Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
If you're like most Americans, you no longer have faith in SCOTUS. If they could only do one thing to regain that, what would you want thrm to do.
Recuse Clarence Thomas from any and all cases involving Trump and all cases that could impact his wealthy friends.
I want to believe that SCOTUS rules justly on laws. Yet, when I see some opinions written by Clarence Thomas, it becomes increasingly difficult to do so.
I mean, its a pretty stupid system. The SCOTUS is supposed to be the highest in the judicial branch and the judicial branch is supposed to be one of the 3 branches of government in USA alongside the presidency and congress making up the other two branches. Separation of powers and all that so no one branch has complete power of the nation.
The fact that the legislative branch and executive branch (congress and the presidency) is intimately connected is already a problem since both come from the same source AKA a political party through voting. To add to this you have the presidency and legislative branch then appoint the SCOTUS judges and it all just becomes an incestuous mess.
Rather than splitting the powers you focus all the powers into the political parties and making all these positions based on what is basically a political popularity contests rather than a position you gain based on merits.
All of these branches needs to be separated from each other so that one can't corrupt another and they can all hold each other accountable if there is an overreach in power. As it currently is, the system just does not work as it was intended to.
if so what balances court power?
@strateguy632 Exec and Congress. Funny thing - - if PROgress means moving forward, what does CONgress mean?
I have never lost faith in it. From a big-picture perspective the court is doing exactly what it was intended to do. Create part of a system of checks & balances. The court should not be reflective of the popular opinion, and sure not the prevailing politicians opinions but an independent body which can make controversial decisions. We don’t even need a SCOTUS for things we all agree on - what’s the point in that? The fact that the court once leaned left when the political winds were right was good. It kept a tense but necessary balance. The fact that the court now leans right when the political winds blow left is also good. Governments that totally vilify the opposition and have every single impediment to their agenda removed can be very dangerous. I WANT the system to impede some progress and ideas, even ones I agree with, because it allows (no, demands) that change takes time, necessitates discussion, and allows us to consider before we restructure things. We have a remarkably stable government given the diversity of this nation. We should be very cautious about fully participating in a single, ideological, mindset.
I don't have a problem with most decisions they've made, although they've given more stake to certain arguments I found asinine (masterpiece cake shop).
The Roe v. Wade decision seems to transient for me to support or deny it being overturned.
My worries with the Trump immunity case and Chevron deference. Both should be obvious based on laws that are currently in place. Trump doesn't have immunity, and Chevron deference should not be reduced or removed. If the court decides that way, I believe enough justices are still impartial, but if its 5-4, I have to assume that a single person's bias flipped it. The obvious one would be Clarence Thomas for obvious reasons
Opinion
14Opinion
Scotus was unanimous in overruling the unconstitutional removal of an official from the presidential ballet. If you want to gain faith in scotus you will have to replace them with a scotus that is fine with violating constitutional rights. Your inability and refusal to accept the constitution for what it is and then trying to insinuate "most" Americans feel that way. Mate most Americans support the constitution only a minority are trying to change the constitution. Gun control for example. Only 1 group of people are trying to influence the second amendment
To give you a sense of unanimous votes. Scotus ranges from 36% to 50% on unanimous votes so the fact it was a unanimous vote was a long shot meaning the woke leftists were so beyond violating constitutional rights no a single scj was for removing officials from ballots
I have no problem with that decision, although I disagree with the majority opinion. I agree with the concurring opinion.
In fact I understand most rulings they've given, but there are two cases that they will hear which are disastrous if they are decided based on personal bias.
Presidential immunity is already stated in our Constitution, it shouldn't extend beyond that.
Chevron deference must be kept intact or expanded.
The one justice who would have a clear and obvious persal bias is Clarence Thomas. His wife is a Trumpist election denier and texts she wrote were used by the January 6 committee. He has a personal relationship with several people who would benefit if Chevron deference was removed or reduced.
I doubt he can be truly impartial in those cases. If he refuses himself from both I have trust in the court, because they've ensures that personal bias will not influence National law.
Presidential immunity isn't going to pass presidents are only immune to certain things while in office once they leave office they can be charged for those crimes. Most just never go through it because they say "well in the long run x did things that outweigh that bad thing"
Anything that hits supreme court has a 50% or less chance of passing regardless of how good or evil it is. End of the day people have opinions many are dumb and many are dangerous doesn't change the reality that the reason why there is 9 is to prevent biases from winning
It doesn't always work. If the vote is close for presidential immunity, even if Trump loses that, shouldn't we be concerned? I am not worried about the vast majority of people doing bad things with full presidential immunity. Yet Trump will do terrible things with that kind of immunity. That's what I afraid of. During the second impeachment, a congressman said what I was thinking perfectly "I'm not worried about Trump winning again, I'm worried about what happens if he loses again."
It would be an unconstitutional addition instead of fear mongering and working yourself into a tizzy over an unconstitutional stance
No shit. That's why I don't even know why SCOTUS decided to hear it. It's obvious to anyone with a working knowledge of U. S. government (which is actually a small part of the population) that full immunity of anyone is unconstitutional. Diplomats don't even have that, and they have more immunity than POTUS.
It is because it was filed they legally have to hear it. Same reason why they had to hear the bullshit in relation to removing trump for ballots. Same situation both unconstitutional both had/have to be heard. It is not a matter of the facts of the item it is the legality of it being filed.
They don't have to hear every case that is appealed up past a state supreme court. They can choose whether or not they will hear it. They chose to do it, and if it was as really as cut and dry as it looks and there is no doubt that they will uphold the lower court's ruling, they would have no reason to hear it.
True in some instances but you are forgetting that such a claim as "presidential immunity" sets a staggering precedent for things to come so yes scotus HAS to hear it if only to lock that precedent down
He has already been proved not guilty for most of the crimes liberals are saying he is guilty of. There are of course some left to go through.
That is being appealed as far as I know and punitive damages are capped. Just because it is set for whatever amount does not mean he will be paying that amount.
I haven't lost faith in it, never really had faith in it. It is what it is... people with opinions. If they can justify slavery with the situation they had, what credibility do they have? It's a valid idea, but a political whip of the times. Look at recent decision justification on Trump/Colorado... they didn't want to cause a problem in the election. I really haven't read any of Clarence stuff. Get to know him...
Maybe go horseback riding with him, doesn't he have a horse named Long Dong Silver?
Just kidding...
Something I'd do is for right judges to fast and pray and then live on the streets with nothing. Maybe change their views.
The left, they have to do 1 month in US Military, their butts in a Korean ditch or duty on a vessel getting shot at.
Then they get together to discuss how the experience changed their views.
I don't know if I have had living faith in them. I'm a historian though (at least that is what my degree says), and I studied a fair number of SCOTUS decisions. Most were good and I understood the reasons behind them. Some decisions are opinion based, but in the vein of the law. Clarence Thomas writes what he believes the law should be regardless of whether or not it is.
SCOTUS is no longer bipartisan and bows to the one party, regardless of how the constitution is written and its interpretation. We need Judges that follow the law and the ideals of the intent of the law. Politics have no business in governing the supreme court because justice will fail, it's being interfered with and no longer represent the true will of the people. As its already proven to be so. Normally there's more than one side to an argument but not anymore. True justice is gone, sold to the highest bidder or answering only to one political party and not the people of this country. SCOTUS is a joke!
... did you make the same complaint when the courts were stacked left?
When Justice Sotomayor, who made most of her money from Random House/Penguin publishing, was involved in cases which concerned the publisher, you were equally outraged, I'm sure.
Politics is slime on both sides. Let's not act self-righteous when "the other guy" does it.
I believe SCOTUS should decide based on the law and if there's a reasonable case to be made regarding the impartiality of a justice they should either be recused or there should be some determination to determine if past affiliations may influence their decision. I am not saying Clarence Thomas is incapable of being impartial and there are several times he has appeared to be, however his wife's affiliations in regards to Trump and his affiliations with wealthy businessmen who would benefit if the court voted a certain way regarding their earnings makes me doubt he can be in those cases. I don't think I could be, if I had the same connections.
I don’t have any problems with the Supreme Court. I mean, people didn’t like that there weren’t any women involved in the Supreme Court before and now that there is they suddenly hate the Supreme Court? 🤣 Calm the fuck down libs and worry about something more important like the illegals coming into our country and killing our citizens
if you're like most Americans, you are relieved they protected trump from evil goliath democrats. we can have faith in SCOTUS
I have complete faith. Only lefties butthurt because it's now conservative and they can't use it to manipulate the system like they have the past 50 years.
I never lost faith in the Supreme Court? Why would/should I?
Why do you think that? The Supreme Court has pretty much been the last part of America to change anytime there has been a political or cultural change in the country. Things like civil rights as an example.
The situation today is not particularly unique in practical terms but is highlighted by the fact that it has become very public and in your face.
That is literally the purpose of the SCOTUS though? Because the power of government is split into 3 pieces it also means that each of the branches of government becomes a check on every other branch of government. SCOTUS, as the head of one of these branches is supposed to hold both the legislative and the executive branch (headed by Congress and the President respectively) accountable and by extension "altering the way other elected leaders act".
They need to stop voting based on their political party
Show a little more courage. When an election is stolen do not sit on the sidelines. The country could depend on it.
When you have more ballots than there are registered voters there is something wrong. When you have states having the rules changed without it going through the state legislature there is something wrong. When you see a van pull up in front of a polling place after hours and unload several boxes and they are brought inside there is something wrong. When the President brings all this to the court's attention and he is told he has "no standing" It just means the Supreme Court did not want to preside over the do over of a presidential election.
The evidence wad the there. The total number of ballots exceeded thr number of registered voters is pretty cut and dried.. Having the Sec of State change the rules to allow unsolicited mail in ballots without the vote from the legislature is against the law. That cannot be denied. There was videonof the van that showed up at night after everyone went home. The Supreme Court didn't want to touch it with a Ren foot pole. Imagine what would have happened. They may have had a do over of the whole election.
Grant Trump immunity so Biden's pathetic attempts to jail his political opponent fail.
He already jailed the J6 people without due process and if he could do that to Trump he would but then he would have a civil war on his hands.
two words: TERM LIMITS. i say that even if the court was all left leaning by the way.
u I never had it in the first place...
Stick to the letter of the Constitution
Reaffirm roe v wade
Keep dreaming, ain’t gonna happen. Not in our lifetime.
Pretty sure even if and when they do nothing is gonna change. But by all means keep wishing for power over everyone else in the country.
You can also add your opinion below!
