“it would be good if we could yell at scotus justices” ≠ we can fix scotus with the right words.
even more bizarre about attributing this belief to me is i have been writing stuff like “here’s how to bring the supreme court to heel” for years
It is very important to their purity that you, a person they will never meet, give up your position to their satisfaction. Strangely, this is not a very persuasive argument but everyone keeps making it nonetheless.
Weird. I read your post and think about how the justices won’t even appear before Congress to answer questions, and this Chud automatically assumes you’re talking about personally getting to dunk on them like it’s a roast.
One of the worst things about both social media and clickbait is that we've all just accepted this notion that you can absolutely destroy someone by saying something catty about them on the internet when, no, these are very powerful people who very emphatically do not givea fuck what you say.
Remember when they overturned Roe and people protested outside their homes so they complained to Congress and made it illegal to do that? Yeah, actually we should yell at the justices some more! It really seems to get under their skin and I do think Alito should be miserable for the rest of his life
Trump rigged Scotus, with three despicable characters, to protect himself and promote the values of his anti-abortion/ironically-religious base. And that's what they did.
So who's surprised?
If the court had to answer questions directly from a critical press, their fig leaf written opinions would not stretch far enough and they'd be delegitimized in view of the general public. If they want to be political actors - and it appears they do - let them hold up that end of the bargain.
It makes perfect sense that the lack of justice any of the thousands of perpetrators of the destruction of the country over the past three generations will face is anger inducing!
His post is in very poor taste and you make a great point that scotus is obviously not impartial at all and not ruling according to law so they might as well just be a 3rd branch of congress or something. In fact let’s just expand the court every cycle and whoever wins gets scotus power for a bit.
Tbh, not at all diminishing the profound stink around Thomas, but I don't think Sotomayor would entertain detailed inquiries about her book deals.
But then again, she doesn't have to.
The ability to flout the law assures corruption.
Not to be "that person," but this is the kind of exchange I tend not to see on Mastodon. I know they happen there, probably, but I wonder if these kinds of pile-ons happen, and/or are given visibility, ultimately because of an algorithm that's trying to create engagement?
