Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Well yeah. Alito was executing "the plan" they all already agreed on back at the Federalist Society. SCOTUS has been captured by far right forces. The court is illegitimate and corrupt to the core.
It's not a recent thing.
There was about 5 minutes under Warren where the court looks like it might actually be progressive. Other than that essentially it's entire history it's just a archconservative institution that exists as a check on civil rights.
Wow, that was a hell of a read. Thank you.
5 out of 9 are known to have taken what looks to be bribes:
Why would Republicans care about that? They aren't black! Except for the black one taking the most bribes so they consider him white!
Until the Supreme Court is completely overhauled, it's going to be extremely difficult to substantively change the heading of this country. Conservatives see this as a win, but they're too short-sighted to realize they shot themselves in the foot just the same.
We could also water it down, adding justices seems to be the only option since they don't/won't hold themselves accountable.
I'm no legal expert but I've always thought the randomized or rotating court idea (perhaps > 9) filled by lower circuit courts would be better and less partisan overall.
I've never heard of that option, but they're appointed too right? Not sure if that would fix it.
They are but they tend to be constantly cycling out at a given time and so seem less concentrated or determined by individual presidents. They are also possibly subject to less lobbying targeting given which group presiding over a specific case would never be certain.
Instead of protecting the Constitution, specifically the 9th Amendment, the current SCOTUS is instead denying and disparaging the basic rights of all those people who can get pregnant.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
SCOTUS is either blind or bought off ... or both.
It’s a lot of people. If we add in all of those who can get someone pregnant but aren’t ready to be parents or who love someone whose life is affected by a problematic pregnancy, the number grows massively.
But we don’t live in a representative democracy anymore.
SCOTUS is either blind or bought off
OH, OH, I KNOW THIS ONE!
It didn’t take me nearly 10 minutes to figure out which one.
The 9th amendment? Those FedSoc fucks never read past the 2nd.
And Gorsuch in particular disregards that pesky line in the 1st that separates church and state.
Or maybe it's that he denies the post Civil War incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
Either way, he's written about how he thinks it should be legal for States to have an official religion (his own).
Of course he did. Overturning Roe was on all of their agendas as they were getting confirmed. They would just never admit to it. Conservatives are liars.
Yeah, of course. No doubt Alito circulated the opinion to allies before circulating to the rest is the court. Hell, I’m sure Alito has had it in his drafts folder for since he was appointed.
The bigger surprises:
These guys know how they are going to vote long before the case is even accepted to the Court.
It's a total charade, the whole fucking thing.
"Yep, that takes rights away from women alright. Good enough for me!" - Gorsuch probably.
Think of it this way. We'd fail a 5th Grade student who didn't read a 100 page book and hold them back a year.
This guy is an inspiration to those struggling kids! Truly anyone can be a Supreme Court Justice!
Someone once made the point that a Supreme Court judge really didn't have to know the law, because by the time a case got to the court it was obvious that the law was ambiguous. They argued that the Justices should be considering which interpretation was best for the most people, not which was the 'correct' way to view it.
Oh, he read the 100 page document. Just long before it was sent out.
In your heart of hearts, do you believe that's what happened?
It took him 10 minutes to pull out the rubber stamp?
It took him 9 minutes to open the attachment on his email.
There's no chance he didn't know what was in it. He was part of the cabal from the beginning.
Given how far said stamp was jammed up his arse, I'd say that is a reasonable estimate.
Every time I think I can’t possibly think less of the Supreme Court they go and surprise me
He knew the plan to overthrow Wade v Roe already and was just making sure it was on track.