-A-A-AY OVER THE TOP BY NOW!! I have no idea how your "LGBTQ" comment applies here. See my comment to Rose Maly.
We are sadly way past political bias ( both left & right) affecting the Supreme Court.
The above comment is by far the best thing I have read on this subject. It deserves a wider audience. Robert Reich, can you help ?
Thanks so much for this thoughtful and informative post. I was not aware of stare decisis.
Akin to the British system of government but unlike the UK, US citizens possess the legal protections of a written constitution. This deferral to legal precedent combined with a conflict based (rather than Code Napoleon) legal system creates openings and gives easy cover for abuses of power by any individual with murky personal motives.
I could not like it because my ability to like fellow posts on substack was switched off a few days back. 🐈⬛
Same here.
Happy to illuminate if I can, Monnina.
Greg Maier— thank you for all the very thought provoking points.
Of course, the difference between respect for precedent and embracing novel legal theories or depart from established doctrine is a big jump. But that’s just what these, conservative, paid for judges want. Their desire is a departure from established doctrine. And I for one believe that’s what this Court has been doing in an in your face way.
These conservative judges are there for the long game. When Congress fails to turn our country around quickly enough, the Supreme Court can cherry pick just the right cases to do the conservative dirty work and make sure their agendas come to fruition before the new Fuhrer takes office.
In another few years we won’t even recognize this country if both Congress and the courts keep both blocking and reversing meaningful legislation to the majority of the people in our country. The GOP and the present Supreme Court are definitely setting the stage for a dictatorship.
It is looking that way, isn't it? They've been playing chess ever since Roe v. Wade. The Democrats have wasted many opportunities with the Court and many other things, including writing freedom for women to choose into law. We shall see how it evolves.
The SC decision concerning Obergefell v. Hodges was not a leading one, but followed the general mood in the Country.
The Equal Rights Amendment still has not been passed! We have a long way to go. Baby!
Greg : In short, get rid of misogynists and racists who are appointed by illegitimate 'presidents' by those who support the Federalist Society and other billionaire backers!
Ideally, yes. In reality, determining misogyny and racism and establishing the mechanisms to remove those who exhibit such traits is much messier and slower, especially with all the billionaire backers and current legal ambiguities. Unfortunately, we've seen SCOTUS nominees known to have severe views on many issues sail right through their confirmations. We've also seen subpar nominees embroiled in legal controversy clinch their appointments. For every person who finds Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito repugnant, there are others who find Kagan, KBJ, and Sotomayor wildly dangerous or threatening.
Who will get to decide? How will the tools we have work to preserve or remove these justices? The process of addressing these concerns is fraught with challenges...add to that the deeply divided perspectives in our society., and one has quite a job ahead.
Money seems to get its way easily enough!
Yes. Hasn't always been so?
No chance. We need another American Revolution.
Your proposed remedy is much worse than the problem. We need reform, not revolution. Revolutions don't tend to be bloodless nor very effective. The American Revolution was the exception, and the US constitution, though in need of reform, gets the big things mostly right. If you look at history, the Constitution has been modified multiple times (amendments), though not recently.
The reform we need would be a revolution:
(a) jail trump without access to electronics except for the same period that other prisoners are allowed to use the phone
(b) scuttle Citizens United and institute public finance of campaigns
(c) scuttle Corporate Personhood
(d) reinstate public control of the airwaves
(e) allow private schools but only without vouchers
(or give me a voucher for being forced to support undeclared wars)
(f) force chemical companies to remove forever chemicals from the market. Period. (and any chemical that is untested for human consumption from big AG).
(g) force fossil fuel barons to kowtow to climate change like they should have in the beginning as a result of their own research. Maybe jail them all.
(h) help the south replant clear cut forests which became "sustainable energy"
(i) remove insurance companies from Medicare. Period. Use tax on oil barons to support it.
(j) smack down pro life advocates who refuse to invest in school lunches, SNAP AND WIC, or early childhood programs that allow single mothers to go to work. AT LEAST: publish the schizophrenic vote of most republicans on these issues.
(k) smack down proven (evidence based) liars in congress and public office. They should be censured three times, then removed from office
(l) remove insurrectionist aiders and abetters from ANY office they hold.
(m) remove corporate looters from the housing market.
SORRY! Once I get started, it's hard to stop! I'm sure you have your own wish list.
Agree 100%!
Why apologize?
Your list reflects a powerful vision for transformative change, and I appreciate the passion and thought behind each point. Many of these reforms would address deep-seated issues in our political, social, and economic systems. However, as you noted, implementing such a comprehensive set of changes is incredibly challenging in the current political and legal landscape.
(a) The idea of jailing Trump and limiting his access to electronics highlights the desire for accountability, but achieving this would require navigating a complex legal process with no guaranteed outcome.
(b) Scuttling Citizens United and instituting public campaign finance would certainly reduce the influence of money in politics, but it would necessitate significant legal and constitutional changes that face substantial opposition.
(c) Ending Corporate Personhood and reinstating public control of the airwaves are both ambitious goals that would involve major legislative and judicial shifts.
(d) The voucher system for private schools is a contentious issue with strong arguments on both sides. Your perspective underscores the need for equitable funding in education, particularly public education.
(e) Forcing chemical companies to remove harmful chemicals and holding fossil fuel companies accountable for climate change are crucial for environmental protection, but achieving these goals would require overcoming powerful industry lobbies and implementing stringent regulations.
(f) Addressing deforestation, improving public healthcare funding, and ensuring comprehensive support for families reflect essential social justice concerns, but again, these require significant policy changes and political will.
(g) The idea of holding pro-life advocates accountable for their broader social policy positions is compelling, but it would be difficult to enforce legislatively.
(h) Enforcing accountability for lies in Congress and removing insurrectionist supporters are vital for maintaining integrity in government, yet implementing these measures would involve complex legal and procedural hurdles.
(i) Tackling corporate influence in the housing market is another important issue, but it would require robust regulatory frameworks and enforcement mechanisms. I don't see anything or anyone hell-bent on confronting this, with the necessary political and financial backing.
While your reforms may seem like a wish list, they underscore the importance of striving for systemic change. It's crucial to keep advocating for these goals, even if they seem out of reach, because progress often starts with bold ideas. Incremental steps toward these objectives can still make a significant difference and pave the way for more substantial changes in the future . . . . even when the incrementalism is killing us.
Thank you for gifting me some hope!
In some ways the American Revolution was more of a divorce from the English Monarchy rather than a full on Revolution. As an agreement reached between ruling classes it was relatively peaceful at its instigation but because all Revolutions are rarely anything but predictable and always a murderous deep cut that creates centuries of civil war of one kind or another, I see a direct historical trajectory between it and the later outbreak of the US Civil War. In many ways the political chaos that we are experiencing in the US, the UK and across the world, is simply a further iteration of the rolling out of the rule of law and individual sovereignty Enlightenment philosophies against the kickbacks from those who still prefer a social system of top down patriarchal hierarchies.
Holdfast 🐾
Please don’t say that. Even if it is probably accurate.
Uh, if we had another full on revolution it wouldn't end up the way you think.
A good chunk of the military would side with the fascists, for one. And there wouldn't be pitched battles that end in clean (and I'm using that term EXTREMELY LOOSELY) victories either way.
Cities would become giant killboxes, militia groups would be stalking rural areas slaughtering anyone they damn well pleased, transporting anything any real distance would be a nightmare because every shipment of anything even remotely valuable like FOOD AND MEDICINE would have to be guarded.
Fascist terrorists would destroy infrastructure left, right, and center, our schools would end up even more dangerous than they are now since they're prime targets for Republicans, and on top of all that there's the fact that entities like orban and Putin would be THROWING money and resources at Republicans and stealing national secrets and fuck only knows what else along the way.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Now, to be clear, I have no moral problem with forcefully removing Republicans from the positions of power they stole. Dethroning the illegitimate Republican politicians (yes, I know, tautology) that have lied, cheated, and slaughtered their way to power down south is the only kind of regime change I'm okay with. Unfortunately, it just doesn't end well in reality.
It looks increasingly like the “American Revolution” you propose as being needed, will actually soon be the “Civil War.”
Too subtle. Those who object to this should fly flags, perhaps his neighbors, TRAITOR ALITO....and others to the point, in his face, messages. DEMENTIA ALITO, UN-AMERICAN ALITO, PRAYING FOR YOUR DEATH, ALITO, .......
Wouldn't say pray. Then it's a his god vs my god conundrum. Keep this secular.
ALITO>GO TO HEAVEN!
Those trained in mathematics, logic and science, are not surprised that even mathematics is incomplete, as proved by Godel a century ago, long after the Constitution was written. How much less is the English language, or any language for that matter, capable of reason?
What Alito has shown is that he lives in an emotional world of religion and fantasy. While we must, for the time being, live with SCOTUS, we must recognize that Alito has no place on it.
Time to stack the Court.
We just need to find a better way of saying it than “stack”. How about expand the court.
Because it’s *already* stacked.
Yeah. If Justices are added to justly achieve balance, the loud supporters of the wrong that needed to be righted will squeal "Stack! Stack!" We say "balance."
How about expand in order to re-balance the court? And btw religion should have no visible place in any SCOTUS decision.
"Re-balance." there ya go!
If I were in charge I would have an even number of justices, say 12, 6 to be named by each party, and if they got to a stalemate, we could lock them up in a room with only pizza to eat until they came to agreement.
Adding justices to the court is something that a majority can do. The electoral college will be much more politically complicated.
There is only one college, I believe.
It is not simple and easy which is why the Equal Rights Amendment never becane part of the US Constitution.
An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose.
The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=An%20amendment%20may%20be%20proposed,in%20each%20State%20for%20ratification.
Christian Nationalism is purely political and has nothing to do with Christianity. It's a deliberate misnomer. There is a new documentary coming out (I need to find the name and update) that features an evangelical preacher from North Carolina who has made it his mission to expose the un-Christian nature of Christian Nationalism. It sounds so obvious, as thinking people know there is a difference, but the film discusses the origins and the insidious nature of their goals. It has a lot in common with how the Nazis used Christianity to advance their ideology. It was discussed on a Michael Tomasky podcast ... I hope I book marked it because that bit alone was eye opening. I must see the film.
The documentary is called Bad Faith. https://www.badfaithdocumentary.com
Thanks for the link. Was not surprised to see Paul Weyrich in the beginning: "Make no mistake about it - we are Christianizing America" - see him also on - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw.
Am also curious about film "God & Country" --- https://www.imdb.com/title/tt29259251/
I will check those out too. Thank you!
Thank you so much!!
Watched BAD FAITH last night on Amazon Prime. WOW.
Lisa, I wish your analysis were correct, but unfortunately it isn't true, at least not entirely. I speak as a shocked follower of Christ who attends a church which formed the "Christians Against White Christian Nationalism" group to fight this. Much of this IS being taught in churches. I suggest reading Tim Alberta's "The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory". This goes back to Jerry Falwell and tbe Moral Majority.
Hi, David! I understand that. It goes even farther back than Falwell, et al. It goes back to the Southern Strategy. It had already gained a toe hold by the time the Moral Majority became well known. The KKK was really the first organization to wrap their evil ideology in a cloak of Christianity, using the Bible as a weapon, but completely ignoring the teachings of Christ in the New Testament.
All true. I recommend 2 books: "White Too Long" by Robert P Jones (examines history of White Christian Nationalism and its supporting "theology" in the South and its lasting impact), and "And there Was Lignt" by John Meachum, which is a biography of Lincoln with an emphasis on the theological battle between North and South. White Christian Nationalism is deeply rooted in this nation's history, to even before its founding.
I see the distinction you feel. To employ the ancient metaphor, the strayed sheep don't know they are far, far away from The Shepherd. The demon is the father of lies.
Not purely political. Onishi has a good youtube video on the subject. They do put policy and power ahead of morality and values. They support Jews because Jesus, if he existed, came from Israel and believe the 2nd coming will be there (LDSers believe 2nd coming will be on the banks of the Missouri River, last i checked). So israel needs to be protected. Jesus will show up and either convert, subjugate or kill them all.
Love the idea of flying a flag saying Demented traitorous Alieto
Interesting enough there is some mathematics to the supreme court. The presidency is determined by the electoral college which currently gives a +35 advantage to Republicans via small state senate representation. In the Senate there is a +10 advantage to republicans giving them more power to approve or not even bring a nominee to the floor. Every election electorally republicans get a 6.5% advantage over dems. Senate wise they get a 10% advantage. Going through past elections via electoral George W Bush should never have been elected, knocking out Alito and Roberts. The Senate should have been democrat when Garland was denied which would have negated Gorsuch. I am sure there there is a way to use probability to figure out the odds are on the makeup of the supreme court with the current "ahem" rules or lack there of. With 3 liberal justices it would be 6 to 3 exactly the opposite of what it is now. If we went by popular vote for president then the court would be 8-1. Democrat to Republican.
FDR felt the same when he tried to pack the court in the last century…
There is a stake in the heart of trust in the Court and indeed our entire justice system. The fourteenth amendment, section three should be followed. Traitors should not be in the People's House/Congress! The MAGAs are all disabled!
Yes, and what a horrible travesty of justice that was! I jumped for absolute joy the day we all heard that Scalia had died from a massive heart attack down at a faux "hunting" ranch in Texas! Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy! That TERRIBLE decision -- to stop Florida's recount, which in my opinion should not have come under SC consideration in the first place! -- opened up the Middle East and the rest of the world to terrorism, and changed the course of history for many years to come. We should begin agitating for SC impeachments IMMEDIATELY!
Not just the tragedies in the Middle East. I can not but grieve for the lost chance to begin to stop the destruction of our fragile shared planet and all its fellow life forms. But it seems Big Oil Barons always ‘win’.
Trust in the Supreme Court has been non existent for about 24 years. Unless they rule in favor of the GQP, then they are “the law of the land”.
He and Thomas need to be ousted before we lose what’s left of our Democratic Republic.
All the conservative justices. Given that Republicans can only win elections by cheating via the electoral college, none of them are legitimate.
Alito is a religious zealot who lied at his confirmation hearing about his respect for precedent. He apparently views all who disagree with his antiquated and biased views as enemies to be eliminated from the body politic. He doesn't belong on SCOTUS since his first and probably last loyalty isn't to the Constitution but some religious ideal that only he holds.
The Republicans all lied at their confirmation. Half of that court should be impeached, but especially Alito and Thomas. They are scum!
Angela, and Republicans love Alito because he can be counted on to go with whatever their issue flavor of the day is. He should never have been nominated let alone approved for the SC. I know a lot of Democrats used to go with nearly every nominee because of some loyalty to the court or something ridiculous like that. It seems, though that the SC conservatives pretty much all lied in their hearings, so why even have a hearing. Clearly none of the Senators really paid attention and when Republicans have the majority as they did for most of the Cons, the approval was a foregone conclusion. As for Thomas, Senators voted for him either because they knew it was a slap in the face for Black Americans or because they were afraid they would be seen as racist if they didn't vote for him. That is no way to get an SC justice, but clearly it worked well and 33 years later that fool is still causing havoc on the SC. Alito is around 20 years. Both should be gone. Term limits of 18 years as has been recommended would take care of that for us all.
The Constitution says they should serve as long as they engage in "good behavior". But it looks bad for that requirement.
Unfortunately, he is on SCOTUS until gravity takes care of him. If the Court is going to be political, then it's time to stack it.
Too late.
You may be right.
But, let Biden win in November, we will see if he actually has balls.
The important thing is that he wins.
The only ideals he holds are to power, he subjugation of "the other", and a desire to put them in their place.
Yup. What the heck happened, this fundamental religious antipathy to the Constitution is America's new guiding paradigm?
Coulda, shoulda and woulda!!!
If only a few good men could, would do what should be done for the greater good, then we would not be in this world of mess.
I want to believe that our laws and our constitution had and has the guardrails to stop this highjacking of our country.
And day in and day out it’s the same shock of WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING all over again. They don’t play fair, they lie and steal. They manipulate and convince themselves and others that Democrats do it too
Bull dinky. The supreme court’s lack of oversight is the result of a sleepy nation not watching the watchers.
I screamed loudly when Clarence Thomas was put on the bench and screaming ever since.
One bad man: Mitch McConnell. Sadly, when you call up Thomas' confirmation, you call up: Joe Biden! But Dodd may have waked up the sleepy nation. I wonder about the sleepy male vote: plenty of guys were grateful to be able to give the lady a ride and a few bucks, no hard feelin's.....
Correct. The people voted for those who approved nominations of unworthy nominees and mostly re-elected them.
The Supreme Court is compromised.
How do we rectify this situation?
We vote Blue every opportunity to get a majority in both houses of Congress and retain the White House. Then we change the McConnell filibuster rule. Finally, impeach Alito and Thomas for their unethical and unprincipled behaviors.
DOJ can file an emergency motion. Make a record. File an affidavit.
Ask for an emergency hearing.
If it has propaganda value why not? But I don't see it leading to removal of Alito.
Only hope we have. All the other stuff amounts to nothing unless we sweep the election.
Sure do it. You never know for sure whether things may break our way.
Add 4 more justices, 1 for each federal district. Have them serve a time and the rotste off, to be replaced by appeals court justices...Elizabeth Warren proposed this plan some time ago.
Yeah and look where that - and some other stuff - got her. If only . . .
But alas, Biden has firmly dismissed the possibility of reform of the court.
Well that was then and this is now. And in a few months he will start his second term. With a large enough democratic majority in both houses, it might be possible to expand the court. Without majorities in Congress, the president cannot do it alone.
I agree!
Biden is a shrewd politician. He can't lead the charge. If enough of us make noise, he will listen i believe.
Then we must get VERY loud, and even louder each passing day. He has done amazing things for our country in a short period of time, but it's past time for him to make bold choices in order to neutralize the clear and present danger of MAGA Nazism.
Reforming the Supreme Court: requiring ethical standards, providing a "reality test” to Supreme Court opinion, and separating the Judicial Branch of government from the Executive has to become a high priority for Chuck Schumer-- to get a Senate bill passed so that when it stalls in the House this issue can be forefront in the election. The Senate Bill should create the position of the “Grand Foreman of the American Juries,” the first position elected directly by all people to run the Judicial Branch, with the power to send opinions back to the Supreme Court to rewrite to conform to precedent and provable facts, leaving the Attorney General to the position of advising the President. The law should specifically outlaw executive interference, thereby restoring law and order after the partisan medaling to preventing a slide to dictatorship.
One of the first things the Grand Forman should do would be to send the Dred Scott and the Citizen’s United decisions back to the Supreme Court, and thus eliminate the absolute absurdity that exists of Supreme Court Rulings that gave to corporations the civil rights they took away from Blacks.
By stacking the Court.
One COULD argue that Alito might even be more senile/infantile in his "judgment" than Trump... but/however, there seems to be no viable mechanism to nullify his opinion in any of the Trump-related cases or impeach him—the latter will not pass through the Senate (durn!). He is an ongoing dangerous element in the Court (as are five other "justice")... and our hands are tied! So frustrating and demoralizing!
It is becoming more and more apparent that there exists within our government a subversive group of individuals who want to change the country as we know it. How deep does their influence go? Only Trump and time will tell.
My sincere hope is that in this election, we rid ourselves of Trump and start steering the country in a better direction (again).
Leonor--That would be something to look forward to.
Someone--Question: would you give up your arms for a good set of wings?
Donald—depends on how one acquired them. I wouldn’t trust a pair from Boeing or any of the other military contractors.
Stephanie--The only contractor Trump ever paid turned out to be Stormy Daniels.
Thank you.
Initiate impeachment now. Charges, even w/o conviction send a vital message. Elito is disgraceful and unfit. Stop him. Thomas is next.
Why are we just now hearing about these ‘flags?’
Valid poin! Once again big media is so busy being a tool of the wealthy that important reports claims and facts are withheld from the the average citizen.
Maybe enough neighbors who knew about them came forward. Even those who live in upscale communities don't want fascism, I imagine! The women get pregnant without meaning to there, too! tRUMP wants to kill with impunity! Imagine if he had an edict that you all have to dye your hair to look like his latest aide? You know, like Hope Hicks? And what about Burkas? It's the American Taliban!
It’s truly shocking that Alito didn’t even think to hide his radical biased views. I favor finding a way to remove him or render him in effective by changing the number of justices. He will go down in history as one of the worst Supreme Court justices ever. In a way we are lucky to have his bias on full display. There can be no question about what we are dealing with now.
He’s an arrogant asshole who loves power. Sound familiar?
Alito and his unretreating flags. I thought we had a Revolution to get rid of Royalist behavior.
Impeachment can't happen when the majority of people in congress are incapable of rational thought and/or have no ethics or moral compass.
Peter: true!: the MAGAs are disabled by their violations of their oaths to uphold the Constutution! They are disqualified! Our former , illegitimate 'president' tried to force his Vice president to refuse to certify President Biden's win. The SCOTUS sycophant 6 'majority' have erased (?) The14th amendment, section 3 , to allow their criminal activity on the bench, and keep the MAGA 'razor thin' majority in power, since they would also be removed from Congress for their obvious disability. Corruption at work! They have not conducted themselves in good behavior. And should be removed from the bench of the Supreme Court! It is in the Constitution, and that is why they support the lawless MAGA actors! If they can get away with this, we don,'t need to try to expand the court, or do term limits! Lawlessness prevails! The Court is dysfunctional! Irrelevant! We will have an Emperor! Or Ayatolla! Or 😈 Demon! In Chief! Yikes!!!
Post script ; Tonight on MSNBC, I again heard a pundit say, on Deadline Whitehouse, that the Supreme court Have lifetime tenure. This is a lie! There is nothing in the Constitution that says this! The only mention of service length is that they remain on the Court with "Good Behavior". Professor Lawrence Tribe was on in another segment, saying basically the same thing in my recorded programs from last night. Just when I feel that there is good information in this network TV 'news', I am reminded of who owns the network ; Billionaires, who do not want US to know the truth!, not just some facts, but the whole truth, and nothing But the Truth! It is important! We can do things if we know these things! We can remove them from the Court! They have not done Good behavior and are disqualified! they are traitors! Long ago our founders would have hung them until dead! As our former guy pointed out!
He blamed his wife. He’s a pathetic worm of a man.
A guy who gets his legal arguments from 'Witch hunters' in the 17th century, England, to justify ending Roe!? What is he doing on the Court in the 21st Century?!?
Yay, paying attention sister! Hale became Chief Justice in England in 1671. America separated dramatically from England, hello, 1776 ring a bell? Alito whoop-de-dooed back to: “Two treatises by Sir Matthew Hale likewise described abortion of a quick child who died in the womb as a ‘great crime’ and a ‘great misprision,’” Alito wrote. https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale (It gets worse about how despicable females are...)
Mmerose ; Thank you for this!
They are frightened, insecure cowards. And they are bitterly disappointed in themselves for being so. So they project and rationalize. Trump is a weak old man who never broke out of the dysfunctional cycle of desperately trying to gain the attention of and please his father. I don’t know anything about Alito’s upbringing, but I’m willing to bet he’s stuck in a similar dynamic.
I am weary of the duplicity of Alito and and Thomas both. So arrogant and self serving and their wives - can they be impeached?
Alito needs to be impeached for the reasons you stated, and Thomas needs to be impeached for blatant corruption.
So what to do? The CORRUPT 6 just ignore anything that calls them out! And keep on doing what they are doing, but expect the rest of us to follow their rulings. They just go on ruling in favor of the people who have bought and paid for them and against most Americans and American public opinion. Maybe what has to happen is that Americans say NO WAY - you are so CORRUPT that we cannot and will not follow your rulings - to their rulings and ignore them as well. If they will not follow the ethics that all other courts have to then they are NOT legitimate and therefore have NO standing! Go ahead and play being a Supreme Court, but since you cannot and will not follow any ethics too bad you don't have any standing with the American public and we will ignore you as well! This will just continue until Americans rise up and put an end to it! Congress has been of no help and looks impotent to do anything about this.
In defense of Kavanaugh,?Roberts, Barrett and Gorsuch, while I despise their political bent on many cases, I do not consider them to be unethical like Thomas and Alito.
Then you probably do not know enough about them.
Gorsuch, really?he who has never sided with an individual’s rights over corporation, and he who ruled against the funding of the Consumer Protection Bureau in favor of payday lenders’ predatory practices ?
Gorsuch & Barrett both lied when they were questioned by Congress regarding their opinions about abortion. They need to go, too.
I don't trust them either. Barret suggested that she would not upend "settled law". Roberts seems asleep as the 'Chief Justice' of this Court. They were, all 6, appointed by illegitimate 'presidents'.
They, BKGRAT are all cut from the same cloth! Dark souls.
John Roberts? Isn’t time for him to grow a vertebral column??? What a wimp!
He's a "fellow traveller." Won his Chief Justice spurs leading the "Brooks Bro's Riots" that gave Rehnquist and Scalia cover that there was a real problem in Florida. Roberts' only dilemma is how bad is he going to look, and does he care?
He seems MAGA.