The only way you can say this with a straight face is if you are (a) willfully lying or (b) sufficiently arrogant to think that your opinions are truth handed down on tablets and those who disagree just lack your wisdom.
-
The only way you can say this with a straight face is if you are (a) willfully lying or (b) sufficiently arrogant to think that your opinions are truth handed down on tablets and those who disagree just lack your wisdom. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chief-justice-8933cfe269c90746e200f2588801dfae
@SeanCasten ignore the blatant facts and actions. You all just aren't smart enough to understand....
Fuck him
-
I mean just look at the facts. If SCOTUS isn't political, then why the hell did huge right wing political donors spend so much money buying off senators, promoting judges who shared their political ideology, openly bribing SCOTUS judges?
If SCOTUS isn't political, why did McConnell block Garland's appointment and hold the spot for Kavanaugh? Why did all the RW judges work on the Bush v Gore case to use the courts to force a political outcome in an election?
-
If SCOTUS isn't political, why did McConnell block Garland's appointment and hold the spot for Kavanaugh? Why did all the RW judges work on the Bush v Gore case to use the courts to force a political outcome in an election?
If SCOTUS isn't political, why are the reconstruction amendments viewed so differently by Republican appointed judges (who seem confused as to what race was being protected by the framers of those parts of the Constitution)?
-
If SCOTUS isn't political, why are the reconstruction amendments viewed so differently by Republican appointed judges (who seem confused as to what race was being protected by the framers of those parts of the Constitution)?
If SCOTUS isn't political why are established precedents that every prior court has upheld suddenly overturned as unconstitutional when a bunch of RW hacks get black robes (Roe, Chevron, Voting Rights Act, etc.) in ways that exactly mirror their political beliefs?
-
If SCOTUS isn't political why are established precedents that every prior court has upheld suddenly overturned as unconstitutional when a bunch of RW hacks get black robes (Roe, Chevron, Voting Rights Act, etc.) in ways that exactly mirror their political beliefs?
@SeanCasten I mean, even without these, how can it not be political to rules on the interpretation of the constitution, which is literally the source of political systems....
-
If SCOTUS isn't political why are established precedents that every prior court has upheld suddenly overturned as unconstitutional when a bunch of RW hacks get black robes (Roe, Chevron, Voting Rights Act, etc.) in ways that exactly mirror their political beliefs?
And frankly, this goes back much beyond the Roberts court. One could argue that the Warren court also overturned historic precedents consistent with their politics. Or that Roger Taney did racist sh*t under the guise of law. And I would agree! Judges are fallible, opinionated humans too.
-
And frankly, this goes back much beyond the Roberts court. One could argue that the Warren court also overturned historic precedents consistent with their politics. Or that Roger Taney did racist sh*t under the guise of law. And I would agree! Judges are fallible, opinionated humans too.
Which, IMO is fine as long as we admit it. The idea that politics is bad and the court is good because it exists outside of politics is a deeply anti-democratic idea. We'd be vastly better off if we had judges who acknowledged that their predecessors weren't perfect and neither are they.
-
Which, IMO is fine as long as we admit it. The idea that politics is bad and the court is good because it exists outside of politics is a deeply anti-democratic idea. We'd be vastly better off if we had judges who acknowledged that their predecessors weren't perfect and neither are they.
Because then they'd acknowledge that they are public servants, vested with great responsibility and the power to make big decisions with imperfect information, seeking to get input from all and sometimes having to course-correct when they get it wrong.
-
Because then they'd acknowledge that they are public servants, vested with great responsibility and the power to make big decisions with imperfect information, seeking to get input from all and sometimes having to course-correct when they get it wrong.
To strive for a more perfect union rather than to assert that they are vessels of perfection. That's what all the best public servants - and indeed, all of our best public and private sector leaders do. Humility is a virtue. None of us come fully formed into this universe. Why claim otherwise?
-
To strive for a more perfect union rather than to assert that they are vessels of perfection. That's what all the best public servants - and indeed, all of our best public and private sector leaders do. Humility is a virtue. None of us come fully formed into this universe. Why claim otherwise?
So I guess I made a mistake at the start of this thread. (See? You can admit it!). I said that Roberts is either lying or arrogant. But I suppose there is a third possibility. Perhaps he is, in fact, infallible. And it is our privilege to say that we walked the earth in His time.
-
So I guess I made a mistake at the start of this thread. (See? You can admit it!). I said that Roberts is either lying or arrogant. But I suppose there is a third possibility. Perhaps he is, in fact, infallible. And it is our privilege to say that we walked the earth in His time.
As a final comment on this, if you ever take a tour of the Supreme Court, ask the docent these questions. Because they will tell you that the building is designed to look like a temple, figuratively symbolizing that the law, morality and ethics are eternal truths, revealed in this great chamber.
-
The only way you can say this with a straight face is if you are (a) willfully lying or (b) sufficiently arrogant to think that your opinions are truth handed down on tablets and those who disagree just lack your wisdom. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chief-justice-8933cfe269c90746e200f2588801dfae
I have opinions
-
The only way you can say this with a straight face is if you are (a) willfully lying or (b) sufficiently arrogant to think that your opinions are truth handed down on tablets and those who disagree just lack your wisdom. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chief-justice-8933cfe269c90746e200f2588801dfae
@SeanCasten Are his lips pursed like that to stop the flow of absolute festering sewage that he’s apparently full of, from spilling out randomly and staining his tie?
#USPol
#Roberts
#SupremeCourt -
The only way you can say this with a straight face is if you are (a) willfully lying or (b) sufficiently arrogant to think that your opinions are truth handed down on tablets and those who disagree just lack your wisdom. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chief-justice-8933cfe269c90746e200f2588801dfae
@SeanCasten BOTH.
-
As a final comment on this, if you ever take a tour of the Supreme Court, ask the docent these questions. Because they will tell you that the building is designed to look like a temple, figuratively symbolizing that the law, morality and ethics are eternal truths, revealed in this great chamber.
Ask them how much that message screws with your ability to remain humble and thoughtful when it's repeated to you every day. Ask how happy Dred Scott felt after the truth of his inequality was revealed to him.
-
Ask them how much that message screws with your ability to remain humble and thoughtful when it's repeated to you every day. Ask how happy Dred Scott felt after the truth of his inequality was revealed to him.
Don't ask those questions out of malice. Ask them out of love. Because if these justices are ever going to be as perfect as they clearly want to / claim to be, they're going to need someone like you to prod them into some self-reflection and personal growth. /fin
-
And frankly, this goes back much beyond the Roberts court. One could argue that the Warren court also overturned historic precedents consistent with their politics. Or that Roger Taney did racist sh*t under the guise of law. And I would agree! Judges are fallible, opinionated humans too.
@SeanCasten “fallible, opinionated, assholes” Fixed it for you. Autocorrect misspelled the last word.
-
So I guess I made a mistake at the start of this thread. (See? You can admit it!). I said that Roberts is either lying or arrogant. But I suppose there is a third possibility. Perhaps he is, in fact, infallible. And it is our privilege to say that we walked the earth in His time.
@SeanCasten A fourth possibility is that he’s delusional enough to actually believe he is apolitical.
-
The only way you can say this with a straight face is if you are (a) willfully lying or (b) sufficiently arrogant to think that your opinions are truth handed down on tablets and those who disagree just lack your wisdom. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chief-justice-8933cfe269c90746e200f2588801dfae
@SeanCasten In other news, "Water is not wet"!
-
Don't ask those questions out of malice. Ask them out of love. Because if these justices are ever going to be as perfect as they clearly want to / claim to be, they're going to need someone like you to prod them into some self-reflection and personal growth. /fin
@SeanCasten Can we lovingly use a cattle prod?
#USPol
