John Roberts Begs the Liberal Justices to Stop Criticizing the Court
John Roberts Begs the Liberal Justices to Stop Criticizing the Court
The chief justice doesn’t like his conservative Supreme Court colleagues getting called out for judicial overreach.
The chief justice doesn’t like his conservative Supreme Court colleagues getting called out for judicial overreach.
Well if the court didn't engage in clearly partisan politics, maybe the liberal justices wouldn't have anything to criticize.
Does he realize how bad it looks when he voices that his problem is criticism and not like, I don't know, taking money from political interests? Or refusing to recuse in cases where there's a relative directly involved?
It is really incredible how far down the drain the SCOTUS has gone in such a short period of time. Not saying it was great before Justice Kennedy retired either, but at least back then it was generally respected.
"Why won't they just let us make wildly unpopular decisions that jeopardize the livelihoods of Americans without having to make us feel bad about it?!"
-Roberts, 2023
"Why can't we be blatantly corrupt without getting called on it? "
None of these people deserve their positions.
I don't know, I like Sotomayor. And Brown-Jackson seems alright. And I really don't have much opinion on Kagan aside from the fact that I usually agree with her rulings. As for Conservatives, I disagree with all of them almost always, but Gorsuch at least seems to care about consistency, and I think his views on Native affairs is admirable.
If it's not clear, I mean all the conservatives that clearly were put there for nefarious reasons. And none of them deserves a life time position on the supreme court regardless, and by them here I mean everyone, not just conservatives.
Holy crap this is endgame. The head of the judicial body is too concerned about the feelings of the body?
So, just logically. I have a personal commitment and value to something. And somebody gets mad at me about it. My values and commitment should be able to withstand that? Yes? As soon as someone has a different opinion it's like "I can't bear to hear a different opinion (clutches pearls) and I can't stand to have my opinion critiqued"
For you and me and the lady in the checkout line (and I say that as a lady who is often in checkout lines), that's great. But this is the head of the judicial body of one of the most powerful nations - most powerful democracies - on earth. These are opinions that shape the lives of 300 million people at least. And he's gonna be there for another quarter of a century.
Like how many steps is Roberts from a kind of de facto chilling effect, and I'm not trying to be funny
Thank God for the generations who hear a public figure try to corral or control a situation and then begin to act in doing the exact opposite. Definitely need to remind the conservative justices that there are people out here
End rant (for now)
I don’t think he is anywhere near a chilling effect on the liberal justices.
They main problem we have with SCOTUS is that they don’t have to GAF what anybody says.
That is good if the person has principles, but has problems if they are grifting trash.
The thing he should be complaining about is the bribes - I’m sorry, speech - that the justices are taking. But since he gets 8 figures of speech by consulting gigs for his wife, there is no chance the Chief Grifter will tackle the real problem.
The supreme court even as a concept is one of the most asinine yet accepted institutions in the world. On par with the Catholic church, but so much worse because it actually has enormous and direct power over 330+ million people. I am dreaming and pining for the day that someone in power, most likely a president, just legitimately tells them to fuck off. They have no enforcement power and they fucking know it. I'm yearning for someone to have the courage, but it's as clear as it possibly can be that it certainly won't be a Democrat.
Can you elaborate on the comparison to the church? You don't like a panel having authority so you want to consolidate it to a president unilaterally ignoring the third branch? Would term limits on judges change how you see the court?
The Catholic church is an unjustifiable and ridiculous institution in the same way the supreme court is. The Catholic church also had a lot of control over the lives of many people for a very long time, although that influence has obviously waned in recent centuries and decades (although it's clearly still not completely gone). Now, as far as the president having control, I will also say fuck the presidency, but it would always be my hope that a person in that position would do anything in their power as a president and a person to stand up to unjustifiable institutions like the supreme court. Obviously a president couldn't abolish the supreme court single-handedly, nor do I think that would necessarily, inherently be a good thing, but I do think that a president could and should call out the obvious reasons for which the institution needs to be abolished, because it absolutely does. The fact that nine human beings can directly control the lives of millions and millions and millions of people is an absolute travesty. I don't even feel dissimilarly about congress, but obviously it's a bit better because they are actually elected. In general, though, I am a very strong proponent of direct democracy. Term limits are a starting point, but it would be akin to applying a bandaid to a gaping, oozing wound.
The thing is that the court only has so much power right now because Congress is so fucking broken. If Congress where in working order it could just legislate all the shit that the court is blocking the executive on.
The beauty of this fediverse thing is, that... if you don't like it you can make your own instance and do the thing you want there instead. Bye.
You know, if you want to be a pain in the ass we can also kick you out of this place.
To the three of you who downvoted me without a word of explanation: we can see who downvotes who on kbin.
So I ask you, why did you downvote me and why do you think that this guy talking to his fellow politicians is news worthy? We are not on an american website anymore, the rest of the world doesn't care about the american constant struggle and crying about politicians saying stuff.
I'm downvoting you because you're being incredibly immature right now. People can disagree with you
Saying "how dare you downvote me, I can SEE IT!" and calling them out makes you look like a giant child. You need to take some time to consider your own response and whether or not that's something WE want on the fediverse. You can just as easily be blocked too, you know.why do you think that this guy talking to his fellow politicians is news worthy?
I'm one one of the downvoters, so I'll try giving you an answer. As an American, it's newsworthy to me when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is publicly calling out the other justices for behavior he deems unbecoming a justice. I had not realized that @news was specifically for European news? And I think perhaps YOU had not realized that in America, the supreme court is theoretically above politics. A justice is not a politician. Again, in theory. Lately our supreme court has been behaving very much like bought-and-paid-for politicians, and that should be concerning to all Americans.
SCOTUS is not held to any ethical standards and have appointments that last for life. The conservative court has gone off the rails on their latest rulings, arguably making discrimination legal, even on protected groups. This upends decades of protections for vulnerable groups that were targeted by fascist groups.
While Roberts is whining about criticism on what his court has done, the main topic of criticism is newsworthy in that it has real consequences.
The same groups that lean toward authoritarianism, also lean toward Putin being allowed to take Ukraine. This fight spills over to the rest of the world.Is this really the content that we want for @news ?
There is an up/down vote button for you to express that POV on the post itself. I get what you're attempting to do, but as someone mentioned, this isn't Reddit you have open the ability to create your own @news. Hell, I encourage you to. A nonhomogeneous mix is actually healthier in the long run. And, at least for my part, now you have the answer to why someone down voted you.
Also, no one likes the explicitly @-ing folks who down voted you. Yes, you can see who down votes you but I feel, you should perhaps use the saying of "with great power comes great responsibility." Maybe ask "openly" why you're being down voted. @-ing the folks, and remember this is solely my subjective opinion, that's not cool.
Also, no one owes you an explanation of jack crap. And that applies "in general." Yes, it's better when someone explains their position to you and what not. But no one OWES you an explanation. I think that's what rubs me with the @-ing folks wrong here. None of those people HAVE TO explain themselves, it'd be great if they did, but you are not owed it and that is a very important distinction.
There is an up/down vote button for you to express that POV on the post itself.
NO.
There is a reason why we have different magazines with different names. Got to @USpolitics or @politicus. How many more political subs do you need? When we register for @news it's not to get yet another american political shenanigans. You really think that someone from Italy registered to @news to hear about what your governor or potus or whatever wizard said to his king? Use your magazines! What is wrong with you? We are not your audience.
Let's invite some people from lemmy.ml and see if you agree to follow their votes. They have news too, do you want to hear from them? Of course not! So change your tone.
Also, no one owes you an explanation of jack crap. And that applies "in general."
I don't care, I will keep callout you out on your bullshit. block me if you want. After all, you said yourself that there is an upvote/downvote button, well there is also a block button, please use it, but I will keep calling you out anyway. Post your political soap opera to your political magazine, end of the story.
People should be silent while we destroy their future - Roberts, 2023
Snowflake behavior
I am sympathetic to Kagan's argument on standing and similarly I understand why Roberts is trying to lower the pressure. In any case this seems to come back to Congress no longer passing legislation and instead relying on executive powers for all political requirements. Not really seeing a solution until primary rules change. Centrists are left unserved presently.
Centrists can go suck a fat one. The primary reason we're in this fascistic mess globally is the centrists' aversion to being inconvenienced for the rights of their fellow people and for the future of the planet.
That's what creates dictatorships, that's what starts world wars, in summary, that's what enables fascists.
Can you give me an example? Some purple states have protected reproductive health in response to the court overturning Roe. My perception is that the primary races are selecting increasingly polarizing candidates who's goal is just notoriety/fundraising over governing. MTG is a prime demonstration of this effect.
