When Thomas didn't recuse

[senseandsensibility]

and got away with it with no pushback that we know of from his fellow justices, I should have seen the writing on the wall. Yes, the heritage foundation justices are thin skinned and whine when criticized, but bottom line is they don't care about public opinion.

Even the liberals seem way too worried about being fair to cheato's lawyer. His arguments were in bad faith and dangerous in the extreme and should have been treated as such.

But a court that is going to let Thomas sit on a case his wife is involved in does not take the people's case seriously. And there is no way that they are concerned with even appearing fair.

[Irish_Dem]

1. They know they don't have to work or appear fair.

They get up and spout nonsense, they don't even make an effort to do their homework and look prepared.

No one will make them do their jobs, make them pretend to be fair or act like they give a shit about their jobs.
Or stop their corruption.

The SC knows there is no one who can or will take them to task.

[Bluethroughu]

2. Time to pack it up, or IF they give immunity to the insurrectionist,

President Biden arrests them and appoints replacements.

IF they give him immunity, they will have ended our Constitutional Republic.

[Think. Again.]

3. From what I've read about today's hearing...

...if they give the President immunity based on the arguments at hand, it would be legal and constitutionally correct for Biden to have them all assasinated.

[TexasDem69]

5. This is the exact sort of unconstitutional act

That Trump would propose. Biden doesn’t have the authority to arrest members of the Supreme Court and appoint alternate justices, just like he can’t arrest members of Congress and appoint new ones. Its shocking that anyone on this website would propose such a blatantly unconstitutional and illegal act.

[B.See]

7. What's shocking is that Trump and his attorneys would propose such a blatantly unconstitutional and illegal act n/t

[Bluethroughu]

11. If trump gets immunity, we live in a lawless country.

That is the point. A President, Biden, has to try to save the Country from a Supreme Court that would allow a dictator destroy our Constitution...what do think plan B should be?

[TexasDem69]

13. Plan B

Should never be ignore the rule of law and do whatever we want because we think it’s best.

[Bluethroughu]

15. If the former insurrectionist President gets immunity

For any and all crimes...the Supreme Court creates lawlessness. Our Constitution does not say a President can do whatever they like without consequences.

[TexasDem69]

17. No it doesn't

It just means Trump can’t be the prosecuted for certain crimes. That’s not lawlessness

[Bluethroughu]

20. For 200 years we did not need to make up the idea that a President has total immunity.

That same period, we didn't have a President try to committ a coup, attack Congress, sell nuclear secrets to a dude hanging at his club, and keep lying about winning an election he lost not only at the ballot box, but in court to many times to count.

Are you paying attention to the level of lawlessness that has already happened in our country by this vile rapist.

Seriously, if he's not the face of lawlessness, who is?

[TexasDem69]

21. You're conflating different concepts

Just because you hate Trump. Everyone on DU hates Trump but that doesn’t mean we go rogue state. The ends don’t always justify the means.

[Bluethroughu]

24. So how is it rouge state, if the Supreme Court says it is not by a President?

[TexasDem69]

26. The Constitution states that all federal judges

Serve until impeached. Biden removing any judge violates the Constitution. I support the rule of law. You should too.

[Bluethroughu]

28. I do, when a Constitution exists. If these Supreme

Court Republican judges choose a lawless insurrectionist to recieve immunity for all crimes committed, we no longer have a Constitution.

We will have a dictator, and they don't operate under a rule of law.

[TexasDem69]

29. Trump isn't president!

He can’t be a dictator. And the Court isn’t going to rule that way, so this is all much ado about nothing. A tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Bluethroughu]

30. The fact that this IS BEING ARGUED AT THE SCOTUS IS SOMETHING.

[BoRaGard]

4. "Smirk. - Clarence (R)

[TexasDem69]

6. What arguments were in "bad faith"

Arguments are arguments and they are convincing or not, but where’s the bad faith?

[flashman13]

10. Bad faith is when you make an argument that is not serious and you know its not.

How do you know when it's a non-serious argument? When they clearly and completely insult your intelligence and don't even smile.

[TexasDem69]

22. So what arguments were in bad faith?

That was the question. I wasn’t asking for a definition of the term.

[CitizenZero]

8. Term Limits

We need something like a ten year term limits for Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices. They are too unaccountable with lifetime appointments.

[world wide wally]

9. This Supreme Court has ONE guiding principle....POWER

[Bluethroughu]

16. Only so long as they vote with their benefactors.

[Magoo48]

12. As the Court stands now, it is vestigial, impotent, corrupted.

The court is leaking damaged decisions into the body politic, and that Is dangerous for we the people and our common welfare.

[TexasDem69]

14. That's so much nonsense

It hardly requires a response. What decisions do you think the court has issued that are inconsistent with the Constitution? Not that you disagree with, but that can’t be reconciled with the constitution.

[Bluethroughu]

18. DOBBS.

Women control their personal organs!

[TexasDem69]

19. How is Dobbs inconsistent with the Constitution?

Because that’s what we’re talking about.

[Bluethroughu]

23. We had Rowe v wade for decades, because the

Supreme Court ruled women had the right to an abortion because it was their body, uterus.
Now it's everyone's but the woman.

Neighbors can report to authorities, as a crime taking place, about woman or people helping those woman, make decisions about their own bodies and health.

How do you comport that as being Constitutional by this court?

[TexasDem69]

25. Eh, that's not really what Roe said

And definitely not what Dobbs said. But you still haven’t answered my question. How was Dobbs inconsistent with the Constitution? What specific portions of the Constitution do you think Dobbs violated?

[Retrograde]

27. Who's gonna make him? (n/t)