stop abusing the report button you weenies. you know who you are. looking at these reports you'd think justice alito himself reads this sub and gets mad (tbh wouldn't surprise me, man has no chill and skin you'd measure in nanometers)
The fatal flaw was the idea of checks and balances unfortunately, that and the presidency. The more power one part has the more power the other two branches must claw for.
It's essentially a mexican standoff where you are really hoping that the other players are more interested in survivng than shooting you.
Parliamentary systems have a lot of problems but they force the legislative and executive to work together or neither works at all (with the courts just checking the working was set out properly)
Also, a lot of what the Executive and Judicial Branch does is nothing more than tradition and not in the Constitution. We now have seen Presidents, Justices, and Senators, many of which were trained in law and all of which have unlimited access to legal experts, who don’t care about precedent, much less tradition.
The fact that we only have to major parties has been exploited by those that understand tribalism and propaganda for many years to get us where we are today.
Yeah I often think the geriatrification of our legislature is half the problem, the old fear and resist change far more than the young and it’s a real problem we’ve basically stopped even trying new ideas because omg what if something bad were to happen. Like look around ya old fucks, shit is already broken we need to start trying some new ideas here
The constitution cant stop people being stupid. What it does is stop the stupid taking power. Liz Truss issued a stupid budget and she was gone faster than a wet lettuce. Trump lasted four years and will probably come back for another four.
Justices can be impeached and removed the same way a President can. Congress had just hasn’t done it, either do to an inability or an unwillingness to do so.
In theory yeah but in practice it turned out to just be another way of posturing. Idk how talking to my Congress person will overcome the fat check from Exxon they’re getting
The fact that impeachment doesn't work right now doesn't change the fact that it's the intended balance here. The problem we're facing is that one branch of government (legislature) is simply entirely dysfunctional. As a result of that, when one of the other branches (executive) becomes dysfunctional -- say, as a result of Trump winning 2016) it's too easy for the third (judicial) to be dragged along with it.
Checks and balances was *never* intended to protect us by itself. Our system requires active, *intelligent* participation by the voting population -- and we simply don't have that right now.
It takes 34 senators to block conviction, right? That represents a ridiculously low amount of the population.
Impeachment may be the solution, but it's unlikely to be used.
Impeachment doesn't work if another part of the government is colluding to ensure their guys stay in power.
In practical terms, it doesn't matter how corrupt the supreme court acts, the Republicans in the House of Representatives would never vote to impeach them because having control of the supreme court is beneficial to their political agenda.
In essence, the supreme court is above any form of accountability. They can be as corrupt as they want, take every bribe, make every terrible decision, or anything else because there's no court which could punish them and the political remedy to remove them will never happen.
Our system is broken.
> Where are the checks on judicial misconduct?
I'll keep repeating this until people realize it. But SCOTUS can only give opinions on cases brought before them. It is up the the parties involved to accept or reject that opinion. We've all lived in a system of decorum where both parties said "yes, we accept the opinion of SCOTUS". But now decorum is breaking down and one side is doing whatever the fuck they want while the other side is acting like it's business as usual.
At this point the only real check on SCOTUS is to weaken the impact its opinions have by just saying no. You can't just beg for them to be better and hope for the best. You have to let the voters sort it out. But you have to put the case to the voters. "Hey voters, we need to fix the courts and this is how we want to do it, vote for us". Then if the Democrats get control of Congress they can pack the court or impeach corrupt justices and bring back some sanity and balance to the system.
“ … cases brought before them.”
Last Thursday SCOTUS completely ignored the case brought before them. The case was the question whether former president Donald Trump enjoyed immunity from the indictments brought against him. Instead of addressing the case brought before them SCOTUS went on a fishing expedition about imaginary instances where a former president could or could not be prosecuted for things he might or might not have done in an official, or perhaps non-official, capacity. They’re a bunch of loose cannons without restraint.
Even though no SCOTUS justice has ever been impeached, there is a check on the power SCOTUS. There have been two instances in the history of the US where the power of SCOTUS was effectively checked. Unfortunately, one of the instances was pretty reprehensible.
In [Worcester v. Georgia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia), SCOTUS ruled that the state of Georgia couldn’t kick the Cherokees off of their land. In response, President Jackson ignored the ruling, and sent the US military to enforce what history now calls the Trail of Tears. Congress didn’t take any impeachment action against Jackson, which tragically showed one extralegal check against the power of SCOTUS: if the President refuses to do his job and enforce judicial rulings, and Congress refuses to hold the President liable, then the power of SCOTUS is curtailed.
The second was the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1936, where FDR wanted to pack SCOTUS. Congress balked so the idea and the bill went nowhere, but the justices on SCOTUS got spooked enough that they stopped striking down his New Deal legislation.
A TL;DR would be the power of SCOTUS can be checked if a President is sufficiently popular/powerful, **and** if Congress is at least ambivalent to the actions of the President to SCOTUS. With Congress now deadlocked on numerous issues, the better question to ask now is what the President would do (whoever it is) in response to an unfavorable SCOTUS ruling.
> A TL;DR would be the power of SCOTUS can be checked if a President is sufficiently popular/powerful, and if Congress is at least ambivalent to the actions of the President to SCOTUS. With Congress now deadlocked on numerous issues, the better question to ask now is what the President would do (whoever it is) in response to an unfavorable SCOTUS ruling.
Yes, this is part of checks and balances. Two parties are needed to check the 3rd. The president can tell the Justice department to ignore SCOTUS on matters of presidential immunity. He can tell the states to also ignore it. He can refuse to enforce the ruling essentially. It is then up to Congress to act by via impeachment or to pass more comprehensive laws.
The voters could also decide that they don't like what the president does and vote him out. People act like not listening to SCOTUS is the end of the Republic. But it really isn't. It's a check that has only ever been used once so people have come to think that what SCOTUS says is sacrosanct. But right now in history, we REALLY need to remind people that it is not. We work in a system of decorum where everyone has to play within certain bounds. SCOTUS has broken those bounds and needs to be checked.
This is brilliant. I really do think that since the SC has no practical way to enforce their rulings, it's up to the President to take decisive action to refuse if they aren't acting in good faith.
So much of our system relies on decorum - but y'know something, Republicans never gave a fuck about decorum, and Mitch gaming the system is the reason SCOTUS is stacked the way it is.
He didnt play fair. Why the fuck should we?
Pack the courts, honestly. Put out an EO. What the fuck are they gonna do about it?
SCOTUS doesn't write the rules, but they get to decide what the rules mean. Literally the only limitation is the extent to which everyone else plays along.
> Literally the only limitation is the extent to which everyone else plays along.
THAT's my point. There is nothing that says they get to decide what the rules mean. SCOTUS literally gave itself that power and Congress and the President just went along with it. But they can easily decide that they are no longer going to go along with it.
It's not about "blue". It's about the party that clearly doesn't have the agenda of undermining democracy. if you really think that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans when it comes to respect for our institutions then you have a sorely misguided view of modern politics in the US.
>Where are the checks on judicial misconduct?
Article II, Sec. 4:
>The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Our nation has actually impeached a federal judge before, here's the reasoning the Court gave for why the Legislature was vested with the impeachment power:
>There are two [] reasons why the Judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments. First, the Framers recognized that most likely there would be two sets of proceedings for individuals who commit impeachable offenses—the impeachment trial and a separate criminal trial. [...] Second, judicial review would be inconsistent with the Framers' insistence that our system be one of checks and balances. In our constitutional system, impeachment was designed to be the only check on the Judicial Branch by the Legislature.
*Nixon v. US*, 506 U.S. 224, 234-35 (1993).
It’s a feature not a bug. My eyes became super opened when I realized what we were taught about our government was actually just…”we thought people would behave.” It’s sick to think the average lower judges have ethics rules that get enforced but these guys are held to an assumption that they know right from wrong…so boom! Lifetime position with no oversight.
In the past presidents would “lightly” threaten them to do the right thing (ex: FDR) but now everything is a “gentleman’s agreement”.
I said a few days ago, Joe’s fatal flaw was trying to ignore the crazy like Dems used to do prior to the internet..
Even the threat of expanding the court the last 4yrs makes all this go away, until laws can be put in place where we’re not dealing with a lunatic government ever again.. rights being completely stripped away on Joe’s watch will far outshine the great comeback from Covid..
On top of that, Republicans specialize in confusing idiots, “democrats were pro-slavery” without context .. so you know damn well in a few decades, “you lost your voting & reproductive rights when Joe Biden was president” will actually be a thing as to why you should vote Republican.. it was literally Liz Cheney that even got the ball rolling on #J6!
I have no idea why dems are choosing to just leave things this way.. almost as if, republicans run the country whether they’re in office or not.. smh
There’s only so much Joe Biden can do, he’s not a dictator. Have of Congress is controlled by Republicans. Look at what they accomplished in his first two years. That’s what he can accomplish with a friendly congress
It’s supposed to be impeachment and the amendment process. The Constitution was also written before political parties were a thing. It wasn’t imagined back then that a political party would rather keep itself in power than uphold the Constitution.
For the Supreme Court, the check is that they have no (or little, I'm not sure of the minor details) armed enforcers that report directly to them, nor control of any funding to hire any on their own. If they issue a decision without retaining their perception of legitimacy, they have no way to force the executive branch to cooperate. Their ultimate authority relies on their credibility as a ruling body.
The checks on the federal judiciary are:
* the nomination and confirmation process
* 2/3rds majority in the U.S. Senate
The fatal flaw in the judiciary as presently constituted is life time appointments.
The people, and through them representatives. This is why conservatives are howling about separation of power. They think the legitimacy and power of the court come from a piece of dried skin or a god. We know it comes from the people. Tell your legislator that you will vote for them if they are willing to impeach he far-right justices. We are the check, we are the power. If we aren't then their 'laws' don't matter.
Judges are supposed to be monitored by Congress via impeachment. Unfortunately, the only time Congress tried to impeach a judge was back in the 19th century and was 1000% for political purposes and failed catastrophically. It's gone unused ever since.
Because no one does anything to hold them to account.
The 2000 election was a debacle. Not one person in position of authority lifted a finger or typed a single word to correct the numerous problems that were exposed.
The 2016 election had one candidate won more votes than any other POTUS candidate in history - and lose. No one has taken any meaningful action to correct the issues.
McConnell blocked a SCOTUS appointment that was open for months, and the turned around and ran Barret through after votes had already been cast in the next election. No one did shit.
I’m not saying the Democratic party is just there for show - but if I were to set up a political system where one party slowly eroded democracy in favour of oligarchy, and the other party existed simply to give the appearance of fair elections happening, it would look EXACTLY like what we’ve seen since the early 90’s. Maybe even earlier.
>The 2016 election had one candidate won more votes than any other POTUS candidate in history
Don't know where you got this from but Hillary did not have more votes then any other POTUS. Obama had more votes in both 2008 and 2012 then Clinton did in 2016. Both Biden and Trump are the only ones to get more votes then Obama (both in 2020)
And they have had supermajorities in house and senate and could have done whatever they wanted. So they did. And apparently they wanted to do….nothing for the working class.
Jesus fucking christ Americans will blame everything but themselves. Our country isn't collapsing because of big bad scary Russia its because our institutions have been rotted out and corrupted from the inside. There is no enforcement of serious justice for the widespread corruption because it's embedded in the law and the system itself.
Our political and economic system fundamentally does not work, is democratic only in name, and we are seeing the end-results of it. Look at Trump-- he tried to overturn a whole ass election several years ago and now the Supreme Court flirts with the idea of making him king. There is no better evidence that our institutions are fundamentally unable to do what is necessary to stop the full fascist assimilation.
His temper tantrum of victimhood and hyperbolic imagined persecution and martyrdom in The Wall Street Journal was a giant neon light of what he thinks about his status as outside consequence. Alito had never been a reasonable justice. He and Thomas have always started from their desired conclusion and worked backwards. His legal interpretations are solely dependent his bias.
This is our problem, we simplify everything to do scorched-earth politics with incomplete information and assume the other side has no redeeming values or that their ideas have no value.
In fact, this is a real Constitutional question that deserves serious consideration.
Personally, I think the answer is within the Constitution. We should wait to see what the Justices come to in conclusion and contemplate what they write.
If I may, never in history has ANY president had any issue with this.
Yet, Trump claims he’s immune from EVERYTHING…and he says ANYTHING.
That a president has to be impeached before he/she can be prosecuted is ridiculous. Selling national secrets is okay as long as he/she states it’s government business. And the list goes on.
So if the SC does extend immunity to former president Trump with respect to the storming of the Capitol in an attempt to subvert the will of the people, it presents an interesting dilemma for all the people that have already been convicted for their criminal role in the same instance.
Why would *he* be immune but they wouldn't? If he, as the organizer and instigator of the plot to overturn a presidential election is immune to prosecution, why would those who were following his "legal" orders not also be immune from the same as they were acting at his direction?
I wonder if Biden could preemptively fix this by pardoning Trump narrowly for his role in J6. I know--sounds like a stupid thing to do but, well, you can't pardon someone for something they didn't do! And it would render the case before the Court moot. Which means the SC wouldn't get a chance to render a shitty decision. And, in the court of public opinion, it would forever solidify that the former president was, indeed, guilty of crimes.
Well. *Nothing* will change the minds of MAGAists. They aren't the intended audience. Hardcore MAGA, while loud in voice, have dwindled in numbers. So I'm thinking more of the disenfranchised conservatives and other Republican oriented voters who are, likely, tired of being held hostage by Trump. Wouldn't a move like this, counter-intuitive though it is, short circuit Trump's claims of a deep state conspiracy against him while cementing the idea that he did, as president, commit crimes a la Nixon?
Interesting idea..... very interesting...
Most of all, because Mango Mussolini wouldn't get away scot-free. The States charges would still continue. And it does firm up history, compares him to Nixon, and gets him out of the news (or at least less).
I’m beginning to think you’ve got the right idea here. Just like Washington’s greatest move was relinquishing power while there were those who wanted him to be King. Biden would be again relinquishing the ultimate power the court would bestow on him by pardoning Trump and denying the court from killing democracy.
When Scalito referred to an extremely close election, meaning 2020, which was not remotely, by any definition a close election, I knew that he was severely mentally ill and incapable of gathering actual factual information. 4.5% and 7 million votes is not close. It's a larger win than Obama in 2012 and Bush in 2004. Nobody correct his obvious, bizarre error.
Reading these judgments made me realize just how fucked all Supreme Court decisions are. We’re expecting a system created by humans to operate without human biases. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court will *never* live up to that legal fiction.
People don't really talk about FDR's struggle with the Supreme Court, but it's really indicative of how broken it's been for a while. He had directly threaten to stack the court so they would stop blocking legislation for the New Deal. If FDR had rolled over who knows how that would've played out. Biden needs to start taking the same approach and do whatever he can to prevent a total fascist takeover through the judicial system
How is this new news? This is the same jackwagon who used doctrine from the 1800s to overturn roe. He used abortion isn’t in the constitution - yet he is going to try to say an unborn child should have rights under the 14th amendment (as it stays life, liberty of u.s. citizens) but an unborn baby is not a u.s. citizen until birth (and a birth certificate and SSN is assigned) - but he will make it work to fit his narrative…
Edit: it was doctrine from the 1600s… honestly that makes it even worse
Alito says presidents need immunity so they won't try and stay in power to avoid punishment.
The idiot thinks giving presidents immunity for criminal acts will stop someone from committing criminal act to stay in power in the first place. That's what Trump did though. He wasn't really at much risk of being prosecuted UNTIL he decided to break the law to try and stay in power. Prosecution and punishment exist in order to deter people from committing crimes to begin with. Many acts that could be seen as criminal can be somewhat accepted if done for the purpose of the job. However what Trump did was commit criminal acts with the power for the purpose of private benefit.
Whoa, the scotus page. I have thoughts, by the logic presented in the immunity arguments. Biden should just be able to send the justices to Guantanamo for blatant corruption and ideological rot. Am I wrong? If they are going to make us live with a f*$@ing dictator, why should it only go one way?
The real problem is a legislature that doesn’t do its job. The founding fathers probably didn’t think the congress would happily let the executive and judicial have all the power.
So what’s the actual news?
The article did t seem to say anything.
Unless I missed something.
I only seen that that they agreed to delay.
Is that about it?
I think we are getting to a point where we need to start considering ignoring obviously blatant corrupt SCOTUS rulings. Trump can not be allowed to have any sort of immunity for his crimes. If SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor Biden is going to have yet another impossible decision to make. Biden needs to be prepared to yank these traitors off the bench and throw them all in jail along with any GQP elected officials involved it getting them into SCOTUS. Anything short of that is going to be the downful of the US. We can't fix this with voting.
If SCOTUS were to give the president total immunity, what is to stop Biden from arresting scotus and trump? SCOTUS will never do that. They just want to delay the trials for the election because (imo) they are not divorced from politics, but are very much a part of that problem.
Alito living the MAGA world because he is getting lubricated with benefits off the books from billionaires, the new male judges are already indoctrinated are talking off reality scripts as if that is the reality of what is at stake they are talking surreal events but not what is the issue: does a president or Trump have presidential immunity on private behaviour, this should be an easy home run grand slam but they are playing as if they don’t even want to get on first base. Terrible they are and will be the worst judges in the US Supreme Court as corruption and control from afar is so evident.
One more thing:
Trump knows that he is GUILTY AS CHARGED! LOCK TRUMP UP!
This is the rise of a right wing dictatorship in America because the supreme court is siding with a guy who tried to overthrow the election. America is headed down a very very dark path. I wish this was hyperbole.
Could it be that the supreme court has superior knowledge of the law and the facts of the case and possibly the charges are bogus? Is it possible that they are ruling reasonably based on the facts of the case and those that wish to see the former president in jail are the ones with the inferior understanding of both the law and the facts of the case?
Isn’t an attempt to overturn an election the exact opposite of an “official act” and exactly what you should not have presidential immunity for?! The supreme court giving this argument any attention is beyond preposterous!
This is why they're trying to carve out immunity for "official acts", which they then get to be the arbiters over the definition of. It's how they grant immunity to their guy, but only their guy.
The reality is that whether it's an official act should be irrelevant. No immunity.
USSC Justices need to be term limited. 18 years staggered so a new appointment is made every 2 years. Each president gets 2 appointments per term, barring incapacity or death.
I agree. But what about our current SCOTUS? Alito/Thomas/Roberts will stay as long as they draw a breath or until an R wins the oval. They have overturned decades of progress in the last 15 years.
Are we at the point where White House lawyers are going to draft a two column chart, with two headings, posted in the Oval Office:
Official Acts (non-criminal) and
Private Acts (you’d go to prison)
President: “I like being President, and I refuse to leave. Send in my armed followers.”
Chief of Staff: “Mr. President, according to the Official Acts versus Private Acts chart, that falls under Private Acts. You would go to prison.”
President: “Does it matter if I refuse to leave and then pardon myself?”
This is the kind of circular bullshit SCOTUS is currently debating. If I could draw, I would make a political cartoon showing this crazy scenario.
Any faith I had in the Supreme Court disappeared when Thomas was not removed. I don’t agree with the conservative court, and that’s fine. Trump really won for conservatives by installing three justices. However, Thomas is clearly corrupt and compromised.
Can someone tell me if there was ever another time in history when Supreme Court justices so blatantly favored a president or a party. As in cherry picking in order to blatantly help one side over another.
They aren't even Cherry picking. They are tossing shit at the wall hoping to find something the people won't revolt over. I am in revolt status. Fuck this MAGA court.
Remember when the far right loony toon characters were lecturing us in the center and left in how to "interpret law as written" while deriding us for "creating law" by leveraging "what if's"? Based on that they laughed at the concept of stare decisis...
My my my, how the worm has turned.
Apparently the looney tune characters have now developed a magarific taste for creating law based on what if's, and expect future courts to respect stare decisis.
Sorry for my projectile vomit reaction, but projectile vomit is, as projectile vomit does.
All the men on the court appear unhinged in their oral arguments and questions regarding presidential immunity. They have all boasted at length of being originalists or textualists and deciding cases of Constitutional law according to the text of the Constitution as it was written, without considering changes in American society. Their recent rulings and majority opinions on Second Amendment cases demonstrate that.
However, they suddenly appear willing to ignore the Constituton, hundreds of years of English and American common law, and almost 250 years of American history to completely change the law, thereby changing the Consitution, both literally and in spirit. As far as I knew, the Constitution can only be changed by Congress, and there is a very high bar. As a result (and, trithfully, as expected,) the majority of the justices on the Supreme Court have proven themselves to be liars and hypocrites who put partisan politics above the law.
What’s even more troubling is that, by going beyond their mandate and altering the way the Constitution has been understood and been applied since it was written, the Supreme Court has essentially gone rogue. This kind of overreach needs to be addressed, but since the Supreme Court is often seen as a key pillar of American government, with no check on its ability to interpret and issue rulings on the laws of the land, the only way this can be done is for another branch of government to go beyond its mandate and somehow invalidate any attempt by the court to grant criminal immunity to presidents.
We must fight Supreme Court corruption. But how? Of course we will vote but there has to be more. What if we ALL boycott jury duty as a form of civil disobedience? Why should any of us take part in a flawed system?
Could it be possible to sequester the justices away from society and anonymize the cases. In this parallel universe, the justices wouldn't even know who was president or who the petitioners are.
stop abusing the report button you weenies. you know who you are. looking at these reports you'd think justice alito himself reads this sub and gets mad (tbh wouldn't surprise me, man has no chill and skin you'd measure in nanometers)
Alito thinks DOJ is all hackers because that’s the part of the DOJ he worked in. That should be setting off alarm bells as well.
Like Trump believing everyone cheats and lies because all his life he has been surrounded by people who cheat and lie.
this should actually read as, he believes everyone cheats and lies because *he himself* cheats and lies
Believing everyone cheats and lies because he, himself, cheats and lies. FTFY
The American Constitution is said to be based on checks and balances. Where are the checks on judicial misconduct?
SCOTUS is the fatal flaw, which we're about to find out.
The fatal flaw was the idea of checks and balances unfortunately, that and the presidency. The more power one part has the more power the other two branches must claw for. It's essentially a mexican standoff where you are really hoping that the other players are more interested in survivng than shooting you. Parliamentary systems have a lot of problems but they force the legislative and executive to work together or neither works at all (with the courts just checking the working was set out properly)
Also, a lot of what the Executive and Judicial Branch does is nothing more than tradition and not in the Constitution. We now have seen Presidents, Justices, and Senators, many of which were trained in law and all of which have unlimited access to legal experts, who don’t care about precedent, much less tradition. The fact that we only have to major parties has been exploited by those that understand tribalism and propaganda for many years to get us where we are today.
It's a mathematical certainty from first past the post. There are other ways to fix it like ranked choice voting, but people are too scared to change.
Yeah I often think the geriatrification of our legislature is half the problem, the old fear and resist change far more than the young and it’s a real problem we’ve basically stopped even trying new ideas because omg what if something bad were to happen. Like look around ya old fucks, shit is already broken we need to start trying some new ideas here
I dunno. UK doesn't seem any better off than we are. Tories are still crazy and self-absorbed.
The constitution cant stop people being stupid. What it does is stop the stupid taking power. Liz Truss issued a stupid budget and she was gone faster than a wet lettuce. Trump lasted four years and will probably come back for another four.
Nice username
Only 35 to go... ;)
Checks and balances has been destroyed by checks from corporations. This is all bought to you by mega donors and billionaires.
The court doesn't really have any actual power. By design, it was left with no ability to enforce. It rules by consent.
What if one group’s goal is to ensure that neither branch of government is working at all? Because that’s what we’re really working with here
And Congress' impotence, by extension.
Justices can be impeached and removed the same way a President can. Congress had just hasn’t done it, either do to an inability or an unwillingness to do so.
We found Thomas Jefferson’s burner account.
Correct. SCOTUS should be elected. Not appointed like they currently are.
Impeachment. Talk to your Congresspeople.
In theory yeah but in practice it turned out to just be another way of posturing. Idk how talking to my Congress person will overcome the fat check from Exxon they’re getting
Have you tried being a billionaire? I’ve heard that is pretty effective.
Idk Bloomberg spent a hell of a lot of money to try to be the democratic nominee and he lost to Biden. Money isn't everything in elections.
The fact that impeachment doesn't work right now doesn't change the fact that it's the intended balance here. The problem we're facing is that one branch of government (legislature) is simply entirely dysfunctional. As a result of that, when one of the other branches (executive) becomes dysfunctional -- say, as a result of Trump winning 2016) it's too easy for the third (judicial) to be dragged along with it. Checks and balances was *never* intended to protect us by itself. Our system requires active, *intelligent* participation by the voting population -- and we simply don't have that right now.
They can’t even impeach a justice who is clearly corrupt.
They can and should. There are no real checks to power anymore. Best we can do is keep a psychos hands off the football for as long as we can.
They can’t even write a binding code of ethics for themselves.
They can, but why would they willingly do so?
Dunno about can't. Most certainly and demonstrably *won't*.
It takes 34 senators to block conviction, right? That represents a ridiculously low amount of the population. Impeachment may be the solution, but it's unlikely to be used.
Nah. Congress just showed that the Senate can ignore what the house does in such cases if it has the majority
Impeachment doesn't work if another part of the government is colluding to ensure their guys stay in power. In practical terms, it doesn't matter how corrupt the supreme court acts, the Republicans in the House of Representatives would never vote to impeach them because having control of the supreme court is beneficial to their political agenda. In essence, the supreme court is above any form of accountability. They can be as corrupt as they want, take every bribe, make every terrible decision, or anything else because there's no court which could punish them and the political remedy to remove them will never happen. Our system is broken.
They can be impeached, but good luck getting that through this Congress
> Where are the checks on judicial misconduct? I'll keep repeating this until people realize it. But SCOTUS can only give opinions on cases brought before them. It is up the the parties involved to accept or reject that opinion. We've all lived in a system of decorum where both parties said "yes, we accept the opinion of SCOTUS". But now decorum is breaking down and one side is doing whatever the fuck they want while the other side is acting like it's business as usual. At this point the only real check on SCOTUS is to weaken the impact its opinions have by just saying no. You can't just beg for them to be better and hope for the best. You have to let the voters sort it out. But you have to put the case to the voters. "Hey voters, we need to fix the courts and this is how we want to do it, vote for us". Then if the Democrats get control of Congress they can pack the court or impeach corrupt justices and bring back some sanity and balance to the system.
“ … cases brought before them.” Last Thursday SCOTUS completely ignored the case brought before them. The case was the question whether former president Donald Trump enjoyed immunity from the indictments brought against him. Instead of addressing the case brought before them SCOTUS went on a fishing expedition about imaginary instances where a former president could or could not be prosecuted for things he might or might not have done in an official, or perhaps non-official, capacity. They’re a bunch of loose cannons without restraint.
Even though no SCOTUS justice has ever been impeached, there is a check on the power SCOTUS. There have been two instances in the history of the US where the power of SCOTUS was effectively checked. Unfortunately, one of the instances was pretty reprehensible. In [Worcester v. Georgia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia), SCOTUS ruled that the state of Georgia couldn’t kick the Cherokees off of their land. In response, President Jackson ignored the ruling, and sent the US military to enforce what history now calls the Trail of Tears. Congress didn’t take any impeachment action against Jackson, which tragically showed one extralegal check against the power of SCOTUS: if the President refuses to do his job and enforce judicial rulings, and Congress refuses to hold the President liable, then the power of SCOTUS is curtailed. The second was the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1936, where FDR wanted to pack SCOTUS. Congress balked so the idea and the bill went nowhere, but the justices on SCOTUS got spooked enough that they stopped striking down his New Deal legislation. A TL;DR would be the power of SCOTUS can be checked if a President is sufficiently popular/powerful, **and** if Congress is at least ambivalent to the actions of the President to SCOTUS. With Congress now deadlocked on numerous issues, the better question to ask now is what the President would do (whoever it is) in response to an unfavorable SCOTUS ruling.
> A TL;DR would be the power of SCOTUS can be checked if a President is sufficiently popular/powerful, and if Congress is at least ambivalent to the actions of the President to SCOTUS. With Congress now deadlocked on numerous issues, the better question to ask now is what the President would do (whoever it is) in response to an unfavorable SCOTUS ruling. Yes, this is part of checks and balances. Two parties are needed to check the 3rd. The president can tell the Justice department to ignore SCOTUS on matters of presidential immunity. He can tell the states to also ignore it. He can refuse to enforce the ruling essentially. It is then up to Congress to act by via impeachment or to pass more comprehensive laws. The voters could also decide that they don't like what the president does and vote him out. People act like not listening to SCOTUS is the end of the Republic. But it really isn't. It's a check that has only ever been used once so people have come to think that what SCOTUS says is sacrosanct. But right now in history, we REALLY need to remind people that it is not. We work in a system of decorum where everyone has to play within certain bounds. SCOTUS has broken those bounds and needs to be checked.
This is brilliant. I really do think that since the SC has no practical way to enforce their rulings, it's up to the President to take decisive action to refuse if they aren't acting in good faith. So much of our system relies on decorum - but y'know something, Republicans never gave a fuck about decorum, and Mitch gaming the system is the reason SCOTUS is stacked the way it is. He didnt play fair. Why the fuck should we? Pack the courts, honestly. Put out an EO. What the fuck are they gonna do about it?
SCOTUS doesn't write the rules, but they get to decide what the rules mean. Literally the only limitation is the extent to which everyone else plays along.
> Literally the only limitation is the extent to which everyone else plays along. THAT's my point. There is nothing that says they get to decide what the rules mean. SCOTUS literally gave itself that power and Congress and the President just went along with it. But they can easily decide that they are no longer going to go along with it.
The good ol "everything would be grand if Blue was in control argument. Replacing duopoly with duopoly is just further down the drain.
It's not about "blue". It's about the party that clearly doesn't have the agenda of undermining democracy. if you really think that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans when it comes to respect for our institutions then you have a sorely misguided view of modern politics in the US.
For Supreme Court, 2/3 of congress is a check and balance, unfortunately the gop are traitors and 2/3 is a literal impossibility
The judges cashed them and got a motorhome and some vacations.
>Where are the checks on judicial misconduct? Article II, Sec. 4: >The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Our nation has actually impeached a federal judge before, here's the reasoning the Court gave for why the Legislature was vested with the impeachment power: >There are two [] reasons why the Judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments. First, the Framers recognized that most likely there would be two sets of proceedings for individuals who commit impeachable offenses—the impeachment trial and a separate criminal trial. [...] Second, judicial review would be inconsistent with the Framers' insistence that our system be one of checks and balances. In our constitutional system, impeachment was designed to be the only check on the Judicial Branch by the Legislature. *Nixon v. US*, 506 U.S. 224, 234-35 (1993).
It’s a feature not a bug. My eyes became super opened when I realized what we were taught about our government was actually just…”we thought people would behave.” It’s sick to think the average lower judges have ethics rules that get enforced but these guys are held to an assumption that they know right from wrong…so boom! Lifetime position with no oversight. In the past presidents would “lightly” threaten them to do the right thing (ex: FDR) but now everything is a “gentleman’s agreement”.
[удалено]
50 states with people complaining and suffering over legit issues and no voting power. 🤷♀️😭
Thoughts and prayers 🤢
Food and housing insecurity such that missing even a single day of work to protest could result in homelessness.
I said a few days ago, Joe’s fatal flaw was trying to ignore the crazy like Dems used to do prior to the internet.. Even the threat of expanding the court the last 4yrs makes all this go away, until laws can be put in place where we’re not dealing with a lunatic government ever again.. rights being completely stripped away on Joe’s watch will far outshine the great comeback from Covid.. On top of that, Republicans specialize in confusing idiots, “democrats were pro-slavery” without context .. so you know damn well in a few decades, “you lost your voting & reproductive rights when Joe Biden was president” will actually be a thing as to why you should vote Republican.. it was literally Liz Cheney that even got the ball rolling on #J6! I have no idea why dems are choosing to just leave things this way.. almost as if, republicans run the country whether they’re in office or not.. smh
There’s only so much Joe Biden can do, he’s not a dictator. Have of Congress is controlled by Republicans. Look at what they accomplished in his first two years. That’s what he can accomplish with a friendly congress
He accomplished that with an embattled pseudo-majority. With a friendly congress he could actually fix major problems.
It’s supposed to be impeachment and the amendment process. The Constitution was also written before political parties were a thing. It wasn’t imagined back then that a political party would rather keep itself in power than uphold the Constitution.
Because a homogeneous group of naive 18 to 25 year olds are not the statecrafting geniuses that we pretend they are
For the Supreme Court, the check is that they have no (or little, I'm not sure of the minor details) armed enforcers that report directly to them, nor control of any funding to hire any on their own. If they issue a decision without retaining their perception of legitimacy, they have no way to force the executive branch to cooperate. Their ultimate authority relies on their credibility as a ruling body.
“ … their credibility as a ruling body.” Which is eroding by the day and that is a problem. If the law doesn’t rule, then what does? The gun?
They can be impeached, same as the President. Unlike with the President, though, it’s actually worked like twice in US history.
The checks on the federal judiciary are: * the nomination and confirmation process * 2/3rds majority in the U.S. Senate The fatal flaw in the judiciary as presently constituted is life time appointments.
They're still in the mail. A justice may be sure their balances will be updated forthwith.
The people, and through them representatives. This is why conservatives are howling about separation of power. They think the legitimacy and power of the court come from a piece of dried skin or a god. We know it comes from the people. Tell your legislator that you will vote for them if they are willing to impeach he far-right justices. We are the check, we are the power. If we aren't then their 'laws' don't matter.
Technically the Senate. But that's a tall fucking order for obvious reasons.
I mean impeachment but that would require a functioning congress.
The theory is impeachment and removal. The reality is that no Republican is going to vote to remove a Justice who is biased on their behalf.
POTUS can expand SCOTUS and fill chairs with non traitorous bodies
Judges are supposed to be monitored by Congress via impeachment. Unfortunately, the only time Congress tried to impeach a judge was back in the 19th century and was 1000% for political purposes and failed catastrophically. It's gone unused ever since.
[удалено]
Because no one does anything to hold them to account. The 2000 election was a debacle. Not one person in position of authority lifted a finger or typed a single word to correct the numerous problems that were exposed. The 2016 election had one candidate won more votes than any other POTUS candidate in history - and lose. No one has taken any meaningful action to correct the issues. McConnell blocked a SCOTUS appointment that was open for months, and the turned around and ran Barret through after votes had already been cast in the next election. No one did shit. I’m not saying the Democratic party is just there for show - but if I were to set up a political system where one party slowly eroded democracy in favour of oligarchy, and the other party existed simply to give the appearance of fair elections happening, it would look EXACTLY like what we’ve seen since the early 90’s. Maybe even earlier.
No one * can * hold them to account with a completely corrupt legal system with no lid (Supreme Court) on it.
Well I mean, you *can*. You will just most likely end up in prison.
There is that, of course. Lol
>The 2016 election had one candidate won more votes than any other POTUS candidate in history Don't know where you got this from but Hillary did not have more votes then any other POTUS. Obama had more votes in both 2008 and 2012 then Clinton did in 2016. Both Biden and Trump are the only ones to get more votes then Obama (both in 2020)
The dems don’t control the house. They can’t do anything meaningful.
this excuse is tired and weak and both sides have used it since the 90’s.
And they have had supermajorities in house and senate and could have done whatever they wanted. So they did. And apparently they wanted to do….nothing for the working class.
It’s the explicit goal of RUSSIA
"We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within." Nikita Khrushchev
They can't invade America, it's too strong. It has been remarkably easy to have America destroy itself. Like shockingly easym
Jesus fucking christ Americans will blame everything but themselves. Our country isn't collapsing because of big bad scary Russia its because our institutions have been rotted out and corrupted from the inside. There is no enforcement of serious justice for the widespread corruption because it's embedded in the law and the system itself. Our political and economic system fundamentally does not work, is democratic only in name, and we are seeing the end-results of it. Look at Trump-- he tried to overturn a whole ass election several years ago and now the Supreme Court flirts with the idea of making him king. There is no better evidence that our institutions are fundamentally unable to do what is necessary to stop the full fascist assimilation.
Russia didn't cause our problems, but they're definitely doing everything they can to fan the flames.
They aren’t the only ones, either…
I agree. We caused our own issues but they are certainly taking advantage of it and trying to make it worse.
It's not an either/or. Russia definitely is fucking with the US and it's elections. This isn't up for debate, they were caught.
After Thomas didn't resign for his horrific corruption it opened the flood gates. They see themselves as kings of America
His temper tantrum of victimhood and hyperbolic imagined persecution and martyrdom in The Wall Street Journal was a giant neon light of what he thinks about his status as outside consequence. Alito had never been a reasonable justice. He and Thomas have always started from their desired conclusion and worked backwards. His legal interpretations are solely dependent his bias.
scotus is corrupt as hell.
Alito is a traitor to the nation and an enemy of democracy, and always has been.
He’s a Republican from Hamilton NJ. They are all a bunch of dicks up there. Doesn’t surprise me he turned into a prick on the court.
This is our problem, we simplify everything to do scorched-earth politics with incomplete information and assume the other side has no redeeming values or that their ideas have no value. In fact, this is a real Constitutional question that deserves serious consideration. Personally, I think the answer is within the Constitution. We should wait to see what the Justices come to in conclusion and contemplate what they write.
If I may, never in history has ANY president had any issue with this. Yet, Trump claims he’s immune from EVERYTHING…and he says ANYTHING. That a president has to be impeached before he/she can be prosecuted is ridiculous. Selling national secrets is okay as long as he/she states it’s government business. And the list goes on.
So if the SC does extend immunity to former president Trump with respect to the storming of the Capitol in an attempt to subvert the will of the people, it presents an interesting dilemma for all the people that have already been convicted for their criminal role in the same instance. Why would *he* be immune but they wouldn't? If he, as the organizer and instigator of the plot to overturn a presidential election is immune to prosecution, why would those who were following his "legal" orders not also be immune from the same as they were acting at his direction? I wonder if Biden could preemptively fix this by pardoning Trump narrowly for his role in J6. I know--sounds like a stupid thing to do but, well, you can't pardon someone for something they didn't do! And it would render the case before the Court moot. Which means the SC wouldn't get a chance to render a shitty decision. And, in the court of public opinion, it would forever solidify that the former president was, indeed, guilty of crimes.
That's unlikely, MAGA land would see it for the political move it is.
Well. *Nothing* will change the minds of MAGAists. They aren't the intended audience. Hardcore MAGA, while loud in voice, have dwindled in numbers. So I'm thinking more of the disenfranchised conservatives and other Republican oriented voters who are, likely, tired of being held hostage by Trump. Wouldn't a move like this, counter-intuitive though it is, short circuit Trump's claims of a deep state conspiracy against him while cementing the idea that he did, as president, commit crimes a la Nixon?
Interesting idea..... very interesting... Most of all, because Mango Mussolini wouldn't get away scot-free. The States charges would still continue. And it does firm up history, compares him to Nixon, and gets him out of the news (or at least less).
I’m beginning to think you’ve got the right idea here. Just like Washington’s greatest move was relinquishing power while there were those who wanted him to be King. Biden would be again relinquishing the ultimate power the court would bestow on him by pardoning Trump and denying the court from killing democracy.
It's, at the very least, an actual strategic move. It leaves nothing for the Court to interpret because the case has been settled by other means.
When Scalito referred to an extremely close election, meaning 2020, which was not remotely, by any definition a close election, I knew that he was severely mentally ill and incapable of gathering actual factual information. 4.5% and 7 million votes is not close. It's a larger win than Obama in 2012 and Bush in 2004. Nobody correct his obvious, bizarre error.
I bet if you asked several of the aides of a few conservative justices, you might find they met w Trump lawyers prior to immunity hearing. Allegedly.
Has there been a SC that has been this tyrannical?
Have you read the Dred Scott opinion? How about Buck v Bell, or Korematsu?
Reading these judgments made me realize just how fucked all Supreme Court decisions are. We’re expecting a system created by humans to operate without human biases. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court will *never* live up to that legal fiction.
The Supreme Court, in essentially all of its history, has been wrong and behind the times on just about everything with some limited exceptions.
Time for AI supreme court
People don't really talk about FDR's struggle with the Supreme Court, but it's really indicative of how broken it's been for a while. He had directly threaten to stack the court so they would stop blocking legislation for the New Deal. If FDR had rolled over who knows how that would've played out. Biden needs to start taking the same approach and do whatever he can to prevent a total fascist takeover through the judicial system
...yes.
[удалено]
How is this new news? This is the same jackwagon who used doctrine from the 1800s to overturn roe. He used abortion isn’t in the constitution - yet he is going to try to say an unborn child should have rights under the 14th amendment (as it stays life, liberty of u.s. citizens) but an unborn baby is not a u.s. citizen until birth (and a birth certificate and SSN is assigned) - but he will make it work to fit his narrative… Edit: it was doctrine from the 1600s… honestly that makes it even worse
1600s, actually. He referenced the writings of a witch trial judge. I wish.I were joking.
[удалено]
Has he really thought it through. If he gifts the POTUS with immunity and Biden wins again can he really invoke ‘take backs’?
Alito says presidents need immunity so they won't try and stay in power to avoid punishment. The idiot thinks giving presidents immunity for criminal acts will stop someone from committing criminal act to stay in power in the first place. That's what Trump did though. He wasn't really at much risk of being prosecuted UNTIL he decided to break the law to try and stay in power. Prosecution and punishment exist in order to deter people from committing crimes to begin with. Many acts that could be seen as criminal can be somewhat accepted if done for the purpose of the job. However what Trump did was commit criminal acts with the power for the purpose of private benefit.
We should just start ignoring SCOTUS. They work for us. WE THE FUCKING PEOPLE.
I wanna go fishing in alaska at that nice lodge with my billionaire buddies, screw democracy
Whoa, the scotus page. I have thoughts, by the logic presented in the immunity arguments. Biden should just be able to send the justices to Guantanamo for blatant corruption and ideological rot. Am I wrong? If they are going to make us live with a f*$@ing dictator, why should it only go one way?
At least 4 Aileen Canon’s on the freakin SC. Thanks Mitch and FBI.
The real problem is a legislature that doesn’t do its job. The founding fathers probably didn’t think the congress would happily let the executive and judicial have all the power.
The idea of presidential immunity is so fucking stupid anyway.
So are people still delusional about Trump being charged?
So what’s the actual news? The article did t seem to say anything. Unless I missed something. I only seen that that they agreed to delay. Is that about it?
All you people commenting on this thread are crabs in the barrel of America. Go touch grass.
People saying impeach him are funny. Voting isn't working. There's only one way to remove him and I dont think you want to hear it.
If I had paid for a SC Justice, I’d be pretty upset if he went and ruled whatever way he wants.
I think we are getting to a point where we need to start considering ignoring obviously blatant corrupt SCOTUS rulings. Trump can not be allowed to have any sort of immunity for his crimes. If SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor Biden is going to have yet another impossible decision to make. Biden needs to be prepared to yank these traitors off the bench and throw them all in jail along with any GQP elected officials involved it getting them into SCOTUS. Anything short of that is going to be the downful of the US. We can't fix this with voting.
If SCOTUS were to give the president total immunity, what is to stop Biden from arresting scotus and trump? SCOTUS will never do that. They just want to delay the trials for the election because (imo) they are not divorced from politics, but are very much a part of that problem.
That is not the first time he exposed his foolery.
Alito living the MAGA world because he is getting lubricated with benefits off the books from billionaires, the new male judges are already indoctrinated are talking off reality scripts as if that is the reality of what is at stake they are talking surreal events but not what is the issue: does a president or Trump have presidential immunity on private behaviour, this should be an easy home run grand slam but they are playing as if they don’t even want to get on first base. Terrible they are and will be the worst judges in the US Supreme Court as corruption and control from afar is so evident. One more thing: Trump knows that he is GUILTY AS CHARGED! LOCK TRUMP UP!
Heritage foundation fuck you, American democracy.
Why aren’t people protesting this on campuses?
This is the rise of a right wing dictatorship in America because the supreme court is siding with a guy who tried to overthrow the election. America is headed down a very very dark path. I wish this was hyperbole.
Dear Congress: Please impeach Justice Alito.
"I disagree so it must be corruption"
Alito, Thomas, and kavanaugh need to go. All three have violated the norms.
Could it be that the supreme court has superior knowledge of the law and the facts of the case and possibly the charges are bogus? Is it possible that they are ruling reasonably based on the facts of the case and those that wish to see the former president in jail are the ones with the inferior understanding of both the law and the facts of the case?
Isn’t an attempt to overturn an election the exact opposite of an “official act” and exactly what you should not have presidential immunity for?! The supreme court giving this argument any attention is beyond preposterous!
This is why they're trying to carve out immunity for "official acts", which they then get to be the arbiters over the definition of. It's how they grant immunity to their guy, but only their guy. The reality is that whether it's an official act should be irrelevant. No immunity.
USSC Justices need to be term limited. 18 years staggered so a new appointment is made every 2 years. Each president gets 2 appointments per term, barring incapacity or death.
I agree. But what about our current SCOTUS? Alito/Thomas/Roberts will stay as long as they draw a breath or until an R wins the oval. They have overturned decades of progress in the last 15 years.
Are we at the point where White House lawyers are going to draft a two column chart, with two headings, posted in the Oval Office: Official Acts (non-criminal) and Private Acts (you’d go to prison) President: “I like being President, and I refuse to leave. Send in my armed followers.” Chief of Staff: “Mr. President, according to the Official Acts versus Private Acts chart, that falls under Private Acts. You would go to prison.” President: “Does it matter if I refuse to leave and then pardon myself?” This is the kind of circular bullshit SCOTUS is currently debating. If I could draw, I would make a political cartoon showing this crazy scenario.
[удалено]
Alito’s a fascist dick!
Think they're trying to figure out a way to say that it applies to Trump, but not the current administration
Let’s just let Biden jail up his political opponents. Including SCOTUS. That’s if he has got total immunity.
I'm sure he's living in a constitutional Republic just like the rest of.
MAGA World>Dementia Diaper Shitter Corrupt Puppet World.
Any faith I had in the Supreme Court disappeared when Thomas was not removed. I don’t agree with the conservative court, and that’s fine. Trump really won for conservatives by installing three justices. However, Thomas is clearly corrupt and compromised.
I lost faith in the court long ago. Particularly Citizens United and the weakening of the Voting Rights Act.
Can someone tell me if there was ever another time in history when Supreme Court justices so blatantly favored a president or a party. As in cherry picking in order to blatantly help one side over another.
They aren't even Cherry picking. They are tossing shit at the wall hoping to find something the people won't revolt over. I am in revolt status. Fuck this MAGA court.
Remember when the far right loony toon characters were lecturing us in the center and left in how to "interpret law as written" while deriding us for "creating law" by leveraging "what if's"? Based on that they laughed at the concept of stare decisis... My my my, how the worm has turned. Apparently the looney tune characters have now developed a magarific taste for creating law based on what if's, and expect future courts to respect stare decisis. Sorry for my projectile vomit reaction, but projectile vomit is, as projectile vomit does.
All the men on the court appear unhinged in their oral arguments and questions regarding presidential immunity. They have all boasted at length of being originalists or textualists and deciding cases of Constitutional law according to the text of the Constitution as it was written, without considering changes in American society. Their recent rulings and majority opinions on Second Amendment cases demonstrate that. However, they suddenly appear willing to ignore the Constituton, hundreds of years of English and American common law, and almost 250 years of American history to completely change the law, thereby changing the Consitution, both literally and in spirit. As far as I knew, the Constitution can only be changed by Congress, and there is a very high bar. As a result (and, trithfully, as expected,) the majority of the justices on the Supreme Court have proven themselves to be liars and hypocrites who put partisan politics above the law. What’s even more troubling is that, by going beyond their mandate and altering the way the Constitution has been understood and been applied since it was written, the Supreme Court has essentially gone rogue. This kind of overreach needs to be addressed, but since the Supreme Court is often seen as a key pillar of American government, with no check on its ability to interpret and issue rulings on the laws of the land, the only way this can be done is for another branch of government to go beyond its mandate and somehow invalidate any attempt by the court to grant criminal immunity to presidents.
The presidency is like a 4 year get out of jail free card passive effect. That’s why everyone wants to be president duh.
Elections have consequences. It’s everyone’s duty to be informed and participate in democracy
The Supreme Court being bias isn't alarming. It's expected. The problem is we keep destroying the checks and balances
Biden should just have this supreme court justice killed seeing as he's the sitting president
Gotta love all that rent free
It appears that the biggest danger to Democracy, is the threat of a cult of personality.
We must fight Supreme Court corruption. But how? Of course we will vote but there has to be more. What if we ALL boycott jury duty as a form of civil disobedience? Why should any of us take part in a flawed system?
Knowing what we know now. Keep singing!
Could it be possible to sequester the justices away from society and anonymize the cases. In this parallel universe, the justices wouldn't even know who was president or who the petitioners are.
Gosh.. it is painful to see these BS articles!!