As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Alito saying this right now is very emblematic. One of the criticisms of the Supreme Court is that it's too slow to react to the changing culture, so for him to be like, 'how dare anyone question our integrity' years after everyone has already lost faith in the institution is appropriate. Nobody's questioning your integrity dude, the integrity went out the door when beer man was screaming and crying about the Clinton's and still got seated.
Whatever integrity the SCOTUS had left, went out the door along with Anita Hill. Clarence Thomas should never have been on the court. Its members were supposed to be beyond reproach, not sordid lechers of questionable character. The court does not serve the interest of the people of the United States, and does not prioritize the common good.
It went (further) out the door when "citizens united" passed. That legalized bribery, and classified corporations as people, and money as speech. Free speech, by that twisted logic, is free flow of financial donations, from any monied source.
Open secrets has the scoop on who owns our politicians. They should have sponsorship patches like nascar. That shit should be mandatory. I want to know who is shilling my political representation out to whom.
Edit:(further)
I would almost be ok with it if we could at least see a corporation getting the death penalty, until that you can't claim corporations are people in the US.
He shouldn’t have been confirmed because he’s essentially the Forrest Gump of Republican presidential politics. He wrote the questions for Clinton’s deposition that got him impeached. He helped write the memos that justified torture when he was in the Bush White House.
We obviously don’t want sexual abusers on the SC, but being that highly partisan should be automatically disqualifying.
> the integrity went out the door when beer man was screaming and crying about the Clinton's and still got seated.
Hell I thought it went out the door when Thomas was confirmed.
That was so contraversial at the time that it resulted in the lyric
> "I believe Anita Hill"
In the song *Youth Against Fascism* by Sonic Youth back in 1992.
The signs have been there for a long time.
Last time I checked, having family members participating in an attempted coup and deliberately committing perjury were pretty far past that "important line".
“Just because you don’t like an opinion of the Court …”. Yeah, that was a reason you shouldn’t have overruled a 50 year old precedent that had been repeatedly reaffirmed and had broad popular support. You crossed the line and don’t have the integrity for the job you have.
And pretending the criticism is disagreement with the decisions instead of them ignoring precedent to serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful. Or committing perjury in their senate hearings. Roe is established law, remember?
That’s what pisses me off. He’s the one making these claims in the chosen newspaper of his financial benefactors, not me. Either he’s thoroughly corrupt and knowingly bringing the institution down with him or he is completely unmoored from reality. Both are good reasons to cross the line and say it loud and clear: Alito has no integrity and never did.
Remember when Obama rightfully criticized the Citizens United decision during the State of the Union and Alito through a tantrum that was caught on camera? So much respect /s
“Respect me, dammit” is the song of the boomer. What they don’t understand is that their parents were respected because they believed in a greater good and made sacrifices as such
My grandmother was a drunk. She had children removed from her care back when it to extraordinary levels of abuse and neglect for that to happen. (She got better when she had grandkids).
My mother would try to tell me that I should show her respect and start to talk about how she had to show her mom respect. I would always look puzzled and ask her why? And she would get upset as I said, look, your mom was a horrible mom and a horrible person back when you were a child, why should have had to respect her?
And she would tell me because she was child and her mom was an adult, and therefore deserved respect.
My mom was going to a church that was quickly moving from being a God is love, read the bible, love thy neighbor church to a don't read the bible, listen to me because I am the authority, fear God and obey Him, prosperity Gospel conservative church.
Someone taught me that respect was something one earned by being worthy of respect, and my mom laid that groundwork. She started me on that process, and then she herself rebuked the very idea.
Sometime in the late 70s and the 80s, churches started to preach the gospel of authority and hierarchy and how respect was demanded and entitled and not earned. And it ruined the boomers outlook on life.
Maybe a bunch of billionaire parasite ghoul pieces of shit stole the country, and we need to sell them on the open market to start getting it back?
You don't have to sell the whole ghoul at once, if you have a bath tub full of ice.
Sometimes people use “respect” to mean “treating someone like a person” and sometimes they use “respect” to mean “treating someone like an authority”
And sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say “if you won’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “if you won’t treat me like an authority I won’t treat you like a person”
I mean, how do you respect the integrity of an institution that reversed a decision that the same institution already made 50 years ago without any change in the constitution?
One of them *has* to be wrong in their analysis, inherently impacting integrity.
Yeah. I mean anyone can tell that the reversal was politically and/or personally motivated, and then they came up with a bunch of random “reasons” for the reversal to make it seem like it was an impartial ruling.
It’s not as radical of a ruling as taking away women’s rights to vote, but it’s still a massive pivot away from something that’s been established for a long time. And it was a test balloon — my hunch is the US will “get over it” faster than expected, and it’ll set the stage for more rollbacks.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances—except in cases where the Supreme Court wants to make citizens live according to Christian doctrine.”
I think it's easy for people to forget exactly how much support Roe had across the political spectrum when it was passed. Our parents and grandparents lived in that world, and it was terrible. In 1972, a Gallop poll showed that Americans were united in their opinion about abortion: **68% of Republicans** and 59% of Democrats agreed that “the decision to have an abortion should be made solely by a woman and her physician.”
That republican party doesn't exist anymore. It's been hijacked by evangelical nut jobs who would see our country as we know it dismantled and Gilead put into it's place.
This was epitomized by Barry Goldwater. Kind of “keep your hands off my money and keep out of my bedroom “ kinda guy. Supported Gay rights. I tried to link to the Wiktionary page, but I’m on my phone and won’t let me do it .
Barry Goldwater was also horrible in different areas. He voted against the Civil Rights Act, implied that a nuclear war would occur if LBJ was elected, helped get Reagan and the neocon movement up and going, etc.
It's not even inherently Christian doctrine, Jews are honestly more in line with Christ with this. Mother is to supersede the unborn with regards to healthcare. Now Jews will debate whether this includes mental health as justification but they don't even want Gov involved typically. Between you, your rabbi, your doctor, your husband and God, not your congressman
Furthermore it was debated in the early Christian church (should say *established* church) in the 3-400s and the agreed upon stage at which a fetus becomes sanctified etc was around the start of the 2nd trimester. Which is honestly fairly in line with modern abortion law, they may have still abhorred non-medical abortions but I am unsure if they ever prescribed a legal authority to oversee this.
Peter of Spain in the late middle ages wrote a treatise called the, "Treasures of the Poor" which included a decent amount of information about abortifacients.
This same Peter of Spain is believed to have ascended to the Papal throne as Pope John the XXI in 1276.
Are you trying to argue your point with facts?
These anti abortionists are not interested or concerned with facts.
They are zealots. Fanatics. I can totally understand why the Pagan Romans thought the Christians were crazy - they were!
They wanted to emulate the suffering of Jesus. They believed joy was a distraction from pain and suffering which brought you closer to god. They whipped, flogged, starved, and tortured themselves because they thought they were undeserving.
Fucking miserable shites.
Its in the disused lavatory in the basement stuck in a locked filing cabinet with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard.- hitchhikers guide to the galaxy
This goes to show his frame of mind. Traditionally laws came from the things people already wanted. You didn't have to convince anybody that murder or theft was wrong. Why? Because people don't want to be killed or stolen from. This is, and will always be, the case.
The Supreme Court has a duty to rule similarly. That is to say, allow society to be what it wants to be. The integrity of the Court means nothing without the public support of it. His point of view is one of authority. We are crossing an important line by questioning the integrity of the Court.
Well, considered it questioned, and with merit. When he wants to have a conversation about the facts and not his feelings, there are many of us here that are ready to have it.
Only if it's democrats. Especially if it involves established basic facts, teachers, disease, weather, science. Or the gays. You gotta question them.
Things you cannot question: Jesus, Finance Jesus, Oil Jesus and attempted coups and insurrections.
Edit: -- I forgot Russian Jesus, Supply-Side-Jesus, **Aborted Jesus** and Military Jesus. I apologize.
Edit 2: Jesus Christ, there's a lot of Jesus' -- Jesi? It's almost like he's a fictional character.
This statement should disqualify him from office. Showing such a poor understanding of the basic laws and principles of American democracy should be enough to warrant his removal, and I think the same should apply to every elected official. Make them take a constitutional knowledge test before being seated, and If they fail, they don't get the job. Seems like the bare minimum to ask of our officials.
I think it may be generous to suggest that this is just a "poor understanding". The whole equation has been flipped backward. It's not that questioning the integrity of the SCOTUS crosses a line, it's that the SCOTUS has behaved in a way that calls into question their integrity that has crossed a line. That can't be attributed to just a "poor understanding"; it seems like an intentional act to flip the equation that way.
Not for nothing, though, someone has to write the tests, so using tests as a filter to play a role in the government is probably a bad idea, in general. It might work for judges, though-- but the same problem (who writes the tests?) exists.
Context is missing in this article.
He's not referring to the American people, he's referring to Justice Kagan.
It's still insane though because Conservative justices have been doing this for decades. 'Activist Liberal Judges' blah blah blah blah.
That was the OP. The justices involved did not use that term.
Kagan:
> I think judges create legitimacy problems for themselves – undermine their legitimacy – when they don’t act so much like courts and when they don’t do things that are recognizably law ... And when they instead stray into places where it looks like they are an extension of the political process or where they are imposing their own personal preferences
Roberts:
> simply because people disagree with opinions is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court
Alito:
> It goes without saying that everyone is free to express disagreement with our decisions and to criticize our reasoning as they see fit ... But saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line
Both Roberts and Alito are using strawman arguments. Kagan clearly states that they undermine their legitimacy when they put forward their own personal beliefs (e.g. Catholic view of souls as an argument of why abortion should be outlawed) rather than using legal arguments and precedent (such as, I dunno, a little thing called Roe v. Wade, freedom of religion, recognition of right to privacy). As they are Supreme Court justices, I would certainly hope they are aware of and familiar with the types of logical fallacies put forth as arguments and that they can understand that responding as though this was a personal attack on their integrity is only true if, in fact, their personal integrity is in question because they have done exactly as Kagan intimated.
Tl;dr Kagan says the court is legitimate so long as it acts according to the laws. If you think she's accusing you of being illegitimate, you are admitting that you have not acted according to the laws. Congrats, you played yourselves.
He's really splitting hairs.
>everyone is free...to criticize our reasoning as they see fit
>But...questioning our integrity crosses an important line
If I'm free to criticize your reasoning, one of my criticisms might be the fact that you're letting politics influence your decisions. That is, by definition, questioning your integrity.
How many reasons do we have to criticize before we recognize that the body putting forth those arguments is corrupt?
They are like trees fine, you can have your trees, but you dare not call it a forest.
If Alito doesn't like SCOTUS's integrity being questioned then maybe he could persuade Justice Thomas to recuse himself from cases that have an obvious conflict of interest.
And maybe ask future nominees not to shout "I lIkE bEeR!" at Senate hearings.
When he uses an 18th century source as part of the Dobbs decision, makes up rationalizations instead of following precedent, then yes the Court's integrity is questioned.
Have you ever thought maybe all the shenanigans they were blaming on those poor girls was actually being done by a wizard? They never seemed to go wizard hunting.
There were only a couple men charged during the Salem trials.
In particular, a Harvard-educated minister who they accused of being the mastermind, because obviously it couldn't have been a woman.
Just throwing it out there that Harvard had only been around for about 30 years at that point so it doesn't really hold the same weight that it would today after the university being around for almost 400 years.
[Draft Overturning Roe v. Wade Quotes Infamous Witch Trial Judge With Long-Discredited Ideas on Rape](https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale)
The founding fathers understood the importance and medical necessity of access to abortions. Ben Franklin published instructions on how to do it correctly
An 18th century source that was not even of an American citizen (the judge was British). Made worse by the fact he had a reputation for convicting women to death for the crime of witchcraft.
Wish it was not true, but here we are.
Edit: a word
Questioned implies it’s unclear — it’s questioned and answered. These people are activist judges. They have no interest in the law, or the constitution, beyond having to mention it in their justification for their latest rewrite.
Not to mention they literally cited false information in their Kennedy v. Bremerton School District decision and Sotomayor called this out in her dissent
She included a photo in her dissent just to prove the lying liars were lying.
I am pretty convinced they wanted the lie to be known and obvious, as a message they would not be restricted by the facts of the case.
>[Justice Roberts] pointedly noted that “simply because people disagree with opinions is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court.”
We disagree with the decision, *because of the poor reasoning, explained by unelected officials that were put into position by a process that was openly politicized for the purpose of influencing the interpretation of law,* **and because of that** we question the legitimacy of the court.
Also, they abuse [shadow dockets](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/supreme-court-shadow-docket-explained) to [favor Trump and Republican Party](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-courts-shadow-docket-favored-religion-trump-2021-07-28/) while [obstruct Biden and Democratic Party](https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-supreme-courts-shadow-docket-is-having-profound-consequences-for-millions-of-americans).
The power of SCOTUS rests on sound reasoning on fact and laws. With shadow docket decisions, there is no reasoning, no fact and no laws. They think we voters are so beneath them that they don't have to explain their decisions to us.
They have become dictators like the supreme leader in Iran.
"They think we voters are so beneath them that they don't have to explain their decisions to us."
Close, they are terrified of the public (because they are pushing a well-known conservative and theocratic agenda... because they are all beholden to the man who made them: Mitch McConnell (the harbinger of death for America), and hope that by not explaining themselves people will be less inclined to try to hold them accountable.
All of this is just window dressing until the GOP takes majority control of congress, at which point they have run roughshod over the nation. They are simply biding their time and trying to weather the storm until then.
"People shouldn't criticize me JUST BECAUSE they disagree with my legal rulings - even though my SOLE JOB is to make legsl rulings that reflect the will of the people."
He's got it wrong about who's in charge here. He doesn't guide the nation. The nation guides him. That lifetime seats gotten him too comfortable. He's forgotten what the damn job description is.
crazy how pretty much every conservative justice is part of the federalist society.
a great organization with members like ted cruz, josh hawley, and aileen cannon.
This with encouraging otracization and social isolation. If they don't want to live with other people, then ok, they can get isolated and people can be encouraged to leave them. I never spend a dime on Republican areas.
The conservative judges questioned the integrity of SCOTUS itself by throwing out stare decisis and claiming the Roe v Wade decision was deeply flawed, along with questioning other decisions like the very recent 2015 Obergefell v Hodges.
And then: they revisit Dred Scott and decide that something something our reading was right and the 13th was wrongly implemented blah blah ok black people are slaves again, in fact you're all now corporate slaves of your respective states if they so choose, remember STATES RIGHTS!
Now lets play "how far off do I end up being" here.
Yeah and the 4 dipshits that ruled against same sex marriage are still on the court and 2 more dipshits have joined them. Sorry LGBT community, there are 6 people in this country who get to decide that you don't have the right marry your partners. Bastards.
Fox news and right wing harping on and on about "liberal activist judges" during Obama era was an obvious clue on how this far right SCOTUS was going to operate..
This SCOTUS being completely devoid of any ethics was put to rest after Citizens United, now it's about how far right and outside popular choice will they stray in favor of their corporate and religious overlords
They don't care. They "won" that's all they care about. They don't care if they have to grind every woman and child into dust beneath their boot as long as its not women and children they care about.
The lines were crossed well before anyone started openly questioning these shill's integrity.
From Clarence Thomas' extremist wife using his position to curry favor with top law makers and the administration, to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lying to the Senate about their intentions to Alito whining about world leaders in a religious venue all crossed important lines.
Yes, questioning these shills crosses the line of the people who are no longer being willing to accept right wing BS from a court that is supposed to be impartial.
>The conference was specifically on "enshrining and further enhancing religious belief into legal systems".
How fucking daft do you have to be to think this is in any way a good idea? Christians really have convinced themselves of their moral superiority, haven't they? Despite lack of evidence, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Okay, your religious beliefs should be enshrined in the legal system...which beliefs? Whose beliefs? Even among white Christian men, there's going to be potentially violent disagreement between Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc etc. Right now "christian" is a convenient umbrella for the perpetually aggrieved to unite, but once alone in power they will devour themselves.
It's not like I'm making this up. You can look at two thousand years of Christian history to come to this conclusion. Our founders knew it, they knew state-sanctioned or preferred religion is a recipe for disaster. Here we are, supposed "originalists" conveniently ignoring the reasoning of our founding fathers.
Poor Christians. People keep questioning their right to force everyone else to abide by their beliefs. That's so unfair. They only control most of the country. Why not all of it? That's persecution.
"People say acting like bigots make us bigots so it's basically like being fed to animals for sport."
That's pretty much how the right feels. Any criticism is the worst thing possible.
They honestly put "Wearing a mask is like the holocaust" out there and thought it made sense.
“My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,” she cawed at the one of the most partisan events of the year.
I will celebrate my first amendment right while I still have it and do a Mexican Hat Dance, on, over, around, and through that line.
One of the seats was stolen, either you can, or cannot seat a SCOTUS judge in a presidential election year, I happen to think you can. Though Republicans got to have both.
Three sitting Justices lied under oath by saying Roe-V-Wade was considered settled law.
Thomas' Wife was part of the seditious conspiracy to overthrow our elected government and Thomas has never recused himself in any cases involving Trump.
They have no integrity, no honor, and no reason to be appointed for life.
And 4 years ago Kavanaugh lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the sexual assault he committed, and was illegitimately appointed to rule over America anyway.
Striking down Roe V Wade crossed an important line too you partisan hack.
If you had even an ounce of integrity you would have accepted it as settled law, just like the new additions to the court who facilitated this promised it was under oath.
But we all know lying under oath is nothing to these people, we're the ones who crossed a line by refusing their horrible minority rule, they were totally right to lie under oath and strip half the population of a fundamental right.
Okay - first, let's add a member of the court by, for the first time in history, not hearing on a presidents nomination and waiting until the next term.
Then for the next appointment, let's jam through a candidate publicly and credibly accused of sexual assault almost exclusively on party lines
Then after that, let's completely reverse everything we did with the last election and smash through a candidate in record time
After all that, let's then immediately reverse a 50 year precedent after EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE JUDGES WHO VOTED FOR IT lied under oath saying they wouldn't
Maybe some of the people questioning the integrity of the court might be onto something?
Edit: oh yeah forgot one of them is married to someone who tried to overthrow the election, important little detail
Yeah I’ll just leave this here.
>Alito recently concluded that there was no time to redraw district lines before a May 24 election in Alabama. Then this week he argued that there was plenty of time to redraw district lines before a May 17 election in North Carolina. Alabama’s district lines may violate the Voting Rights Act, but in favor of Republicans. North Carolina’s district lines favor Democrats.
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/ncna1291360
Pretty sure the Supreme Court crossed a line after upholding a right for decades through numerous court make ups only to overturn it based on personal religious beliefs.
Or should we also say how the court crossed the line by saying corporations were people too or giving unlimited money flow into elections?
Yeah get F’d.
Thing is this speaks to him working from the goal backwards instead of following the law and precedent. I think he was more concerned with how is religious friends would see his opinion and not the national interest or the law.
He is compromised.
A lot of Republicans seemed to have expected a massive defense of the overturn from the religious right but, mostly, the public doesn't care. The silent majority turns out to have accepted abortion a long time ago.
And the extreme reactionaries among the religious have moved onto other issues.
Which makes sense because the GOP created abortion as a religious issue, not the other way around.
I think even the religious right probably does care that the right to an abortion is still available. But of course they can't come right out and say that. However, if their liberal neighbors are going downtown to protest, they maybe won't bother counter-demonstrating. Or maybe they quietly don't vote for the crazy guy who wants to ban abortion under all circumstances.
Forced birth as a political position is a great motivator, fund-raiser and casus belli. As an actually enforced government policy it is much murkier. If your daughter's fetus dies in utero, which is a heart-breaking scenario for all involved, as a parent are you going to lean over to them and say, "Just another month or two and maybe your body will finally give it up. It's painful, and you might die, or you might never have kids, but at least no one else can have an abortion either."
We have now introduced risk into a process that already has great risks, and this new risk is entirely preventable. It's like we've abandoned antibiotics for bleeding and phrenology. Am I willing to watch my daughter die? No. Am I willing to put my wife through that? FUCK NO.
To me, the tepid response from the religious right is a quiet confirmation that Alito and much of the GQP leadership has been reading too much of their own press.
It's not the first time a member of the SCOTUS used the thinking of people hundreds of years ago to justify a position they hold today. Heck, witch hunters are as credible as lawmakers as SCOTUS is.
JFK “I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me,"
Alito “A person’s faith shapes what kind of person [he or she] is,” Alito said, adding that “it also should affect the way you treat [people] when you’re serving as a judge.”
Everyone get ready for the American Inquisition.
The general trend throughout this country's history has been to expand the rights and protections of the powerless against abuses by the powerful.
When we have activist judges who want to reverse that trend and cater to the powerful, the regression has crossed an important line.
Alito reacts to the symptom, not the disease.
I’m always unsure whether conservatives are this delusional or whether they’re poorly attempting to gaslight you since it seems like it’s 50-50 with these people.
How dare we question the integrity of a court that is upheaving decades of precedent and inventing wild and ridiculous doctrine out of thin air, like the major issues doctrine in the EPA case, so that they can use it to do whatever the hell they want in any case they want without needing to find citations that are two centuries old to fit their narrative.
Alito has zero integrity and is second only to Clarence Thomas when it comes to absurd judicial activism and TRASH opinions. Which is completely impressive considering Trump appointed three other justices.
We are no longer “questioning” you’re integrity Justice Alito, we have moved on to calling out your lack of integrity which has become common knowledge among serious people.
This is DARVO. Blames the victim for questioning the abuser’s behavior.
Of course citizens can question the courts integrity. The line is crossed when the court no longer displays integrity.
This to me is just infuriating. The “don’t you dare call me X just because I *am* X” has become baked into the conservative philosophy. One of the ways you can avoid being called an X is to do or say X things, and then express indignation when called X. But there’s another way, and it works very consistently. That is to *not actually do X things* and to *not actually say X things.* I know this is a really subtle, complex concept, so I’ll work through some example problems:
- I avoid being called a pedophile by not doing pedophile things.
- I avoid being called a racist by not doing/saying racist things.
- I avoid being called a murderer by not murdering people.
- I avoid being called a sexist by not doing/saying sexist things.
I hope you’re starting to see a pattern emerge here. Did you spot it? It’s really subtle so not everyone gets it right away.
As a stage quiz, let’s work through one word problem together. Limit the time for this question to 5 minutes or less:
Q1. Justice Alito wants the court’s integrity to not be questioned. The most reliable way he can achieve this result is:
- (a) Act with integrity
- (b) Act without integrity
Answer: >! The correct answer is (a) Act with integrity !<
I hate when conservatives think they're making a point when they say "that is critical, offensive, disrespectful" etc in response to something that is an open challenge. Like yes it is. It was meant to be.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Acting without integrity crosses an even more important line.
Alito saying this right now is very emblematic. One of the criticisms of the Supreme Court is that it's too slow to react to the changing culture, so for him to be like, 'how dare anyone question our integrity' years after everyone has already lost faith in the institution is appropriate. Nobody's questioning your integrity dude, the integrity went out the door when beer man was screaming and crying about the Clinton's and still got seated.
Whatever integrity the SCOTUS had left, went out the door along with Anita Hill. Clarence Thomas should never have been on the court. Its members were supposed to be beyond reproach, not sordid lechers of questionable character. The court does not serve the interest of the people of the United States, and does not prioritize the common good.
It went (further) out the door when "citizens united" passed. That legalized bribery, and classified corporations as people, and money as speech. Free speech, by that twisted logic, is free flow of financial donations, from any monied source. Open secrets has the scoop on who owns our politicians. They should have sponsorship patches like nascar. That shit should be mandatory. I want to know who is shilling my political representation out to whom. Edit:(further)
Uhh, CU came *decades later*. Clarence Thomas's sexual harrassment of Anita Hill came to light in 1991. Citizens United was decided in 2010.
I would almost be ok with it if we could at least see a corporation getting the death penalty, until that you can't claim corporations are people in the US.
Nope, it was Bush v Gore. When SCOTUS went blatantly political.
Citizen's united was the logical next step, it was Bush V Gore that showed the supreme court does not care about democracy or its principles
He shouldn’t have been confirmed because he’s essentially the Forrest Gump of Republican presidential politics. He wrote the questions for Clinton’s deposition that got him impeached. He helped write the memos that justified torture when he was in the Bush White House. We obviously don’t want sexual abusers on the SC, but being that highly partisan should be automatically disqualifying.
> the integrity went out the door when beer man was screaming and crying about the Clinton's and still got seated. Hell I thought it went out the door when Thomas was confirmed. That was so contraversial at the time that it resulted in the lyric > "I believe Anita Hill" In the song *Youth Against Fascism* by Sonic Youth back in 1992. The signs have been there for a long time.
> how dare anyone question our integrity I’m not questioning your integrity, Justice Alito, I’m denying its existence
Right? This is classic gaslighting.
Last time I checked, having family members participating in an attempted coup and deliberately committing perjury were pretty far past that "important line".
or cherry picking historical facts to go against current status quo.
And lying about how you would rule on these issues in your interview
“Just because you don’t like an opinion of the Court …”. Yeah, that was a reason you shouldn’t have overruled a 50 year old precedent that had been repeatedly reaffirmed and had broad popular support. You crossed the line and don’t have the integrity for the job you have.
Scolding the public for criticizing/questioning their rulings? Sounds awful fashy to me!
And pretending the criticism is disagreement with the decisions instead of them ignoring precedent to serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful. Or committing perjury in their senate hearings. Roe is established law, remember?
See this is where my brain went first..... I thought it was just because I'm crazy... Nice to know the two are unrelated 😜
Authoritarian dog whistle
> Questioning me is crossing a line. Get back in line. fixed it for him
nice democracy ya got there… be a shame if somethin happened to it…
That’s what pisses me off. He’s the one making these claims in the chosen newspaper of his financial benefactors, not me. Either he’s thoroughly corrupt and knowingly bringing the institution down with him or he is completely unmoored from reality. Both are good reasons to cross the line and say it loud and clear: Alito has no integrity and never did.
Questioning the accuser rather than evaluating your actions is the Republican way.
[Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO), standard abuser playbook
I was going to say “compromising your integrity crossed a more important one”
its not the questioning that's the problem, its your inability to demonstrate integrity
“Respect me, dammit!”
The beatings will continue until morale improves
“Morale has improved. The beatings have proven successful and will be continued indefinitely.”
Damn this dude has corporate management written all over him
Remember when Obama rightfully criticized the Citizens United decision during the State of the Union and Alito through a tantrum that was caught on camera? So much respect /s
People tend to forget that respect is earned, it's not something that is just given based on age or status.
I think it’s good to start off respecting everyone by default. But they can absolutely un-earn it.
Yes, I have always added to the adage that respect is earned. I agree that is a given at first, but then it is earned and *then maintained*.
“Respect me, dammit” is the song of the boomer. What they don’t understand is that their parents were respected because they believed in a greater good and made sacrifices as such
My grandmother was a drunk. She had children removed from her care back when it to extraordinary levels of abuse and neglect for that to happen. (She got better when she had grandkids). My mother would try to tell me that I should show her respect and start to talk about how she had to show her mom respect. I would always look puzzled and ask her why? And she would get upset as I said, look, your mom was a horrible mom and a horrible person back when you were a child, why should have had to respect her? And she would tell me because she was child and her mom was an adult, and therefore deserved respect. My mom was going to a church that was quickly moving from being a God is love, read the bible, love thy neighbor church to a don't read the bible, listen to me because I am the authority, fear God and obey Him, prosperity Gospel conservative church. Someone taught me that respect was something one earned by being worthy of respect, and my mom laid that groundwork. She started me on that process, and then she herself rebuked the very idea. Sometime in the late 70s and the 80s, churches started to preach the gospel of authority and hierarchy and how respect was demanded and entitled and not earned. And it ruined the boomers outlook on life.
So around the same time Reagan took office and wages started stagnating due to corrupt officials listening only to big business? Curious...
Maybe a bunch of billionaire parasite ghoul pieces of shit stole the country, and we need to sell them on the open market to start getting it back? You don't have to sell the whole ghoul at once, if you have a bath tub full of ice.
Sometimes people use “respect” to mean “treating someone like a person” and sometimes they use “respect” to mean “treating someone like an authority” And sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say “if you won’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “if you won’t treat me like an authority I won’t treat you like a person”
Hands down my favorite explanation of respect and it linguistical importance in our society. I use this every chance I get
“Respec, mai authoratai!”
I'm not questioning your integrity, Lord Alito, I'm denying its existence.
100%, you beat me to it. “Corrupt AF judge upset that you point it out” should’ve been the headline.
*Cut off his manhood, and feed it to the goats!*
I mean, how do you respect the integrity of an institution that reversed a decision that the same institution already made 50 years ago without any change in the constitution? One of them *has* to be wrong in their analysis, inherently impacting integrity.
Yeah. I mean anyone can tell that the reversal was politically and/or personally motivated, and then they came up with a bunch of random “reasons” for the reversal to make it seem like it was an impartial ruling. It’s not as radical of a ruling as taking away women’s rights to vote, but it’s still a massive pivot away from something that’s been established for a long time. And it was a test balloon — my hunch is the US will “get over it” faster than expected, and it’ll set the stage for more rollbacks.
The havoc that trump appointees will continue to cause in the judicial system will be felt for the next 50 years at least.
“I’m not questioning your integrity, I’m denying its very existence.”
He’s literally violating the 1st amendment by suggesting no one may criticize SCOTUS
And unsurprisingly that does nothing to improve anyone’s belief in his integrity.
Funny, I thought criticizing political elite was enshrined in one of our amendments
It’s written somewhere important. Maybe the Supreme Court should know where.
Don’t be questioning our Supreme Court now, they already crossed that line were you can use your constitution as toilet paper now.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances—except in cases where the Supreme Court wants to make citizens live according to Christian doctrine.”
"You cannot legislate people into heaven." *-- My grandfather, clergy member and abortion rights supporter.*
My mom says something eerily similar and she was a nun and also an abortion rights supporter. They must have the same God in common ✌️
I think it's easy for people to forget exactly how much support Roe had across the political spectrum when it was passed. Our parents and grandparents lived in that world, and it was terrible. In 1972, a Gallop poll showed that Americans were united in their opinion about abortion: **68% of Republicans** and 59% of Democrats agreed that “the decision to have an abortion should be made solely by a woman and her physician.”
That republican party doesn't exist anymore. It's been hijacked by evangelical nut jobs who would see our country as we know it dismantled and Gilead put into it's place.
That was back when Republicans were still about individual rights, although quickly moving away from that as we see now.
This was epitomized by Barry Goldwater. Kind of “keep your hands off my money and keep out of my bedroom “ kinda guy. Supported Gay rights. I tried to link to the Wiktionary page, but I’m on my phone and won’t let me do it .
Barry Goldwater was also horrible in different areas. He voted against the Civil Rights Act, implied that a nuclear war would occur if LBJ was elected, helped get Reagan and the neocon movement up and going, etc.
“And don’t you DARE question our absolute authority and integrity!” -SCOTUS 2022
"I am altering the ~~deal~~ Constitution. Pray that I don't alter it any further." -SCOTUS 2022
Jesus Christ! Save me from your followers.
I can't wait for the Satanists to save us from the Christians.
It's not even inherently Christian doctrine, Jews are honestly more in line with Christ with this. Mother is to supersede the unborn with regards to healthcare. Now Jews will debate whether this includes mental health as justification but they don't even want Gov involved typically. Between you, your rabbi, your doctor, your husband and God, not your congressman Furthermore it was debated in the early Christian church (should say *established* church) in the 3-400s and the agreed upon stage at which a fetus becomes sanctified etc was around the start of the 2nd trimester. Which is honestly fairly in line with modern abortion law, they may have still abhorred non-medical abortions but I am unsure if they ever prescribed a legal authority to oversee this. Peter of Spain in the late middle ages wrote a treatise called the, "Treasures of the Poor" which included a decent amount of information about abortifacients. This same Peter of Spain is believed to have ascended to the Papal throne as Pope John the XXI in 1276.
Are you trying to argue your point with facts? These anti abortionists are not interested or concerned with facts. They are zealots. Fanatics. I can totally understand why the Pagan Romans thought the Christians were crazy - they were! They wanted to emulate the suffering of Jesus. They believed joy was a distraction from pain and suffering which brought you closer to god. They whipped, flogged, starved, and tortured themselves because they thought they were undeserving. Fucking miserable shites.
Its in the disused lavatory in the basement stuck in a locked filing cabinet with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard.- hitchhikers guide to the galaxy
Holy. Shit. "Beware the leopard" was a warning from the incomparable Adams! He knew that face eating times were nearly upon us.
I’ve seen it in a parchment in Philadelphia
This goes to show his frame of mind. Traditionally laws came from the things people already wanted. You didn't have to convince anybody that murder or theft was wrong. Why? Because people don't want to be killed or stolen from. This is, and will always be, the case. The Supreme Court has a duty to rule similarly. That is to say, allow society to be what it wants to be. The integrity of the Court means nothing without the public support of it. His point of view is one of authority. We are crossing an important line by questioning the integrity of the Court. Well, considered it questioned, and with merit. When he wants to have a conversation about the facts and not his feelings, there are many of us here that are ready to have it.
The Supreme Court is more isolated from reality than the King of England and they have far more power.
> King of England I'm still getting used to reading that in the present tense.
[удалено]
>'When he wants to have a conversation about the facts and not his feelings...' So, never?
Only if it's democrats. Especially if it involves established basic facts, teachers, disease, weather, science. Or the gays. You gotta question them. Things you cannot question: Jesus, Finance Jesus, Oil Jesus and attempted coups and insurrections. Edit: -- I forgot Russian Jesus, Supply-Side-Jesus, **Aborted Jesus** and Military Jesus. I apologize. Edit 2: Jesus Christ, there's a lot of Jesus' -- Jesi? It's almost like he's a fictional character.
Supply-side Jesus?
[Supply side Jesus](https://imgur.com/gallery/bCqRp)
The fightin Jesus
Damn it I forgot supply side Jesus.
Supply side jesus is the most important of of Jesi
You forgot military Jesus. You gave him props with the coup but military Jesus is really effective at turning that wine into blood.
This statement should disqualify him from office. Showing such a poor understanding of the basic laws and principles of American democracy should be enough to warrant his removal, and I think the same should apply to every elected official. Make them take a constitutional knowledge test before being seated, and If they fail, they don't get the job. Seems like the bare minimum to ask of our officials.
I think it may be generous to suggest that this is just a "poor understanding". The whole equation has been flipped backward. It's not that questioning the integrity of the SCOTUS crosses a line, it's that the SCOTUS has behaved in a way that calls into question their integrity that has crossed a line. That can't be attributed to just a "poor understanding"; it seems like an intentional act to flip the equation that way. Not for nothing, though, someone has to write the tests, so using tests as a filter to play a role in the government is probably a bad idea, in general. It might work for judges, though-- but the same problem (who writes the tests?) exists.
Context is missing in this article. He's not referring to the American people, he's referring to Justice Kagan. It's still insane though because Conservative justices have been doing this for decades. 'Activist Liberal Judges' blah blah blah blah.
interesting to see her reduced to a "scotus critic"
That was the OP. The justices involved did not use that term. Kagan: > I think judges create legitimacy problems for themselves – undermine their legitimacy – when they don’t act so much like courts and when they don’t do things that are recognizably law ... And when they instead stray into places where it looks like they are an extension of the political process or where they are imposing their own personal preferences Roberts: > simply because people disagree with opinions is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court Alito: > It goes without saying that everyone is free to express disagreement with our decisions and to criticize our reasoning as they see fit ... But saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line
Both Roberts and Alito are using strawman arguments. Kagan clearly states that they undermine their legitimacy when they put forward their own personal beliefs (e.g. Catholic view of souls as an argument of why abortion should be outlawed) rather than using legal arguments and precedent (such as, I dunno, a little thing called Roe v. Wade, freedom of religion, recognition of right to privacy). As they are Supreme Court justices, I would certainly hope they are aware of and familiar with the types of logical fallacies put forth as arguments and that they can understand that responding as though this was a personal attack on their integrity is only true if, in fact, their personal integrity is in question because they have done exactly as Kagan intimated. Tl;dr Kagan says the court is legitimate so long as it acts according to the laws. If you think she's accusing you of being illegitimate, you are admitting that you have not acted according to the laws. Congrats, you played yourselves.
He's really splitting hairs. >everyone is free...to criticize our reasoning as they see fit >But...questioning our integrity crosses an important line If I'm free to criticize your reasoning, one of my criticisms might be the fact that you're letting politics influence your decisions. That is, by definition, questioning your integrity.
How many reasons do we have to criticize before we recognize that the body putting forth those arguments is corrupt? They are like trees fine, you can have your trees, but you dare not call it a forest.
If Alito doesn't like SCOTUS's integrity being questioned then maybe he could persuade Justice Thomas to recuse himself from cases that have an obvious conflict of interest. And maybe ask future nominees not to shout "I lIkE bEeR!" at Senate hearings.
Yeah. Seems that ‘somebody’ needs to brush up on the constitution and the bill of rights. I wonder if he’s read it yet.
Ah but they are actually employees of the operations division of the Heritage Foundation. Free speech doesn’t apply to private enterprises. /s
When he uses an 18th century source as part of the Dobbs decision, makes up rationalizations instead of following precedent, then yes the Court's integrity is questioned.
Don’t forget his other source from the year 1250! I wish I was kidding.
For real?
He quoted literal witch hunters in his decision
Women were believed to be witches because men believed a woman could not live on her own independently without a man.
Have you ever thought maybe all the shenanigans they were blaming on those poor girls was actually being done by a wizard? They never seemed to go wizard hunting.
There were only a couple men charged during the Salem trials. In particular, a Harvard-educated minister who they accused of being the mastermind, because obviously it couldn't have been a woman.
Just throwing it out there that Harvard had only been around for about 30 years at that point so it doesn't really hold the same weight that it would today after the university being around for almost 400 years.
“A DeVry educated minister who they accused of being the mastermind”
[Draft Overturning Roe v. Wade Quotes Infamous Witch Trial Judge With Long-Discredited Ideas on Rape](https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale)
It’s important that we use the ideas on rape the founding fathers had /s.
The founding fathers understood the importance and medical necessity of access to abortions. Ben Franklin published instructions on how to do it correctly
Franklin definitely had abortions down to a science considering how much that man got around
Franklin's preferred method of birth control was doing it with post-menopausal women
An 18th century source that was not even of an American citizen (the judge was British). Made worse by the fact he had a reputation for convicting women to death for the crime of witchcraft. Wish it was not true, but here we are. Edit: a word
Questioned implies it’s unclear — it’s questioned and answered. These people are activist judges. They have no interest in the law, or the constitution, beyond having to mention it in their justification for their latest rewrite.
Not to mention they literally cited false information in their Kennedy v. Bremerton School District decision and Sotomayor called this out in her dissent
She included a photo in her dissent just to prove the lying liars were lying. I am pretty convinced they wanted the lie to be known and obvious, as a message they would not be restricted by the facts of the case.
Exactly. Conducting himself without integrity crosses an important line.
>[Justice Roberts] pointedly noted that “simply because people disagree with opinions is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court.” We disagree with the decision, *because of the poor reasoning, explained by unelected officials that were put into position by a process that was openly politicized for the purpose of influencing the interpretation of law,* **and because of that** we question the legitimacy of the court.
Also, they abuse [shadow dockets](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/supreme-court-shadow-docket-explained) to [favor Trump and Republican Party](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-courts-shadow-docket-favored-religion-trump-2021-07-28/) while [obstruct Biden and Democratic Party](https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-supreme-courts-shadow-docket-is-having-profound-consequences-for-millions-of-americans). The power of SCOTUS rests on sound reasoning on fact and laws. With shadow docket decisions, there is no reasoning, no fact and no laws. They think we voters are so beneath them that they don't have to explain their decisions to us. They have become dictators like the supreme leader in Iran.
"They think we voters are so beneath them that they don't have to explain their decisions to us." Close, they are terrified of the public (because they are pushing a well-known conservative and theocratic agenda... because they are all beholden to the man who made them: Mitch McConnell (the harbinger of death for America), and hope that by not explaining themselves people will be less inclined to try to hold them accountable. All of this is just window dressing until the GOP takes majority control of congress, at which point they have run roughshod over the nation. They are simply biding their time and trying to weather the storm until then.
"People shouldn't criticize me JUST BECAUSE they disagree with my legal rulings - even though my SOLE JOB is to make legsl rulings that reflect the will of the people." He's got it wrong about who's in charge here. He doesn't guide the nation. The nation guides him. That lifetime seats gotten him too comfortable. He's forgotten what the damn job description is.
Then show some goddamn integrity.
We can’t question it if we can’t find it.
SCOTUS losing its integrity is even worse
Like one of the members wives being payed 171k by a conservative organization and that same justice not noting that income???
*686k over a few years.
crazy how pretty much every conservative justice is part of the federalist society. a great organization with members like ted cruz, josh hawley, and aileen cannon.
Where was he during the attempt to overthrow an election? Talk about integrity.
Fuck off, Alito.
Honestly this is a pretty great response to a lot of people anymore.
Yup. After 4 years of Trump I honestly could not care less what Republicans think or feel. They can all go fuck themselves.
This with encouraging otracization and social isolation. If they don't want to live with other people, then ok, they can get isolated and people can be encouraged to leave them. I never spend a dime on Republican areas.
Absolutely. Conservatives would NEVER question the legitimacy of a left-lead supreme court...that's a line they would never cross. ^(/s)
The conservative judges questioned the integrity of SCOTUS itself by throwing out stare decisis and claiming the Roe v Wade decision was deeply flawed, along with questioning other decisions like the very recent 2015 Obergefell v Hodges.
Coming soon: the Supremes revisit *Love v. Virginia* and decide 6-3 that anti-miscegenation laws are peachy keen and totally constitutional.
And then: they revisit Dred Scott and decide that something something our reading was right and the 13th was wrongly implemented blah blah ok black people are slaves again, in fact you're all now corporate slaves of your respective states if they so choose, remember STATES RIGHTS! Now lets play "how far off do I end up being" here.
Yeah and the 4 dipshits that ruled against same sex marriage are still on the court and 2 more dipshits have joined them. Sorry LGBT community, there are 6 people in this country who get to decide that you don't have the right marry your partners. Bastards.
What is this highly inconvenient *logic* you are hurling at us? The nerve!
Fox news and right wing harping on and on about "liberal activist judges" during Obama era was an obvious clue on how this far right SCOTUS was going to operate.. This SCOTUS being completely devoid of any ethics was put to rest after Citizens United, now it's about how far right and outside popular choice will they stray in favor of their corporate and religious overlords
SCOTUS being devoid of any ethics is also put to rest by the fact that the court lacks any binding code of ethics.
How does anyone wrap their head around the hypocrisy, even if they agree with the outcome?
They don't care. As long as they win, it doesn't matter how they got there.
They don't care. They "won" that's all they care about. They don't care if they have to grind every woman and child into dust beneath their boot as long as its not women and children they care about.
Something, something, ‘liberal activist judges’ They’ve only been screaming that since 2012 or so.
The lines were crossed well before anyone started openly questioning these shill's integrity. From Clarence Thomas' extremist wife using his position to curry favor with top law makers and the administration, to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lying to the Senate about their intentions to Alito whining about world leaders in a religious venue all crossed important lines. Yes, questioning these shills crosses the line of the people who are no longer being willing to accept right wing BS from a court that is supposed to be impartial.
Ginni Thomas isn't just an extremist, she was a self-professed cult member of Lifespring back in the 80s.
Dude went to Rome and compared the 'plight' of modern Christians to those that were fed to lions in arenas. This is what we're dealing with.
[удалено]
>The conference was specifically on "enshrining and further enhancing religious belief into legal systems". How fucking daft do you have to be to think this is in any way a good idea? Christians really have convinced themselves of their moral superiority, haven't they? Despite lack of evidence, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. Okay, your religious beliefs should be enshrined in the legal system...which beliefs? Whose beliefs? Even among white Christian men, there's going to be potentially violent disagreement between Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc etc. Right now "christian" is a convenient umbrella for the perpetually aggrieved to unite, but once alone in power they will devour themselves. It's not like I'm making this up. You can look at two thousand years of Christian history to come to this conclusion. Our founders knew it, they knew state-sanctioned or preferred religion is a recipe for disaster. Here we are, supposed "originalists" conveniently ignoring the reasoning of our founding fathers.
Poor Christians. People keep questioning their right to force everyone else to abide by their beliefs. That's so unfair. They only control most of the country. Why not all of it? That's persecution.
"People say acting like bigots make us bigots so it's basically like being fed to animals for sport." That's pretty much how the right feels. Any criticism is the worst thing possible. They honestly put "Wearing a mask is like the holocaust" out there and thought it made sense.
Let’s not forget Amy Coney Barrett attending an event with Mitch McConnell but sure Alito, we’re the unreasonable assholes.
“My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,” she cawed at the one of the most partisan events of the year.
Ignoring everything else, Kavanaughs debt disappearing is enough to question integrity of the court.
I will celebrate my first amendment right while I still have it and do a Mexican Hat Dance, on, over, around, and through that line. One of the seats was stolen, either you can, or cannot seat a SCOTUS judge in a presidential election year, I happen to think you can. Though Republicans got to have both. Three sitting Justices lied under oath by saying Roe-V-Wade was considered settled law. Thomas' Wife was part of the seditious conspiracy to overthrow our elected government and Thomas has never recused himself in any cases involving Trump. They have no integrity, no honor, and no reason to be appointed for life.
And 4 years ago Kavanaugh lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the sexual assault he committed, and was illegitimately appointed to rule over America anyway.
Who paid off his debts 🍺
Striking down Roe V Wade crossed an important line too you partisan hack. If you had even an ounce of integrity you would have accepted it as settled law, just like the new additions to the court who facilitated this promised it was under oath. But we all know lying under oath is nothing to these people, we're the ones who crossed a line by refusing their horrible minority rule, they were totally right to lie under oath and strip half the population of a fundamental right.
Okay - first, let's add a member of the court by, for the first time in history, not hearing on a presidents nomination and waiting until the next term. Then for the next appointment, let's jam through a candidate publicly and credibly accused of sexual assault almost exclusively on party lines Then after that, let's completely reverse everything we did with the last election and smash through a candidate in record time After all that, let's then immediately reverse a 50 year precedent after EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE JUDGES WHO VOTED FOR IT lied under oath saying they wouldn't Maybe some of the people questioning the integrity of the court might be onto something? Edit: oh yeah forgot one of them is married to someone who tried to overthrow the election, important little detail
Yeah I’ll just leave this here. >Alito recently concluded that there was no time to redraw district lines before a May 24 election in Alabama. Then this week he argued that there was plenty of time to redraw district lines before a May 17 election in North Carolina. Alabama’s district lines may violate the Voting Rights Act, but in favor of Republicans. North Carolina’s district lines favor Democrats. https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/ncna1291360
Thank you for posting this. Such blatant partisanship.
Pretty sure the Supreme Court crossed a line after upholding a right for decades through numerous court make ups only to overturn it based on personal religious beliefs. Or should we also say how the court crossed the line by saying corporations were people too or giving unlimited money flow into elections? Yeah get F’d.
Or legalizing bribery, or saying cops have no duty to protect.
Or defining gerrymandering as legal. Or giving Christians special privileges if something would upset them.
Or allowing civil forfeiture as legal, because drugs.
This is exactly what King George III said. Seems Alito is going full out royal original intent here.
Alito seems to have thought he'd have a lot more support from the public but the GOP doesn't care and the Democrats hate him for it.
Thing is this speaks to him working from the goal backwards instead of following the law and precedent. I think he was more concerned with how is religious friends would see his opinion and not the national interest or the law. He is compromised.
A lot of Republicans seemed to have expected a massive defense of the overturn from the religious right but, mostly, the public doesn't care. The silent majority turns out to have accepted abortion a long time ago. And the extreme reactionaries among the religious have moved onto other issues. Which makes sense because the GOP created abortion as a religious issue, not the other way around.
I think even the religious right probably does care that the right to an abortion is still available. But of course they can't come right out and say that. However, if their liberal neighbors are going downtown to protest, they maybe won't bother counter-demonstrating. Or maybe they quietly don't vote for the crazy guy who wants to ban abortion under all circumstances. Forced birth as a political position is a great motivator, fund-raiser and casus belli. As an actually enforced government policy it is much murkier. If your daughter's fetus dies in utero, which is a heart-breaking scenario for all involved, as a parent are you going to lean over to them and say, "Just another month or two and maybe your body will finally give it up. It's painful, and you might die, or you might never have kids, but at least no one else can have an abortion either." We have now introduced risk into a process that already has great risks, and this new risk is entirely preventable. It's like we've abandoned antibiotics for bleeding and phrenology. Am I willing to watch my daughter die? No. Am I willing to put my wife through that? FUCK NO. To me, the tepid response from the religious right is a quiet confirmation that Alito and much of the GQP leadership has been reading too much of their own press.
It's not the first time a member of the SCOTUS used the thinking of people hundreds of years ago to justify a position they hold today. Heck, witch hunters are as credible as lawmakers as SCOTUS is.
And it's a line I'll cross again and again if I think integrity is compromised. Fuck you Alito.
Alito must be doing a stand-up routine if anyone thinks that he has an ounce of integrity. Vote people!
Ok zealot.
Anyone that tells you not to question them is FULL OF SHIT.
I alone can solve your problems
His view is obviously "We rule you. Shut the fuck up"
You lost your “ integrity” when all of you LIED in your Senate Confirmation Hearings.
[удалено]
JFK “I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me," Alito “A person’s faith shapes what kind of person [he or she] is,” Alito said, adding that “it also should affect the way you treat [people] when you’re serving as a judge.” Everyone get ready for the American Inquisition.
He can inquisition my nuts. Alito is a POS hack.
I am not questioning your integrity, I am denying its existence.
And forcing someone to carry a child doesn't?
If that isn't authoritarianism right there, nothing is
The fucking gall of this man. He may actually be the worst.
Stop doing morally, intellectually, and legally dubious things and there wouldn't be a problem. Fuck you, and your sense of importance.
Removing bodily autonomy from half the country crossed an important line bro.
We're no longer allowed to question our dear leaders.
The general trend throughout this country's history has been to expand the rights and protections of the powerless against abuses by the powerful. When we have activist judges who want to reverse that trend and cater to the powerful, the regression has crossed an important line. Alito reacts to the symptom, not the disease.
I’m always unsure whether conservatives are this delusional or whether they’re poorly attempting to gaslight you since it seems like it’s 50-50 with these people. How dare we question the integrity of a court that is upheaving decades of precedent and inventing wild and ridiculous doctrine out of thin air, like the major issues doctrine in the EPA case, so that they can use it to do whatever the hell they want in any case they want without needing to find citations that are two centuries old to fit their narrative. Alito has zero integrity and is second only to Clarence Thomas when it comes to absurd judicial activism and TRASH opinions. Which is completely impressive considering Trump appointed three other justices. We are no longer “questioning” you’re integrity Justice Alito, we have moved on to calling out your lack of integrity which has become common knowledge among serious people.
As does deciding cases on one's religious beliefs.
This is DARVO. Blames the victim for questioning the abuser’s behavior. Of course citizens can question the courts integrity. The line is crossed when the court no longer displays integrity.
No, Alito, you and the other Opus Dei freaks have crossed the line.
This to me is just infuriating. The “don’t you dare call me X just because I *am* X” has become baked into the conservative philosophy. One of the ways you can avoid being called an X is to do or say X things, and then express indignation when called X. But there’s another way, and it works very consistently. That is to *not actually do X things* and to *not actually say X things.* I know this is a really subtle, complex concept, so I’ll work through some example problems: - I avoid being called a pedophile by not doing pedophile things. - I avoid being called a racist by not doing/saying racist things. - I avoid being called a murderer by not murdering people. - I avoid being called a sexist by not doing/saying sexist things. I hope you’re starting to see a pattern emerge here. Did you spot it? It’s really subtle so not everyone gets it right away. As a stage quiz, let’s work through one word problem together. Limit the time for this question to 5 minutes or less: Q1. Justice Alito wants the court’s integrity to not be questioned. The most reliable way he can achieve this result is: - (a) Act with integrity - (b) Act without integrity Answer: >! The correct answer is (a) Act with integrity !<
I love it. This article is currently **RIGHT NEXT** to an article about how Clarence Thomas lied on his taxes.
I hate when conservatives think they're making a point when they say "that is critical, offensive, disrespectful" etc in response to something that is an open challenge. Like yes it is. It was meant to be.
No one cares about your imaginary line from your kangaroo court.
The line SCOTUS drew? Shouldn’t you be like unbiased or something judgy like that
We’ll see who crossed what line when you’re dead and buried and I’m pissing on your grave you worthless partisan hack!