858
Justice Alito Caught on Tape Discussing How Battle for America 'Can't Be Compromised'
(www.rollingstone.com)
Fuck this traitor piece of shit
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
858 points (99.5% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2406 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Most of this kind of problem can be fixed with term limits - say 7 years. That way there would be a few changes of justices every presidential term.
That, and stop making the Supremes political appointees. The Australian parliament takes a shortlist of suitable candidates from a judicial review board. Our High Court is law-qualified and peer reviewed. The Government usually takes the first name off the recommended list. No particular political party has an advantage.
That's not to say that our governments love the high court. No government loves a hand brake. However, the people respect the bench, and the system works well.
I'm sure in America there would be a massive power struggle over which party would have majority control over the judicial review board. Agree with term limits though.
load more comments
(2 replies)
That, and stop making the Supremes political appointees. The Australian parliament takes a shortlist of suitable candidates from a judicial review board. Our High Court is law-qualified and peer reviewed. The Government usually takes the first name off the recommended list. No particular political party has an advantage.
The only difference between this and the US system is that this is done by the US Senate and not a judicial review board. And it can't change without a constitutional amendment as it's the Constitution that makes the Supreme Court lifetime political appointees. But even if that were to happen, the only thing is that the power struggle around appointing judges would just shift from the US senate to whatever review board you set up to accomplish the exact same thing.
With that said, at least in the US, making Supreme Court appointees term-limited would likely just make the situation worse, not better. At least until the current supermajority, the Supreme Court at least had some public trust and appearance of impropriety. If you think it's bad now, Term-limiting the judges would just make them take the masks off even more and openly make whatever partisan decisions they need to make to get re-elected/re-appointed.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Is this going to continue to be more evidence that there's a different justice system for the rich and powerful in the US than for everyone else?
This fucker understands that the fascist Republican will NOT compromise or ever get along with the majority of Americans. The fact he entertains their existence or bills at all means he's a fucking fascist.
The way Alito and his wife feel about defending america, I feel about defending queer people. The way Alito and his wife feel about queer people, I feel about supreme court judges
They don't even give a thought to the optics at this point. They don't care about public sentiment and what most of us want, they'll do whatever they damned well please and asshats like Trollito will give you the metaphorical finger in the process.
That's ALL Republicans, by the way. This is why I've been saying for more than a decade now that not ONE of them should be allowed into office.
Traitor.
Supreme count set in when? I wanna grill some seitan ribs and sell them for John Brown breakfast club donations in the justices' secret nepobaby room maybe light up a joint too. No poo poo on the walls please thou but I'm definitely gonna steal things 👺
Stupid question. I don't doubt the record is authentic, but how do we talk about 'recordings' in the age of rampant deepfake ai? There's no trustworthy method of validating these claims, right?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Of course we can’t compromise.
Which kinda puts alito on the wrong side of history, doesn’t. Since he’s the one compromising the shit out of the courts…
Alito seems so unhinged, guy looks cooked.