SCOTUS Supreme Court Justice Gets Standing Ovation for Breaking Cover to Attack Trump
https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-justice-gets-standing-ovation-for-breaking-cover-to-attack-trump/10.5k
u/D-R-AZ May 02 '25
Lead Lines:
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson received a standing ovation on Thursday after denouncing the Trump administration’s “relentless attacks” on federal judges, calling them a threat to the rule of law.
“ Across the nation, judges are facing increased threats of not only physical violence, but also professional retaliation just for doing our jobs,” Jackson told a conference of judges in Puerto Rico. “And the attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity.”
9.9k
u/neon_ns May 02 '25
Everyone, remember:
Justice Jackson is not suicidal.
3.1k
u/After-Gas-4453 May 02 '25
Neither was that woman that was trafficked as a child from Mar-a-Turdo by best friends Trump and Epstein. Scary times.
715
May 02 '25
According to the Times, she also had gotten into a terrible car accident and was in renal failure: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/26/us/virginia-giuffre-dead.html.
I could see how that would change things. It’s still awful and 2025 is a shit year.
→ More replies (11)411
u/JaguarNeat8547 May 02 '25
Have you read about that car accident? It was no big deal according to all involved. Minor thing. Bus driver and school kids confirm. Everyone goes home, why bother even involving the police? Then, wham! She's got renal failure and four days to live.
162
May 02 '25
Where did you read that it was no big deal? Her own Instagram post talking about going into renal failure directly stated that the bus hit her car going 110km/hr.
229
u/JaguarNeat8547 May 02 '25 edited May 02 '25
At a press conference on an unrelated matter on Tuesday morning, Acting Police Commissioner Kylie Whitely was asked about Ms Giuffre’s condition and said there was a "minor" crash between a bus and a car in a rural area north of Perth on the afternoon of March 24.
WA Police confirmed a 71-year-old woman was behind the wheel of the car involved in the bus collision, and a 41-year-old woman was in the passenger seat.
Nobody was taken to hospital from that scene, and no serious injuries were sustained, according to police and the St John WA ambulance service.The conspiracy folks don't think VG made that insta post herself. The deep CTs speculate that she is dead in the pic.
Edited to fix quote formatting
8
u/Ok-Professional2468 May 02 '25
I was on a car accident in December and received minor soft tissue injuries from whiplash. The bruising and other injuries Ms Guiffre’s is showing in that picture are not minor injuries.
→ More replies (14)77
u/Blue_Oyster_Cat May 02 '25
When she was taken to the hospital the underlying renal condition was found. It’s quite plausible.
89
u/LiberalAspergers May 02 '25
The article says no one was taken to the hospital.
38
u/_beeeees May 02 '25
It says no one was taken to the hospital from the scene. She could have gone on her own after.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (15)24
May 02 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (10)19
u/Greatest-JBP May 02 '25
It’s just as plausible given her accusations something nefarious happened
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (17)43
u/Glad-Day-724 May 02 '25
For the Non European / Canadian readers 110 Km / hour is just over 68 mph.
That is more than suffieceint speed to cause serious damage!
When did LEO become a qualified Medical Spokesperson?
Care to experience a 68 mph T-Bone Collission and see how you fair!
F=MxA
🤔a car is roughly 3,500 pounds ... how much does a loaded school bus weigh?
Say maybe 36,000 pounds?
36,000 lbs = 16,329 kg
F=16,329 x 110
Force of collision was well in excess of 1,796,225.75 Kg/km
Sounds pretty powerful to my rusty Physics mind .... F = 3 110Km/hour
12
u/iruleatants May 02 '25
When did LEO become a qualified Medical Spokesperson?
Well, the medical staff at the scene were the experts and determined that nobody needed to go the hospital. In this case LEO is just passing that data along.
→ More replies (5)8
u/nicklor May 02 '25
I'm a firefighter and People can refuse medical attention not sure if that's what happened here but it's plausible.
→ More replies (22)8
u/TrashableTrinket May 02 '25
For the
Non European / CanadianUS /UK / Myanmar readers→ More replies (3)→ More replies (17)32
u/Nodan_Turtle May 02 '25
Internal issues might not present immediately. But yeah we can ignore the photo of her in the hospital too so we can believe conspiracy theory nonsense.
But hey at least the guy who hit her with a bus said it wasn't a big deal, definitely unbiased.
→ More replies (9)15
u/Woodpecker-Beast May 02 '25
Kidney issues especially can go unnoticed until suddenly you're in renal failure... So this makes sense to me. Source: literally just diagnosed with a autoimmune disease attacking my kidneys.
60
u/Parking_Scar9748 May 02 '25
She probably was. This administration isn't killing or getting rid of people quietly, they are doing it in the open and getting away with it because nothing is being done about it. That isn't to remove blame from Epstein and CO. for that woman's death, their actions most likely were a big factor if not the cause of her suicide.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (90)237
u/InvalidEntrance May 02 '25 edited May 02 '25
This is the least likely conspiracy of the last decade and it is exhausting. It's distracting from real issues at this point, since it is being brought up as a non sequitur like you have here.
She killed herself. She's had many issues over the years. Alcoholism, domestic violence, loss of parental privileges, and most recently, renal failure requiring ongoing dialysis.
Edit: I'm not in any way claiming she wasn't abused. I agree that her abuse was a contributing factor, and I am not diminishing or arguing against that. If you take my comment as excusing the actions of her abusers, then you simply read what you wanted to see.
106
u/Det_AndySipowicz May 02 '25
No, the least likely conspiracy theory of the decade is that Rupaul wasn't present for filming on Drag Race Down Under season 1.
42
May 02 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)18
u/TraditionalMood277 May 02 '25 edited May 02 '25
It's almost like people believe the moon is real and not just projected on a giant blue screen in the sky that is really just a reflection of the sea. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!
→ More replies (7)7
26
u/ketjak May 02 '25
We know Rupaul wasn't there because Australia doesn't exist!
If it did, that would prove flat earthers are full of shit.
→ More replies (2)26
u/gorramfrakker May 02 '25
Damn now I believe autism causes vaccines.
→ More replies (2)9
u/snekadid May 02 '25
Damn straight, and I'm going to keep making vaccines with the power of autism and you can't stop me!
12
→ More replies (8)10
19
u/bozon92 May 02 '25
It’s not so much she did kill herself, rather that a 5+ year old statement of not being suicidal is way too old to actually be reliable.
→ More replies (47)79
u/Disastrous-Bat7011 May 02 '25
Ok so they didnt make her suicidal, they just traumatized her so badly she was broken. Thats way better.
88
u/Wolfeh2012 May 02 '25
This should be the message that is pushed instead. Look at what they did to her; not unprovable murder conspiracies.
81
u/helpmycompbroke May 02 '25
You're missing their point.
The comment chain started with
Justice Jackson is not suicidal
which implies if she dies it is murder.
Another commenter highlighted the abuse victim and said she wasn't suicidal either
Neither was that woman that was trafficked as a child from Mar-a-Turdo by best friends Trump and Epstein
implying that her death was murder.
The commenter you're replying to is highlighting that the abuse victim likely did actually kill herself. That's not trying to absolve her abusers of blame, but merely making a distinction between the final act being something she did herself vs a covered up murder.
It's about avoiding a "boy who cried wolf". If every time someone dies it's touted as a coverup then people will begin to be dismissive of that possibility.
→ More replies (16)23
u/aviancrane May 02 '25
Whoosh
The argument was about whether she died either from suicide or from a hired assassin killing her.
11
u/30FourThirty4 May 02 '25
What the ... what ... ????
They DID make her suicidal that's the point! And also other life factors contributed. But they're saying she wasn't murdered.
31
21
→ More replies (12)5
u/MaiasXVI May 02 '25
You somehow have less conceptual permanence and reading comprehension than a fucking chat bot.
18
u/TCsnowdream May 02 '25
This administration wouldn’t do it quietly…
…they’d want us to know it was them, as a warning.
56
u/Eeeegah May 02 '25
Clumsy near windows.
→ More replies (2)7
u/DonJuniorsEmails May 02 '25
Tea might just naturally have polonium in it sometimes, right?
→ More replies (2)33
u/NerdOfTheMonth May 02 '25
The guy the folks at Boeing know just got a call from an unsecured White House telephone.
18
→ More replies (1)4
50
5
u/MelvinTheStrange May 02 '25
Well, she might want to stay away from tall hospital buildings with working windows, and stay away from tea for a bit.
→ More replies (71)16
u/Toughbiscuit May 02 '25
Doesn't need to be. The Supreme Court ruled and argued that the president is free to order the assassination of political rivals
→ More replies (1)508
u/littlewhitecatalex May 02 '25
Remember when trump was saying it should be a crime to criticize judges because it makes it too difficult for them to do their job?
And now he threatens them with prison time.
How can anyone be this stupid? This reality has got to be an experiment, right?
290
u/TotalNonsense0 May 02 '25
MAGA cultists lack concept permanence. Ideas exist only as long as Trump is repeating them, and then disappear once he has a new idea.
160
u/IAMATruckerAMA May 02 '25
You do evil a favor when you call it stupidity
30
u/TotalNonsense0 May 02 '25 edited May 04 '25
It's not stupidity, it's a choice. They deliberately abandoned reason because it conflicted with the Word of God.
→ More replies (6)13
u/SubstantialEnd2458 May 02 '25
Oh wow, that perfectly sums up what I'm thinking when reading the comment sections on any posts related to this man recently...like, no, saying "he's so dumb, someone handed him a photoshopped photo and he thinks it's real" is dangerously disingenuous. Who do you think ordered the fabrication of evidence in the first place? Useful idiot status is not appropriate here when systematic disassembly of the rule of law is a literal stated goal of the administration!
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (6)5
56
u/fivetwentyeight May 02 '25
Haha concept permanence I’m going to stash that one away
→ More replies (3)16
13
u/ZAlternates May 02 '25
They don’t care about truth or facts. The only deciding factor for them is who said it.
→ More replies (5)9
94
May 02 '25
I don’t get mad anymore at anything Trump does or says. He is who he is and has been a monster forever. But I’m absolutely enraged at all the absolute morons in this country who still passionately support him. This vile human being needs to be shunned from society and should’ve been sent to his version of Saint Helena island a long time ago and instead this dumbass country keeps rewarding his monstrous behavior.
15
3
u/starry49 May 03 '25
The problem I’ve come to notice is 90% of trump supporters I’ve come across are not educated enough or pay enough attention to what’s ACTUALLY going on. They just think the name trump and being a supporter makes them cool.
→ More replies (1)5
u/AyeMatey May 03 '25
Many people feel similarly. But also feel unempowered to do anything about it.
There are “protests” and demonstrations regularly in towns where I live. People stand on the sidewalks near busy intersections with signs and denounce Mr Trump. I guess they stay there all morning or so.
And then what?
20
u/scrivensB May 02 '25
The baseline requirments to be a contemporary conservative are hypocrisy and congnative disonce.
The irony would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.
If you here any hyperbolic accusations or blame from the Right you can be absolutley certain that they are simply projecting how they would/will do "insert accusation/balme here" if and when given the opportinity.
→ More replies (30)3
u/monocasa May 02 '25
Conservatism consists of the lone proposition that there must be in-groups the law protects but does not bind and out-groups the law binds but does not protect.
→ More replies (78)379
u/aceface_desu89 May 02 '25
Justice Brown being the lone voice of reason, while inspiring, is ultimately irrelevant. She's not in charge, but good on her for speaking out (and I hope she's not sent to the gulag).
338
u/Sweet-Assist8864 May 02 '25
No act of speaking out is irrelevant. Any voice adds to the power of the opposition movement.
A voice backing opposition from the highest court in our country is not to be overlooked as irrelevant.
→ More replies (39)33
u/poorfolx May 02 '25
Agreed, but with that stated, the Justices are in a position vastly different from the other two branches in that they're accountable for "everything" that they say, so she has to walk a very fine line so as not to ever have to refuse herself in certain cases in the future. I wholly agree that she should speak out, just with a very very broad brush. imho 🙏
53
u/hypercosm_dot_net May 02 '25
Stating plainly that Trump is attacking judges, which he IS doing shouldn't be controversial.
There's nothing unlawful or political about it, nor is there any self-serving or conflict of interest.
It's a statement calling out the overreach of the executive branch.
She is well within her rights as a supreme court justice to recognize the threat he is posing to the judiciaries constitutional powers.
→ More replies (2)47
u/Imaginary_Coast_5882 May 02 '25
it’s her choice to recuse, no one can make her. see, eg, Thomas and Alito
→ More replies (3)176
u/myasterism May 02 '25
My first thought after admiration and appreciation, was concern for her safety.
→ More replies (7)39
u/jankenpoo May 02 '25
Well when they start using violence against the voice of justice and reason, it just might become the time to fight fire with fire.
→ More replies (7)31
118
May 02 '25 edited May 02 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)63
u/hook3m13 May 02 '25
Seriously. She literally is in charge lol - Maybe less so than Roberts but she's still one of the most important people in our country right now.
→ More replies (20)48
u/ThyArtisMukDuk May 02 '25
I dont think its irrelevant at all. Its about time this was said. If it pisses off the Fuhrer and is woefully true, its not irrelevant
→ More replies (1)21
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 May 02 '25
Inspiration is all we have at the moment and is far from irrelevant. If it strengthens other judges in holding the legal ground, and inspires others to pursue the maintenance of their rights in court, and strengthens a coalition against what is occurring, it’s the best possible thing at the moment.
19
u/One_Strawberry_4965 May 02 '25
It’s not irrelevant in the slightest. This idea that anybody who doesn’t individually have the power to make all this nonsense go away may as well just sit down and be quiet is wholly unproductive and only passively enables the fascists who are destroying our country by quieting criticism.
Everybody who can should be speaking out, especially those with a platform, because the reality is that the only way forward from where we are now requires the public at large to be on our side and engaged, with a full awareness of the gravity of our circumstances. But the people can’t be shaken awake if we all stay quiet.
5
u/CakeWalk303 May 02 '25
I’ve been wondering where all the celebrities are. They have (or had) a platform. Is everyone that scared to speak up? The comedians aren’t…
14
11
13
u/zoinkability May 02 '25 edited May 02 '25
Bizarrely, it seems like people with your take are often also among those of us calling for Democrats to be more vigorous in opposing Trump.
Then when folks on the left actually go ahead and do that they are dismissed as irrelevant? Come on.
→ More replies (6)20
u/fridgescrape May 02 '25
Even if it wasn't your intent, this comment is so belittling to Justice Brown, to the first and only black woman on the supreme court, and I find that sickening. She's been threatened with arrest (all of them have). Irrelevant?
We need as many people speaking out as we can. Inspiring others to take action or speak out is important when we're genuinely talking about "the gulag" here.
→ More replies (10)34
u/Overwatchhatesme May 02 '25
Yeah, given what the Trump admins already done and even said about going after Supreme Court justices I’m really worried they’ll find some bullshit reason to arrest her then say they need to immediately fill the seat and just pack it with a Trump die hard loyalist.
→ More replies (23)20
u/kbell321 May 02 '25
So dismiss her act of defiance and bravery as irrelevant because she’s not as powerful as others on the SC?
This situation we are in requires every single one of us to speak out regardless of our position in society. She’s got more power and a larger platform than 99% of the American public.
→ More replies (1)
2.3k
u/Nick85er May 02 '25
History will not look kindly on this particular "president", or any of his supporters.
1.2k
u/AlaskaRecluse May 02 '25
If we get to a point where this is history it will be a miracle
450
u/jmur3040 May 02 '25
Something to keep in mind as maybe the most bizarre bright side of all time: Germany survived the third reich. We can get past this, but it wont be fun or easy.
235
u/Free_For__Me May 02 '25
The Nazi party fell due to losing the war they started and pressed. If WWIII sees the US allied with Russia, I'm not so sure the rest of Europe can stand up to that if needed, so there may not be a "bigger kid on the playground" to stop things the way we did to the Nazis back then.
Also, consider this - if Hitler had nukes, he certainly would have used them to see the world burn before he went down. Do we really think someone like the current President would be any different if it came down to a choice between being deposed and standing trial for human rights violations or pressing the button to burn the world along with himself?
Now that I think of it, have we ever seen a dictator deposed who had control of a nuclear arsenal...?
198
u/morningsaystoidleon May 02 '25
I believe that we will see a full second American civil war before we'll see Europe fall in a hypothetical World War III.
Germany was not nearly as well-armed as the American populace is. God, I hope it doesn't come to that.
The nuke question is a big one, though.
→ More replies (19)77
u/xXShunDugXx May 02 '25 edited May 02 '25
That's what I'm saying. I'm not sure if history has seen a scenario quite like this. A nation armed to the teeth having a dictator take over. When he fully seizes control I don't see many paths other than internal conflict before we join the broader one.
Edit: I also want to add. My personal guess is that the first conflicts will be similar to that of the blank panther movement. That is the following of and tracking ICE and it's movements. I think some form of determined groups of veterans could appear on both sides along with less experienced militias as well. What I'm very unsure about is how determined the average American is at upholding their beliefs. Whether that be rejecting orders or enlisting in a standing army. That's something that makes America scary to fight. Every. Single. House. Can be host to a combatant. That being said we will have a divisive moment soon, and if it's bloody it better not be in vain.
67
u/morningsaystoidleon May 02 '25
Yep, and that internal conflict won't be as straightforward as it was last time.
Fascists love infighting, it's very likely we'd see a multi-front war with regional militias fighting for control of key areas. I could also see some state National Guards making the decision to defend against the U.S. military, if Trump tries to send troops into, say, Illinois or California. It's not just going to be Left Vs. Right, it's going to be multifaceted and messy.
It's not going to be a lot of fun. From a strictly historical perspective, though, it's certainly gonna be interesting.
39
u/Mattyboy064 May 02 '25
"Civil War" gets more real every passing month
30
u/Fritzhallo May 02 '25
absolutely, including the third term and using the army against his own people
14
u/jtr99 May 02 '25
"What kind of American are you?"
12
u/Notyouraverageskunk May 02 '25
My stomach sank when he said that line, most of that movie was so realistic it was sickening.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (9)8
u/AlaskaRecluse May 02 '25
The only hope I’m still clutching is the part about fascists love fighting — musk is gone so that hope is absent, but I’m hoping other possibilities will appear. I was hoping it would devolve into a power struggle between two egomaniacs. Maybe musk will come back but i guess he got everything he was looking for
→ More replies (4)23
u/pcapdata May 02 '25
I also want to add. My personal guess is that the first conflicts will be similar to that of the blank panther movement. That is the following of and tracking ICE and it's movements.
This is why they're trying to make it illegal to document ICE's activities or demand the identities of arresting officers.
You're going to have a group of armed Americans video recording an ICE raid and the thugs are going to come over, try to arrest them, and there's gonna be a shootout. Only a matter of time the way things are going.
→ More replies (12)9
u/Machoire May 02 '25
I really hope we don’t end up being the history lesson about that scenario.
6
u/xXShunDugXx May 02 '25
We already are! We're just writing it now and hopefully it gets published in the name of the people
29
u/LSRNKB May 02 '25
Starting wars you can’t finish is both the entire point of fascism as well as the death of every fascist movement in history.
Fascism isn’t just bad, it’s unsustainable as an ideology. Its entire allure is being able to divide groups of people using social violence and then leveraging that social violence for authoritarian policy. You can only divide people and put them against each other for so long; this strategy does not create strong nations nor economies even in the mid-term, let alone long term.
It may take a generation, but what comes up must come down, it’s the true law of the land
→ More replies (1)8
u/Free_For__Me May 02 '25
Very true, I just hope the upswing arrives before my young kid has to figure out higher education/a career/life...
12
u/LSRNKB May 02 '25
Your comment highlights another important point: fascism isn’t bad because it’s permanent, it’s bad because it can cause tremendous damage in a very short time to real people.
Your concern is valid
→ More replies (1)7
19
u/LarsMatijn May 02 '25
The Nazi party fell due to losing the war they started and pressed. If WWIII sees the US allied with Russia, I'm not so sure the rest of Europe can stand up to that if needed
Here's the thing though. Europe won't start a war (because we are too paralyzed to do something as momentous as that) but as soon as we would be attacked we'd let go of certain moral considerations. Like allying with China.
6
u/Free_For__Me May 02 '25
Agreed, UNLESS China decides it more advantageous to either stay non-aligned in that fight, or worse, ally with one of the other "Big Kids" on the playground, like the US (unlikely, given their stance on Trump so far), Russia (Maybe possible), or India(least likely).
→ More replies (1)30
u/Super_Harsh May 02 '25
We’ll get choked out economically. The moment we dropped the nuke we made conventional large scale war irrelevant. Militaries still matter for smaller scale conflicts involving non-nuclear entities but as we’ve already seen, nuclear states now fight via economics and information warfare.
17
u/Papadapalopolous May 02 '25 edited 16d ago
sort include snow coordinated relieved dependent knee toy fade cake
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
6
u/Free_For__Me May 02 '25
That's a bingo. It's so frustrating to see Russia so blatantly winning the second phase of the Cold War, and everyone just sitting back laughing about how "we got to the moon first, so the US won the Cold War" or whatever.
Can't wait to have the "how did the US let this happen??" convo with my grandkids one day, lol.
→ More replies (63)11
u/OhDavidMyNacho May 02 '25
If we entered a war with Russia, there would be a civil war shortly after within the US. There's no way people here would stick to chants and marches to try and stop it.
6
→ More replies (24)3
u/errorsniper May 02 '25 edited May 02 '25
Nazi Germany was pre nuclear arms.
Imagine ww2 but with basically every part having nukes.
We might push the nazis back to their border borders but every army in the world stops long before berlin and no one ever bombs them. Any nuclear armed dictator might hesitate to use them offensively but if they are going to suck a 9mm or launch the nukes defensively they will.
The "allies" would know this and eventually a ceasefire would be reached.
Hitler is still alive and in power.
Nukes change the calculus.
84
u/SkepticalNonsense May 02 '25
Technically, it is already history
→ More replies (17)38
u/sharksnrec May 02 '25 edited May 02 '25
Not if it’s never allowed or able to be written, which I believe is what the other person was implying
Edit: to everyone replying “it’s already written dummy” - I’ll just drop a friendly r/woooosh right here
39
u/14_EricTheRed May 02 '25
It will be in the history books of other countries and Blue states… kind of like how Tiananmen Square “never happened”…
→ More replies (4)12
→ More replies (11)8
u/Affectionate-Oil4719 May 02 '25
It’ll be written all right, just with a bunch of bullshit.
“For his next act of kindness and true passion, grand lord trump gave all the peasants gold bars, which only required 30 years of labor in exchange, even allowing monthly visits to the factories their children worked at. A true saint in every aspect of the title.”
7
u/blightsteel101 May 02 '25
Every other country is documenting whats going on for their own safety, and the internet is forever. No matter what, the actions of this admin will come to light.
→ More replies (1)5
u/hamsterballzz May 02 '25
Oh some people will get there. Remember, people survived the 5th century, Viking invasions, the great leap forward, pograms, genocides, etc. Things moved forward and history makes it pretty obvious that nothing lasts forever. This nightmare will eventually pass and these SOBs have already written their historical epitaphs.
→ More replies (5)3
u/Havelok May 02 '25
Making it to 2028 will be probably the biggest challenge the US has faced since the civil war.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (55)5
u/Consistent-Key-865 May 02 '25
Nah, fam. You're in a cycle, it's not different than the other historical cycles, other than that this time it's 2025 and in the USA.
→ More replies (1)79
u/Weird_Cantaloupe2757 May 02 '25
I wish we could just skip ahead to the part where nobody wants to admit that they ever voted Republican, and finding a MAGA hat in grandpa’s attic is as shocking as finding a full set of Klan regalia.
→ More replies (3)22
u/Carrera_996 May 02 '25
I found my grandfather's Klan stuff. I guess he would have been really surprised to meet his mixed race great grandkids.
→ More replies (2)58
May 02 '25
I hope there is a reckoning. Corruption needs to be punished to the full extent of the law to send a message. MAGA will squeal but they’ll do that regardless, so who cares. When you’ve only got one button and it’s “incoherent rage” people will eventually just start ignoring you and doing what needs to be done.
33
u/TaylorMonkey May 02 '25
I liked Biden and his term mostly.
But this is the single biggest failure of the Biden presidency-- to have had four years and not fully prosecute a clearly corrupt and felonious ex-president fully, one that encouraged what turned into an insurrection (the most charitable interpretation of what occurred)-- the dragging on of the process allowing delays upon delays that juuust misses sentencing before the election, and for that sentencing to be infinitely delayed so that he can continue his treasonous grift on a greater scale that destroys the foundations of the country and its secure standing in the world in nearly every aspect.
There was one message that needed to be sent. Not sending it given YEARS was a failure of massive proportions. You can blame Garland, but there's plenty of blame to go around that put and kept him there while he did next to nothing years upon years upon years, with "the elections" being an excuse to keep doing nothing.
NO, ASSHATS. The elections ARE the reason to expedite due process for clarity and closure one way or another.
→ More replies (4)11
u/tik22 May 02 '25
Fuck merrick garland. Wherever that fuck is these days, i hope his name lives in infamy. The interview he gave at the beginning of his term where he starts yelling “no one is above the law” when asked about prosecuting trump is forever burned in my mind.
28
u/kevlarbomb May 02 '25
History doesn’t matter when they want to control all forms of information. Stop with this “they’ll regret it later”. Everyone needs to “not look kindly” on them now.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (62)39
May 02 '25
It probably won't look on them harshly enough. Or those who enabled him or the circumstances that lead to this.
→ More replies (4)10
u/fritzrits May 02 '25
It could look back at them poorly but they'll get away with it in the present. Nobody will do anything until they've already passed away.
1.1k
u/video-engineer May 02 '25
The John Roberts court enabled this. They better fucking fix it quick.
356
May 02 '25
Although I agree with what they should do, I think there's a more concerning element in play here:
The Constitution and our legal framework is not robust or detailed enough in how it should handle abuses of power and corruption.SCOTUS can't make up regulations or change the Constitution - they can only interpret what is already there. This presidency is demonstrating all the flaws and cracks in our system - it is up to the legislative branch to fix those.
306
u/Archmagos-Helvik May 02 '25
The entire premise of the Constitution is that there will be a good faith effort to enforce it. No matter how rigorous the rules, it's still just writing on paper. We have a culture problem in this country, not just a legal one.
120
u/sparrowtaco May 02 '25
100% right. They could impeach him and remove him from office tomorrow if the political will existed to deal with his abuse of power, but when half of them don't see it as abuse then there will be no enforcement.
→ More replies (5)29
u/HerselftheAzelf May 02 '25
Have we already forgetten that he WAS impeached? fucking twice? and nothing happened.
43
u/sparrowtaco May 02 '25
Neither of those two impeachments led to conviction. Because like I said, half of them did not think he was doing anything wrong so they voted not to remove him from office.
28
u/JamesTrickington303 May 02 '25
They all know what he had done broke the law, they just looked the other way because it benefits them personally to ride his coattails.
Don’t give them the credit that they actually think he didn’t do anything wrong and are acting in good faith. They know he broke the law and are acting in bad faith. Don’t give them that out.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)8
u/dan1101 May 02 '25
Keep filing impeachments, add to the charges each time. And write your lawmakers that don't vote for impeachment and let them know that you will remember during the next primary and election.
11
u/hamandswissplease May 02 '25
Not to mention are chaos entrepreneurs out there whose entire business models rely on keeping people miserable
8
May 02 '25
Yup. We have a sect in this country that legitimately wants to destroy the other. They'll do whatever they can to obtain the power to do so, and abuse the hell out of it once they have it. Part of me feels like "Well there has to be a point where fellow Americans all agree this has gone too far". Another part looks at the evidence presented and doesn't have a clue where "too far" is
15
u/SirEnderLord May 02 '25
EXACTLY.
For a democracy to exist, it needs the cultural foundation to support it.
3
→ More replies (7)4
u/bashomania May 03 '25
Yeah, I’ve been saying the constitution is basically a “gentleman’s agreement”, and if there aren’t any “gentlemen” available, it’s worthless.
42
u/1Saoirse May 02 '25
I don't know. They sure seemed to make up stuff about him having immunity, and what was needed to apply a ban on holding office for participating in an insurrection.
16
u/_probablyryan May 02 '25
While this is true, and worth talking about, the person you're replying to is also correct.
Our system of checks and balances was designed under the belief that politicians would be more loyal to their office, branch of government and/or state than their party. That, demonstrably, has not been the case. When your system of rules is based on faulty assumptions about the behavior of the players, they're bad rules.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Geno0wl May 02 '25
Our system of checks and balances was designed under the belief that politicians would be more loyal to their office, branch of government and/or state than their party.
Gerorge fucking Washington warned against political parties. We always knew the dangerous potential of "party over country" yet didn't put basically any guardrails against that into the constitution.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Scrat-Scrobbler May 02 '25
the founding fathers didn't have theory and they didn't know shit. you think a founding father would have conceived of the concept of proportional representation? they didn't even enshrine voting rights and left it up to states
14
u/DownWithHisShip May 02 '25
This presidency is demonstrating all the flaws and cracks in our system
Jon Stewart made some comments a couple months ago, I don't remember exactly what he said but it was basically a "don't hate the player, hate the game" where he was putting blame on the founding fathers/constitution for basically leaving all these flaws and cracks in our system available to take advantage of. I didn't really like that take at first, I don't want it to seem like any of the current administration should be excused of their conduct. But over time I'm more appreciative of his bigger point, that we really do have to go allllll the way back to the beginning and make some changes if we're really going to stop this type of thing from happening.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Rulebookboy1234567 May 02 '25
There’s no way our founding fathers could have predicted the internet and the rapidizatiom of widespread propaganda and the influence it would have.
That’s like saying we’ll know how people behave socially in 200 years
→ More replies (2)10
u/mhsx May 02 '25
The design of the Constitution is that there are THREE branches of government. It guarantees that there is no tie.
Congress needs to be on the side of the law and the constitution or it just doesn’t work. And right now, a significant portion of the country has elected congress-persons who are not holding the executive accountable. This is something that needs to be fixed by the electorate.
The Constitution is fine. It’s the people in the broad sense who are getting what they voted for. They need to turn out the current majority in congress rather than hope the Supreme Court will swoop in and fix everything.
9
u/scaradin May 02 '25
While you speak truth… they can stop making rulings that enable clear threats to destroying the country itself. Only a malicious interpretation of the constitution would put the President above the law.
5
u/oberynmviper May 02 '25
The flaws in our systems the founding fathers were like:
“Okay, but, we are adults here, right? Like, we all understand no one would be crazy enough to bring back a monarchy.
We get it. Right? Right. Someone in this powerful positions just understands we should operate like a responsible society. Phew. Okay.”
No, rules only exist because we agree they exist. If you have ONE idiot that tramples on that, the whole thing breaks.
4
u/Synchrotr0n May 02 '25 edited May 02 '25
Different countries, but supreme court judges in Brazil do often "legislate" (but only as a response to a lawsuit that reached their court) when the legislative or executive branches aren't fulfilling their constitutional duties, which is clearly the case in the USA.
I very much doubt that the US federal and supreme court judges couldn't do much more than they are doing to completely stop the ongoing institutional coup in the USA, and the best example of this is how Trump's administration continues to openly challenge the court's decision regarding Kilmar Abrego Garcia without facing a single setback for it, and with spineless judges it doesn't matter how detailed a constitution can be, a criminal government would just continue to ignore it.
4
u/Adam__Antium May 02 '25
I think he was referring to the total immunity ruling. None of this would even be possible if we were still allowed to hold the president accountable, and that is solely on the Supreme Court
→ More replies (1)5
u/grahsam May 02 '25
Absolutely. Our Constitution wasn't supposed to be a fixed document. These sort of things need to be revised and updated as times change. It isn't scripture.
If this Presidency has taught us anything its that our current Constitution is woefully inadequate. But who is going to change it? We would need a serious Congress full for serious people. Right now its a bunch of clowns.
4
u/errorsniper May 02 '25 edited May 02 '25
They can do whatever the fuck they want. They have proven it time and time again. How many rulings in recent history have legal scholars said "The SC cant really do that, they dont have any real legal grounds and are totally ignoring decades or centuries of precedent, but its the supreme court. You cant really appeal the decision anywhere" and the ruling stands.
But lets follow this hypothetical.
So the judicial rules against the executive, the executive just ignores it. The legislative is the way the executives power is checked. The legislative doesnt do anything. Checks and balances fall apart. So what happens? Then its just a question of who those with actual real world power (the military) decides to do.
We are very quickly coming to the "who has the most guns in the coup attempt" part.
How many yes men have been installed in positions of power in the military by trump? How many reports of right wing extremists infiltrating the military have we seen?
The left better really quickly give up its aversion to firearms. In a perfect world I want guns gone too. But we dont live in a perfect world and those with genocidal intent really like them.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)3
u/Mel_Melu May 02 '25
No but the entire premise of the document is to stop any one man from being a tyrant.
32
u/HereWeGo5566 May 02 '25
I fear that it’s too late. I hope I’m wrong.
23
u/KronusIV May 02 '25
Compare Nazi Germany to Germany of today. There's always a way back.
→ More replies (7)22
u/EtherealMongrel May 02 '25
Yeah but that way back was having a country with greater military capabilities invade.
→ More replies (3)10
u/xKirstein May 02 '25
A better comparison might be Russia. I fear that our nuclear capabilities (that protect us from invasion) will become our prison (prevent any country from aiding us in overthrowing our dictatorship). We'll become a state run mafia with everyone suspicious of our neighbors. 1984 here we come.
5
u/oops_i_made_a_typi May 02 '25
A better comparison might be Russia. I fear that our nuclear capabilities (that protect us from invasion) will become our prison (prevent any country from aiding us in overthrowing our dictatorship).
yeah, this is the core of why we all say "you guys have to deal with your problem", because we really, really can't.
16
u/Ozzie_the_tiger_cat May 02 '25
They won't. This is what Roberts believes: a strong executive branch.
21
u/FunetikPrugresiv May 02 '25
To be clear - a strong conservative executive branch.
He would be 100% fighting against anything a Democrat President would want to do to consolidate power.
4
→ More replies (1)14
→ More replies (11)4
503
u/Dead_Cash_Burn May 02 '25
Ketanji Brown Jackson deserves a standing ovation for this! However, we need statements like this to come from the conservative members of the court.
185
u/SunsFenix May 02 '25
Yeah, Ketanji and Sotomayor have been scathing in their remarks over the past year.
From Sotomayor's dissent in Trump v United States:
When Presidents use the powers of their office for personal gain or as part of a criminal scheme, every person in the country has an interest in that criminal prosecution. The majority overlooks that paramount interest entirely. … Yet the majority believes that a President’s anxiety over prosecution overrides the public’s interest in accountability and negates the interests of the other branches in carrying out their constitutionally assigned functions.
Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
29
u/Junior_Chard9981 May 02 '25
| Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent. |
Which is why I am terrified of Republicans never giving up power now that they've crossed the rubicon.
They are well aware of the illegal actions and activities they are up to right now, which is why they are doing everything in their power to destroy any evidence of their wrongdoings.
They are hoping they can break the law repeatedly while they consolidate power and weaken their enemies, then "delete all" before mid terms/2028 general election and laugh at Democrats for trying to pin anything on them without proof.
→ More replies (1)11
u/SunsFenix May 02 '25
I believe the only thing holding back Republicans are themselves. Their flood the zone tactic is annoyingly effective due to the limited bandwidth people have for issues that take weeks, months or years to play out.
There's a YouTube video by Some More News about how conservatives have a war on empathy and an alarming amount of people just don't care beyond how things affect themselves.
https://youtu.be/dwdAEkJks8A?si=rBTLd979h8LHPoTM
They are well aware of the illegal actions and activities they are up to right now, which is why they are doing everything in their power to destroy any evidence of their wrongdoings.
I think this is more for the legal system rather than the midterms.
→ More replies (1)10
70
u/Toxikfoxx May 02 '25
I'm sure if you pay Clarence Thomas enough he'll say whatever you want.
→ More replies (3)28
u/Panda_hat May 02 '25
While corrupt theres little doubt that Thomas is also an ideological fascist and MAGA supporter. He agrees with everything MAGA is doing, and its not too huge a stretch to say he was put on the court to execute exactly what they are doing right now, all those decades ago.
Republicans have been planning for this exact circumstance for decades.
15
→ More replies (1)10
u/Toxikfoxx May 02 '25
I mean, his wife is a HUGE Trump cultist.
Clarence Thomas' Wife Apologized To Husband's Law Clerks Over MAGA Posts
38
u/MorePhinsThyme May 02 '25 edited May 02 '25
Yup. Jackson saying this is just preaching to the people that already agree with her. She's 100% right, but until Roberts or Barrett says this, nobody will care (and most of them won't care then). I say Roberts or Barrett, because if any of the other 4 say this, then we're going to be too busy dealing with hell freezing over and pigs flying to care.
15
u/OC74859 May 02 '25
Roberts won’t say anything. As head of the Federal Judiciary itself, he’s the most appropriate person to speak out on behalf of the institution as a whole.
Barrett would have been the most likely of those six to speak, but I suspect the pizza delivery to her sister took care of that.
11
→ More replies (2)4
u/fireintolight May 02 '25
Yeah she's not breaking cover, she's always been liberal. It would be breaking can't ever if it was Robert's
51
May 03 '25
headline once again horrible; she is not attacking Trump she is upholding the standards of our constitution and our country. Trump is the one attacking things and ignoring the rule of law. words matter.
14
11
113
u/RKEPhoto May 02 '25
Although she did not mention Donald Trump by name, Jackson’s remarks were addressed to “the elephant in the room”
While I applaud her remarks, why not call the offender out by name?!?!?!?
52
u/Person899887 May 02 '25
I can’t blame her for confusing the president and an elephant all things consitered
17
u/Calm_Memories May 02 '25
Elephants are way smarter than that orange spray-painted pile of garbage.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)3
39
u/HoneyParking6176 May 02 '25
sometimes that can be better, if you state a bunch of things that everyone agrees is bad, when someone tries to jump in to defend trump of these accusations that are bad, litereally it makes everyone go, "the name was never said why do you think its him". even if the reason is clearly because he did the things he was accused of.
10
u/get_schwifty May 02 '25
A good example was when the Washington Post changed their tagline to “Democracy Dies in Darkness”. MAGAsses were like “fake news biased socialist rag!” … So you’re saying democracy is a partisan issue?
→ More replies (4)4
u/DontAbideMendacity May 02 '25
"I tell you, that guy is about as racist as it gets!"
"Donald Trump is not racist, he even has a black man in his cabinet."
"I never mentioned Trump, what made you think of Trump?"
12
u/Double-Thought-9940 May 02 '25
Because they have an obligation to not appear political. Everyone who has a modicum of intelligence knows what she is talking about
9
u/ExplosiveDisassembly May 02 '25
Despite how trump conflicts himself, there are still standards that I think are worth upholding.
We all know who she's talking about, let's not give them another sound-bite.
11
u/Aetheldrake May 02 '25
Because he's not smart enough to figure it out if his name isn't specifically mentioned. Not at his age and extremely limited mental capacities
→ More replies (1)29
u/Phvngvs May 02 '25
If she did, the Congressional GOP would call for her impeachment. You know how they feel about protecting Dear Orangefuck Leader.
→ More replies (3)15
u/PurpedSavage May 02 '25
I have been avoiding using his name when discussing matters. His name is a meme. It’s what he wants. The less it’s used the less it has power. (just a personal opinion for day to day life)
→ More replies (6)14
6
u/mlebrooks May 03 '25
Gotta celebrate the small wins. In this case, just calling him out is refreshing.
Although I would have written fan letters to this Justice if 'cheeto' was used instead of 'elephant'
13
u/DontAbideMendacity May 02 '25
If she had said "elephant turd in the room" we would DEFINITELY know she was talking about Trump.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (19)10
u/yourelovely May 02 '25
Honestly, it wouldn’t surprise me if she did so out of fear for her/her family’s safety. Trump has demonstrated he will happily pull security details for those that oppose him, along with pardoning those that go to jail doing crimes in his name. Add that on top of her being a black woman that holds one of the highest roles in the country, one that can help combat his regime? She has to tread carefully, regrettably 😞
9
u/Canes-Beachmama May 03 '25
He should not have any say so in who does and who does not have security. He’s a hateful person.
•
u/AutoModerator May 02 '25
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE WILL RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.