2760
Comments (233)
sorted by:
214
Alphahorizon 214 points ago +214 / -0

Actually that is the entire reason Sups exist. To be outside of public opinion and Constitutional interpretation. Alas....since one of them is actually this stupid or deliberately lying to feed the goblin trolls, here we find ourselves

87
TLDC 87 points ago +87 / -0

YES! This is also the reason they have a lifetime appointment, so the SC Justices are not beholden to the whims of the "majority"

33
snoopy3210 33 points ago +34 / -1

True! Good point against those who stupidly want term limits. We don’t want the SC to follow « trends » of the day.

5
Block_Helen 5 points ago +5 / -0

The argument for term limits typically applies to Congress. Fine, but that just means that the newbies get rolled by the permanent staff. Meaning our newbies because the permanent staff are almost all leftists/statists.

14
deleted 14 points ago +19 / -5
16
Libertas_Vel_Mors 16 points ago +16 / -0

This is primarily why SCOTUS decided to ditch Roe , yet only to leave it up to the states individually (which is perfect jurisprudence.)

It also works in the other direction - if Congress tries to pack the court, SCOTUS can simply refuse admittance to any excess jurists, and tell both Congress and the Executive to pound sand.

I am curious about one thing, though - what would happen if red states started telling the feds to fuck off with regards to *Obergefell *... I mean, what can the feds really do, besides cut off federal funding for shit? (which is why states need to wean their asses off the federal teat, ASAP.)

9
VulpineBard 9 points ago +9 / -0

We ought to be prepared for such a thing in the next few years, because any action by a President Trump (or whoever you prefer) that does anything at all to stop illegal immigration can and will be blocked indefinitely in the courts. We know this is so since every single move he tried was so harried by the lawyers, to the point of absurdity.* At this point I'd be okay with him saying "This is an invasion; I am stopping it; I will not back down because some judge says I'm not allowed to defend the country." Yes, I understand the... problems that might cause.

*Thinking in particular of the ruling that any wall in Texas must have at least four large gaps in it for butterfly sanctuaries and the like; and the outcry that Trump dared try to arrest people who had exhausted all legal appeals and violated a "seriously, GTFO" legal order.

2
conservativefrank 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah, they might impeach him or even steal the office from him.

3
fskfsk 3 points ago +3 / -0

If Congress packs the court, the Supreme Court should allow it. "The Constitution lets Congress set the size of the Supreme Court. We defer to the legislative branch."

In practice, court packing would mean no more filibuster. It also means that, whenever a new party is in power, will just increase the Supreme Court so they now have a majority. If Republicans had balls, no filibuster means they could repeal welfare, affirmative action, and every other bad law. That assumes Republicans have balls (no RINOs) and they could still somehow take a majority after Democrats go with 100% illegal amnesty with citizenship and voting rights.

1
justmadethisacc7725 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah this is a shit situation to be in and will ruin the stability of the nation forever. The Supreme Court is supposed to be as impartial as possible. You delete the purpose of people just fill it to the brim with new justices every 2-4 years.

3
War_Hamster 3 points ago +4 / -1

California SHOULD disobey an Unconstitutional ruling like that.

SCOTUS isn't even empowered to judge constitutionality of issues, they summoned that power out of thin air (Marbury v Madison).

4
Mythnutbill 4 points ago +4 / -0

After reading Article 3*, I'm a bit confused as to their purpose. Wouldn't the Constitutionality of a law be something that would be interpreted incidentally in the course of their duties? Or am I missing some detail?

*As a side note, I tried reading the Marbury decision, but it was hard to follow. Older, verbose English + legal matters. Sheesh, i need a nap.

1
Test_user21 1 point ago +1 / -0

The guy above you had it right, a court, any court needs to have an aggrieved party file a suit.

That "something" might be "un-Constitutional" is not the province of a court, any court, inc SCOTUS.

Marbury should never even have been heard, as it related to administrating by the Executive branch. It's pretty obvious it was heard because the ruling had already been written up.

2
Mythnutbill 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ohhh, so it was basically the Court declaring itself the power to legislate from the bench when it has no such power vested in it. That makes more sense, but I am still slightly confused.

Given that the case WAS heard, how should it have been handled? Wait...

Reading the beginning statement, it sounds like the commissions, although signed and stamped with the Seal, were never actually delivered, therefore, effectively, the appointments would have been canceled...The only case I could see here would be of the civil variety, suing for damages due to loss of expected revenue (albeit, that would be a shaky case). Am I seeing that right?

If I am, then...that's an egregious over step of the Court's duties! But then another question jumps to mind: if the Court isn't responsible for that claimed power, how are un-Constitutional laws and actions by the government supposed to be handled? Who is meant to keep them in check? Or is it a case of needing the other branches (and the States) to not be corrupt as Hell to hold them in line until a legitimate vote can replace them?

So many questions...

1
Test_user21 1 point ago +1 / -0

The executive Branch is the court of Reckoning for all matters that could possibly arise from these guys having a kerfuffle.

There is no mechanism for a court, any court to reconcile a disagreement between persons employed or elected to a position in the Executive branch - it would be like saying if a tribunal doesn't unanimously agree on something, the President or a dog-catcher could choose which opinion should be "followed".

1
War_Hamster 1 point ago +1 / -0

Getting back to you on this.

The simplest way to understand the checks and balances is to consider whether we should want a FEDERAL court to be the check on the FEDERAL government.

The real checks and balances were that the States were to check the Federal Gov't, and the people were to check the States.

It runs counter to the entire founding principles for Federal courts, who are appointed by DC politicians, to then police those politicians. The obvious conflicts of interest would always result in the corrupt system we are living under today.

Does this make sense?

2
Mythnutbill 2 points ago +2 / -0

Hmm...yes, it does. I appreciate the response. Thank you, WH.

1
War_Hamster 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm responding to bookmark this question so I can give it the response it deserves tomorrow.

1
War_Hamster 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nobody talks about Hylton vs United States, but they should.

This was the decision that allowed Marbury v Madison to solidify this takeover of the Constitution.

This is a good summary:

The Supreme Court's decision in this case established the precedent for judicial review, which is the power of the Court to interpret the law and overturn legislative or executive actions that are inconsistent with the law. The power of judicial review was formalized by Marbury v. Madison in 1803."

Where does the Constitution enumerate this power to the Federal courts?

2
Mythnutbill 2 points ago +2 / -0

Hmm...yeah, that is definitely not something given in the Constitution. I appreciate the answer, WH.

1
War_Hamster 1 point ago +1 / -0

When we really dig into the Founders' intentions, it becomes immediately clear how far we've strayed and even more obvious that this wasn't an accident.

2
doug2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Muh institutions

1
justmadethisacc7725 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thanks for the history lesson lol. Very interesting, yeah makes sense that scotus is only valuable if they fucking listen. Something NY won't do with the Gun license case.

0
deleted 0 points ago +2 / -2
3
CrispyQuesoSalami 3 points ago +3 / -0

At least with some kind of ability to sanction judges that do not enforce their rulings.

10
PegasoSeiya 10 points ago +10 / -0

Kagan and Sotomayor are political Appointees and don’t have the skills Necessary for the position of justice. Ginsburg.made terrible decisions but she was smart enough to justify her reasoning. Kagan and Sotomayor are not even close.

6
sweeswee14 6 points ago +6 / -0

and now we get another one that doesn't know what a woman is

17
magapotus 17 points ago +17 / -0

Definitely proves the “conspiracy theory” hat these clowns don’t follow the law.

16
T-Bear 16 points ago +16 / -0

Elena, with her own words, told us she doesn't belong on the SCOTUS bench without ssaying those exact words.

Of course, we all know this already.....

8
TrumpIncitedErection 8 points ago +8 / -0

Dibersity kan-did-date

5
DrStormfagFedglowie 5 points ago +5 / -0

"we need more lemon pledge"

11
based_trekkie 11 points ago +11 / -0

BINGO!

They are supposed to make the "Hard Decisions" that may piss people off!

6
War_Hamster 6 points ago +7 / -1

They're actually not supposed to be deciding constitutionality at all.

They were supposed to "apply the law as written".

States were supposed to be the mechanism to curtail unconstitutional laws from Congress. Period.

2
lixa 2 points ago +2 / -0

Can you explain more on how this works?

3
War_Hamster 3 points ago +4 / -1

The way the Constitution was written, if Congress passed something that was unconstitutional, the States had several means of recourse.

The first was nullification. They could simply refuse to enforce the bill in their own States.

The second was through funding. Before 1913, the Federal Government got 90% of its money from the States. If they didn't like the bill, they just wouldn't pay for it.

The third was by recalling their Senators. If their Senator passed something they didn't like, the legislator would recall the Senator and send someone who would overturn the bad vote. This also ended in 1913.

Congress already gets replaced every 2 years, so no recall mechanism was needed.

If you go read Article III, you will find no mention of Federal Courts having the power of Judicial Review. Chief Justice John Marshall summoned that power out of thin air in 1803 (Marbury v Madison), and we've come to go running to daddy (SCOTUS) anytime something didn't go our way instead of ensuring our State Legislature did their job.

4
Block_Helen 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yep. The 17th amendment fucked everything up. And Marbury v Madison was an early travesty.

5
dahdahdah_dahditdah 5 points ago +6 / -1

She isn't stupid. She was actually recommended by Scalia (not actually "recommended recommended" but like, "if you are going to choose a leftist justice anyway, please choose Elena Kagan").

It is just her judicial philosophy that the judicial and executive should unilaterally issue fiat orders from the bench. Leftists are totalitarians who deny the rule of law. That is pretty much their thing.

4
Liberty49220 4 points ago +4 / -0

I know a lawyer who worked at the office of Solicitor General under Kagan when she was SG. She's not dumb, and is somewhat more honest than most hare-brained liberals such as Sotomayor. This is first I've heard that Scalia recommended her. Do you have a source for that? And why would Obama take advice from Scalia?

5
Block_Helen 5 points ago +5 / -0

Immediately after Scalia's murder, this was claimed by (surprise!) Obama advisor David Axelrod, based on a personal conversation he claimed to have had with Scalia. Of course the left LOVED that and trumpeted it as gospel.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html

3
Liberty49220 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thanks for link

1
dahdahdah_dahditdah 1 point ago +1 / -0

It’s from David Axlerod and CNN, so take with a mountain of salt: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html

As far as why - I sort of already addressed that. If you know it’s going to be a commie leftist scumbag, you might still have a suggestion. It’s not a recommendation or preference in an absolute sense, just trying to steer a crashing car a little bit as it crashes anyway. (shrug)

66
GenericInsult 66 points ago +66 / -0

"Public opinion" is meaningless.

100% of the public can feel a certain way about something, but if it is not Constitutional... it's not Constitutional ... and should be ruled as such.

24
based_trekkie 24 points ago +24 / -0

Public Opinion is ESPECIALLY MEANINGLESS when you consider how easily using propaganda and advertising that public opinion CAN BE MANIPULATED!

7
Joequill 7 points ago +8 / -1

If the public feels so strongly, perhaps an amendment is in order.

5
2Fangz 5 points ago +5 / -0

It is, by definition, the mob.

4
ThisTrainHasNoBrakes 4 points ago +4 / -0

Not just that…if the public feels something that strongly, they can vote in representation that will amend the constitution to fit.

Of course they don’t, because the opinion claim is full of crap.

4
GenericInsult 4 points ago +4 / -0

It's called legislation from the bench, and Democrats love it.

2
akira2501 2 points ago +2 / -0

Precisely.

Let's get a change.org petition together to ask Kagan to hang herself.

Then ask her: "Well, you don't want to stray too far from public opinion, do you?"

2
Tuber 2 points ago +2 / -0

Their new god is The Narrative. Scientism has been obsoleted.

31
BostonVoter 31 points ago +31 / -0

That's a Face Only a Mother could Love

12
GaslighterInChief 12 points ago +12 / -0

That's just a Kagan-cidence.

3
Test_user21 3 points ago +3 / -0

She's the grand-niece of Lazar Kaganovich, Stalin's right-hand man

1
LibtardJesus 1 point ago +4 / -3

She looks like an albino turd with googly eyes and a wig.

1
Duster_340 1 point ago +2 / -1

Or a dike with a hairy muff. No muff too tough for Kagan.

1
ThisTrainHasNoBrakes 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m still not convinced it isn’t Kavanaugh in drag.

26
Hades440 26 points ago +26 / -0

If the law of the land was simply public opinion, we would have no judicial branch; the public would simply decide what was right or wrong and what was acceptable. The very existence of a judicial branch is evidence that there is some higher law than public opinion. The Supreme Court decides based on Constitutionality, not public opinion. If it ever did decide based on public opinion, then it would be illegitimate.

6
Pepper2 6 points ago +6 / -0

It's also to prevent the untethered whims of the populace from making radical decisions everytime a NY times article comes out

2
catvideos3 2 points ago +2 / -0

The public believes what the social programming tells them to believe.

23
BabbleRabble 23 points ago +23 / -0

So what does she suggest the court do if 51 percent of the American populace decide that she needs be hung from a tree?

19
deleted 19 points ago +19 / -0
14
Pdjco658 14 points ago +14 / -0

I didn't know supreme court cases should be decided American Idol style. Why don't we just put up a call in phone number and everyone can vote on what the next outcome will be and the court will have to follow the winner.

6
Pepper2 6 points ago +6 / -0

That's exactly how many ignorant people in this country think. Our education system is a huge fucking failure and half of our culture is dogshit

12
deleted 12 points ago +14 / -2
2
when_we_win_remember 2 points ago +2 / -0

What is right is not always popular. What is popular is not always... ah fuck it. The public is always right.

11
Oldjeansandbelt 11 points ago +11 / -0

Public Opinion would leave us with Flag Burning under Texas v. Johnson, would have never allowed the original Roe v. Wade, would have never permitted re-integration of schools and overturning 'Separate but Equal" and essentially would restrict supreme court decisions to simply echoing public opinion instead of defending the rights of unpopular religious whackos (myself) to go and say our views in public.

Edit: now that over half of Americans think the election was fraudulent, I wonder if she still thinks Dismissing Texas v. Pennsylvania was a good idea.

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
6
GoldwaterVoter 6 points ago +6 / -0

I tutored college biology for a student with severe Aspergher's, and he got a B+. Therefore I know more about women than the most recent justice does, and Kagan IS A MAN!!!

8
GaslighterInChief 8 points ago +8 / -0

The problem is the public doesn't decide what the public thinks.

The MEDIA decides what the public thinks. Its very easy to manipulate MOST of the masses, not all of them, but most. Hell, you just tell people "Everyone agrees with this, and you will be ostracized if you go against it" and automatically 98% of women and all the soy bois will agree with you.

7
GoldwaterVoter 7 points ago +7 / -0

"Incidentally, Kagan is the only associate justice in history who didn’t serve on the bench before ascending to SCOTUS."

Hey Red State:

https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html

5
sully 5 points ago +5 / -0

I think its a more fun fact that you don't even have to have been an attorney at all to be a SC Justice.

Imagine this list sometime in the future has someone on it that says "Prior occupation: Manager at Wal-mart"

3
catvideos3 3 points ago +3 / -0

Chief Justice Alex Jones

7
AuPhalanx 7 points ago +7 / -0

That’s a MAN, baby!

2
thetruthfl 2 points ago +2 / -0

Came here to say this, but you beat me to it. That is one very ugly, manly looking “woman.” LOL

6
Dictator_Bob 6 points ago +6 / -0

She isn't even a real judge. Remember that.

6
TaxDollarsHardAtWork 6 points ago +6 / -0

Why do all of these Leftist scumfucks look like goblinoid caricatures?

4
Vectar 4 points ago +4 / -0

Ugliness often starts on the inside.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
6
Trump2024 6 points ago +6 / -0

Kagan is what a child would look like if Laurel and Hardy were able to have a kid.

2
OrangeFruitGood 2 points ago +2 / -0

I can't unsee it now.

5
MAGA_____bitches 5 points ago +5 / -0

If Hillary Clinton would have been elected, Barack Obama would be on the Supreme Court right now

3
CoherentLight 3 points ago +3 / -0

I think he's too lazy. He'd want a no-show role that lets him pop up now and then and say "you missed a bit" - like Kerry.

5
Ballind 5 points ago +5 / -0

What do you think rbg was doing in the year after her brain death?

5
BostonVoter 5 points ago +5 / -0

This cunt looks like actor Jon Lovitz 🤣🤣

5
alucard13mmfmj 5 points ago +5 / -0

Public opinion... most of human history, it was popular opinion to not have women vote or own property. It was public opinion that slavery was cool. It was public opinion that trannies were sick.

But leftiest always attack the past.

5
Aoikaze2000 5 points ago +5 / -0

Time to impeach Kagan.

5
TacoBot 5 points ago +5 / -0

Liberals: OMG....the Supreme Court is following the Constitution....ILLEGITIMATE!!!!!!! RRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4
Elencher 4 points ago +4 / -0

Okay works for me.

Public opinion is that killing babies is not okay. The only people exited about child sacrifice are stacked on top of each other in lefty hellholes.

4
JolietJake 4 points ago +5 / -1

The entire SCOTUS is a cucked shit show.

4
charlesthehammer 4 points ago +4 / -0

Not qualified to pet sit

4
CMDRConanAAnderson 4 points ago +4 / -0

Law does not give a fuck about public opinion, it was implicitly designed to ignore public opinion by being secluded as a separate branch from Congress and the Executive so that they could be. Congress on the other hand is exactly that.

4
YOLOSwag_McFartnut 4 points ago +4 / -0

SCOTUS doesn't exist to affirm public opinion. FFS.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
DJTLandSlide2020 3 points ago +3 / -0

Uncle Alan needs to check her privilege.

3
Light_HIV_Effect 3 points ago +3 / -0

Disgusting person

3
RussianBot6969 3 points ago +3 / -0

FYI, Kagan is the only associate justice in history who didn't serve on the bench before ascending to SCOTUS.

This is objectively false.

3
whatafiasco 3 points ago +3 / -0

Oh, you mean like Brown vs Board of Education? You racist bitch.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/347/483.html

3
Beat_to_Quarters 3 points ago +3 / -0

The Supreme Court of Public Opinion. That's what Democrats want and this is who they want to expand the courts with.

3
silentmajority2020 3 points ago +3 / -0

Fuck that dude

3
SteersBeersandQueers 3 points ago +3 / -0

That's a man baby

3
AllTheWayTrump 3 points ago +3 / -0

Dieversity hire.

3
IncredibleMrE1 3 points ago +3 / -0

The Solicitor General's job is to defend the federal government from the people, in SCOTUS. Kagan has never quit that job.

3
Mamapedia 3 points ago +3 / -0

Quintessential Diversity Hire

3
Trythisagain 3 points ago +3 / -0

If I guided my life with the “opinion” from others, I would have been dead a long time ago!

2
Apersonofinterest 2 points ago +2 / -0

Between Kagan, Epstein Island Roberts, La Raza and Jumanji Jackson, they’ve corrupted half the SCOTUS.

2
__I_dindu__nufin_ 2 points ago +2 / -0

What religion is she?

Oh...

Both her parents were the children of Russian Jewish immigrants.[9] Kagan has two brothers, Marc and Irving.[10]

Kagan and her family lived in a third-floor apartment at West End Avenue and 75th Street,[11] and attended Lincoln Square Synagogue.[12] She was independent and strong-willed in her youth and, according to a former law partner of her father's, clashed with her Orthodox rabbi, Shlomo Riskin, over aspects of her bat mitzvah.[11] "

2
FireannDireach 2 points ago +2 / -0

Public opinion defining law is democracy - and is why we're not a democracy, but a Federal Republic. The Founders chose that intentionally - Kagen, not surprisingly, is ignorant to the intent of the Founders, the very important document that they wrote, and her literal job defending and defining law based on that document.

If this is what Kagen thinks, then she is unfit for holding her office.

2
MeMargie 2 points ago +2 / -0

Appointed by a non natural born, all action by Hussein should be null and void.

2
basshead 2 points ago +2 / -0

Women in law/politics: not even once

2
Revenant0101 2 points ago +2 / -0

Christ, what a horrifyingly stupid thing for a SCOTUS Justice to utter.

2
TheMAGAlorian787 2 points ago +2 / -0

Who’s the SCOTUS leaker?

2
minotaurbeach 2 points ago +2 / -0

He is not even qualified?

2
Pickled 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's a MAN baby! Yeah

2
CoherentLight 2 points ago +2 / -0

Diversity goblin

2
KrellKrypto 2 points ago +2 / -0

did they find out who leaked yet?

i think the court should be shutdown until that at a min happens.

how can they work with a rat in the system

2
BasedofAce 2 points ago +2 / -0

She's also the only anthropomorphic potato to serve on the SCOTUS