Just so I'm clear, did the Supremes really think there wasn't gonna be any backlash? - rant-

[In It to Win It]

The conservative Supremes to be exact...

To Justice Thomas, no one is trying to bully you or the other Justices into submission. People are trying to get you to listen, let people and their advocates be heard, and for you to be receptive.

The problem is that Justice Thomas, and other Supremes in the conservative block, aren't receptive. Their bullshit made-up mind-reading method for interpreting law leaves them no room to be receptive. To be a judge or a Justice, it requires one to be receptive in all cases. It requires one to be willing to be convinced by either side and that is not what we have. My ire, my anger at this goes beyond the Dobbs case but in every case with major societal implications. One party has already lost their case before they ever walk into the courtroom and the public has ZERO recourse to fix that. When the Court won't even enforce their own precedent (i.e. Texas) on lower courts and states BEFORE THEY'VE EVEN SET A NEW PRECEDENT, then there is no stability in SCOTUS case law.

I've long thought that the Supreme Court has entirely too much power. That power is multiplied when the country's legislature seems to have forfeited some of their power to the Court. Congress has seemingly become the most useless branch of government. Congress has given their power to 9 unelected judges that can't and won't be removed for any reason under the sun. The public can't punish them, can't remove them, can't do anything. They get to make decisions and shape the rules of society, and the public is supposed to sit back and take it. The Court wields its power and there is no way to curtail that power. Sure, in theory, there are ways to check the Court's power but when the branch of government responsible for doing that can't function, there is no real and practical way of reigning in the Court's power.

Sure, I understand that politically, it may not look good with people protesting outside of the Justices' homes. But how else are we supposed to vent? How else are we supposed to show we disapprove of the Court's decisions? Sure, they have electoral and political power (Alito forgot to include the word "diluted" ) but that's months away and WE'RE ANGRY NOW!

[Skittles]

1. the Supreme Court is now ruling for evangelicals, NOT for America

THIS KANGAROO COURT NEEDS TO BE CALLED OUT

[leftstreet]

2. An unelected body with no term limits. Fuck their feelings n/t

[Cha]

3. I prefer to call them the Extreme Gaslit

supremes

💙💛

[Grins]

4. Yeah; but they thought they'd be outta' DC in late June. NM

[C Moon]

5. Im thinking the opposite. The GOP wants a civil war or

rather, a huge uptick in violence.
I think everything we are seeing put forth by the GOP now is intended to help them win the midterms and then get tfg back in office.

[uponit7771]

8. +1, they can literally vote tfg as speaker of the house if they won the house side this Nov. There

... are so many stokes dems can use to GOTv including the carrot of protecting everyone's rights.

[Cheezoholic]

6. The Supremes need to listen to The Supremes

[uponit7771]

7. ***YES THEY DID!!!*** In MAGA world water is dry, earth is flat and Trump is smart. They don't

... live in our world they have one way away from society

[in2herbs]

9. I am not advocating that this happen, but I read a post that said if a 12 year old girl

is old enough to be a mother (per the USSC) then 12 year olds should be able to adopt children.

How would the USSC rule in this instance (without them impinging on their Roe decision)?

IMO there should be an immediate flurry of these types of test cases taken to the USSC, for no other reason than to continue to expose the ignorance of these m***f***rs until they retire and even after they retire.

Today, the Senate quickly passed a law affording these m**f**rs and their families with added security and now it goes to the House. I read somewhere that members of Congress were saying they should be afforded the same security as Art I and Art II officials get. IF that is to be the law of the land they need to comply with the same Ethics Rules and HR rules that Art I and Art II officials must comply with. Otherwise NO!

My prayer is that the House puts the bill on hold, the same way that McConnell puts bills he does not want to become law on hold.

[Irish_Dem]

10. I think they are shocked that people ar fighting back.

They didn't expect it.

[intheflow]

11. I think they damn well knew people would fight back.

That's why they're all up in arms about the leak. They were going to release it in June and then go on vacation (probably out of the country) for three months, and not have to deal with any of the immediate consequences. They are cowards as well as heartless assholes.

[Irish_Dem]

12. Good point. They were all going to secret vacation spots in June.

And assumed people "would live with it" like Thomas says.

That is why they are so angry they cannot get away right now.