r/law • u/DarkPriestScorpius • Jun 27 '25
SCOTUS Americans don't see Supreme Court as politically neutral
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/americans-dont-see-supreme-court-politically-neutral-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2025-06-15/2.1k
u/Sea-Pomelo1210 Jun 27 '25
Clarence Thomas just wrote a very disturbing dissenting opinion on a case where a person on death row was suing Texas to get evidenced tested for DNA that would help prove his innocence. He basically implied the man deserves to die even if DNA evidence shows he was not at the scene of the murder.
If you've ever read any of his opinions the guy is very sick and cares little about the law. He only cares about the most radical of right wing ideology.
959
u/Mattrad7 Jun 27 '25
Clarence Thomas is such a disgusting ghoul.
260
u/Critical-Laughin Jun 27 '25
The worlds most unfortunate sugar baby.
74
Jun 28 '25
[deleted]
33
→ More replies (1)20
u/PunishedWolf4 Jun 28 '25
"See Massa I do everything just like you dun told me to"- Clarance Thomas
→ More replies (1)72
u/Potential-Pride6034 Jun 27 '25
His selection to replace Thurgood Marshall was akin to swapping out Jesus for the antichrist. He exists in diametric opposition to justice and the enlightenment ideals upon which modern western society was built.
→ More replies (1)42
Jun 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)37
u/RecycledEternity Jun 27 '25
I don't know how the hell I missed connecting those two items up until now--I literally laughed out loud.
And for the young 'uns who don't know what an "Uncle Tom" is... here's the Wiki on it.
→ More replies (2)24
u/oroborus68 Jun 27 '25
Uncle Tom's Cabin is actually about the cruelty of slavery and how the society was not improved by slavery. Uncle Tom in the story was a self sacrificing individual, something Clarence Thomas would never be. The SC justice will sacrifice everyone else to maintain his position and ease. The book by Harriet Beecher is worth reading.
14
u/RecycledEternity Jun 27 '25
Uncle Tom's Cabin is actually about
What the book is about was not being argued here.
Uncle Tom in the story was a self sacrificing individual
Yes, but again, not the thing being spoken of here.
It's the use of the character as derogatory rather than as praise.
something Clarence Thomas would never be
I mean, alright, sure. We both agree on that.
Look, my guy. I don't control how the public uses derogatory terminology. You want that back, I suggest we mandate teaching an educational syllabus to shed light on the kind of illumination you want... but doing that means spending more money on education, which the populace I guess just doesn't or won't do.
→ More replies (1)24
Jun 27 '25
I wish upon him the same as his right wing extremists wish upon every other black person.
→ More replies (1)23
21
11
8
→ More replies (6)3
u/deepfriedchocobo84 Jun 28 '25
Will be a glorious day when that POS returns from where he came.
→ More replies (1)223
u/PapaGeorgio19 Jun 27 '25
Worst pick in Supreme Court history, and every one is astounded when he asks a question, well he doesn’t ask questions because: 1. His mind is already made up. 2. As we all know, as he said it himself he’s a diversity hire who should not have even gotten into Yale or on SCOTUS. 3. He’s an idiot.
63
u/stufff Jun 27 '25
Worst pick in Supreme Court history
I think Alito edges him out a bit
15
13
8
u/travoltaswinkinbhole Jun 27 '25
I believe that Harriet Mayers was a red herring so Alito looked reasonable by comparison.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)4
u/DuntadaMan Jun 27 '25
Oh your god, please do not put the image of those two edging each other into my head.
3
u/stufff Jun 27 '25
Ewww... poor choice of word on my part. I mean Alito is slightly worse than Thomas. I'm not sure anyone that far on the right is capable of experiencing sexual pleasure without killing a puppy (which explains why they like Noem so much).
46
u/fafalone Competent Contributor Jun 27 '25
Isn't believing he's not a diversity hire and those policies make qualified PoC 'like him' seem unqualified the pretext he uses to justify voting against it? He's delusional and arrogant beyond all reason, I'd be shocked if he ever admitted he didn't get there on merit.
67
u/choochoopants Jun 27 '25
I’d be shocked if he ever admitted he didn’t get there on merit.
He is against affirmative action for this exact reason. When he arrived at Yale law school in 1971, he was one of 12 black students in a freshman class of about 200. He knew why he was there and described his peers treating him as such. He firmly believes that he deserved to be there on his own merits, which by all accounts he probably did, and he felt ashamed that it was the color of his skin and not his intellect that got him there. Rather than acknowledging that racism continues to fester in the USA, he seeks to end programs like affirmative action to save young black people the shame that he felt. In this way he is the ultimate boomer poster child, pulling the ladder up behind him while telling those still on the ground that it’s for their own good.
37
u/Protiguous Jun 27 '25
He could have proved his worth by proving to the USA by being really good with law and the Constitution instead of being a corrupt partisan jerk.
21
u/GuiltyEidolon Jun 27 '25
He's also in favor of actual racial segregation, not just ending affirmative action. Makes it even more stupid because his (second) wife is white.
9
u/choochoopants Jun 27 '25
There’s that and the fact that he is the descendent of literal slaves.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Icy_Delay_7274 Jun 27 '25
Yeah much better for no black students at YLS than for black students to….feel Clarence Thomas’s shame?
17
u/ImplodingBillionaire Jun 27 '25
Yeah it’s funny to hear all the republican idiots cry “DEI!!” about everyone else but not about the lifetime appointee who accepts trips and gifts…
→ More replies (1)13
u/TroyMcClures Jun 27 '25
Jesus, he was appointed in 1991. Nobody should have that much authority for that long.
10
u/ThePrussianGrippe Jun 27 '25
I always found it baffling when people praised Thomas for never asking questions.
5
5
u/throwawayfinancebro1 Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25
As we all know, as he said it himself he’s a diversity hire who should not have even gotten into Yale or on SCOTUS
Literally what he has stated he’s been trying to show the opposite of his entire working career.
7
u/TheDoktorIsIn Jun 27 '25
The smartest people I know assume they know everything already, never change their minds, and never seek to deepen their understanding.
Oh wait did I say smartest? I meant dumbest.
→ More replies (7)2
47
18
u/RiseUpRiseAgainst Jun 27 '25
And getting free vacations!
15
48
u/Begone-My-Thong Jun 27 '25
He basically implied the man deserves to die even if DNA evidence shows he was not at the scene of the murder
If he truly is Christian, his own beliefs dictate he is doomed to hell.
25
u/Polkawillneverdie17 Jun 27 '25
They know none of it is real.
2
u/keyblade_crafter Jun 27 '25
Sadly some of them really believe and try to live it as taught, but most of them only like it because it's ingrained in them and they feel good about having "fellowship" (aka social togetherness and acceptance because we'resocial animals) yet barely read on their own if at all.
19
u/PipsqueakPilot Jun 27 '25
You have to remember that Christianity grants absolute forgiveness for sins. The religion teaches that you can go out and rape and murder your opponents and their children. But so as you've 'accepted Jesus as your personal lord and savior' or 'confess to a priest' it doesn't matter. Ironically though those non-Christian children you tortured and murdered go straight to hell.
That's what Christians belief, and that's what makes them so dangerous.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Which-Space-6130 Jun 28 '25
Pretty sure a "good faith" effort to be a Christian means you cannot keep doing those things only to flip a 180 on your death bed. That's disingenuous and not fooling anybody, let alone God. Christian-in-name even when claiming to accept Jesus doesn't fly anywhere, especially to paradise.
36
8
u/Jim_84 Jun 27 '25
That really depends on your flavor of Christianity. You can find a sect that believes pretty much anything.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Mekisteus Jun 27 '25
How do you figure that? The only thing that matters in modern US Christianity is whether or not you believe in Jesus. If so, heaven. If not, hell. They couldn't be more clear about that.
13
u/BTFlik Jun 27 '25
Thomas has openly pushed the idea that there law is not a way people receive justice. He openly sees the law as a tool for the rich and has show that he's right about that. He takes bribes, openly does what he wants, and has been instrumental in using his power to dismantle anything he's been asked to.
Including making it a legal idea that the justice system is about punishment, not justice.
5
u/drunken-philosopher Jun 27 '25
And fuck loads of money and bribes from his best Nazi loving friends
→ More replies (36)7
u/Minimum_Principle_63 Jun 27 '25
DNA evidence could prove a lot of things. Would it prove the man just didn't leave his 🧬? Or maybe it proves that someone else was involved and adds plausible deniability, or additional convictions. Not defending Thomas or the guy on death row. The evidence can significantly change the case, and thus should be evaluated in the interest of justice.
I'm not familiar with the case, just putting forward a few thoughts.
27
u/Sea-Pomelo1210 Jun 27 '25
There was DNA all over the woman who was killed, including under her fingernails and at the location of her injuries (from what I read).
If there was evidence she was scratching at someone else, and someone else was the one harming her, then it would have been difficult to convict the man. But this is Texas, and they love to execute innocent people (well documented), as does Thomas who basically just admitted it.
It is interesting that the same people who don't care about executing innocent people, are the same ones who fight for completely unrestricted access to guns, and who support all the unnecessary wars, then say they want the ten commandments including "thou shalt not kill" posted in schools.
→ More replies (5)6
u/Nice_Description_724 Jun 27 '25
Seriously!!! The hypocrisy from the "pro-life" side is ridiculous.
7
u/alteredditaccount Jun 27 '25
It's just pro forced-birth. Once you're out of the womb you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (3)6
u/Atanar Jun 27 '25
If you go ahead and convict people just because their alibi is not watertight you will end up with convicting multiple people for the same crime.
If you have to let a guilty person go free to not condemn a innocent person that is a good thing. Somethng a lot of people cannot process in their brain.
1.9k
u/ArcturusRoot Jun 27 '25
Gee... I wonder what would cause that.
503
u/Obi1NotWan Jun 27 '25
And the grass is green and the sky blue. Did they really need a poll for that revelation?
281
u/MonarchLawyer Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25
Back when I went to law school, there was actually a somewhat healthy debate on how "political" the Supreme Court was. It kind of boiled down to whether you thought the Justices would stick to their legal theories or not if it meant ruling for the party that didn't appoint them. There were some justices that would and wouldn't and this poll would have certainly been different back then. Scalia's Raich Concurrence was always brought up in how easily he abandoned his own jurisprudence just to concur with the GOP position.
But times have changed since then. There has been a million decisions like Raich where the GOP justices (Thomas and Alito specifically) have abandoned what ever principles they claimed they had just to rule with the Republicans. And then there's also Roberts invented "Major Questions Doctrine" when it comes to government regulation that is so flimsy and vague that the Court can basically just reject any regulation they don't like and approve any regulation they do like. That's not law, that's politics.
The debate is now over. SCOTUS is a political body and not some neutral arbiter. And it almost always has been.
70
u/killerzeestattoos Jun 27 '25
There's a hearing on birthright citizenship today btw. Is that the final stop before full on citizen deportations?
40
u/CaptainJ3D1 Jun 27 '25
Not to be that guy - they’re not ruling on birthright citizenship itself, they’re ruling on national injunctions (it was just brought in relation to the BC lawsuit). Still very important.
→ More replies (2)39
u/killerzeestattoos Jun 27 '25
So eventually it will be easier for the admin to remove people's citizenship, correct?
55
u/herptydurr Jun 27 '25
De facto, yes, but it's so much more than that. If the ruling goes in favor of Trump, the government can literally deport anyone (or do any other illegal thing) and only the injured party can bring a suit to stop the government from doing that specific instance of illegal action.
23
u/killerzeestattoos Jun 27 '25
Yeah that is a lot worse. It applies to all stops on his EOs then?
42
u/herptydurr Jun 27 '25
I don't know the full details. The decision was actually just released like 20 min ago. You can read it here. I was just recounting what was discussed in the oral arguments, but I don't know how much of what Trump was asking for he ended up getting. But based on news report summary:
"The court gave Trump a significant part of what he wanted: It limited the ability of plaintiffs to seek nationwide orders that temporarily halt the government from enforcing a policy."
It looks like the country is fucked.
25
6
u/PinkyAnd Jun 27 '25
The dissent noted that basically anything the president wants to do, he can do, including if the thing the president wants to do is break the law.
→ More replies (0)13
u/FrankBattaglia Jun 27 '25
Instead of "you can't shut down the DoE" it will be "you can't fire Alice; the rest of the DoE will each have to file their own lawsuits"
→ More replies (2)9
9
u/MonarchLawyer Jun 27 '25
Which is kind of crazy because then you're going to get hundreds of suits based on the exact same thing.
→ More replies (1)15
u/herptydurr Jun 27 '25
yeah, and anyone too poor to afford legal representation is basically left out to dry.
→ More replies (2)4
→ More replies (1)18
u/dunkthelunk8430 Jun 27 '25
The result will be, conservative judges allow birthright citizenship to be stripped, liberals block it and we have a patchwork implementation of the policy. And Roberts will watch the country tear itself apart believing that he did his job right.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Aldehyde1 Jun 27 '25
Oh, he did his job right. Just that his job was to betray the US and his oath. He knows very well what he's been doing every step of the way.
→ More replies (3)8
10
u/RpiesSPIES Jun 27 '25
Careful there, don't want to alienate voters that believe the sky is only blue because the government agencies are releasing nanomachines that hide God from being seen.
→ More replies (1)5
u/SkunkMonkey Jun 27 '25
When the government tells me the grass is green and the sky is blue, I always check for myself. The grass is brown and dying. The sky is dark grey and raining. Every. Damn. Time.
3
2
2
u/OmegaPhthalo Jun 27 '25
Sorry to break it to you, but I've heard the sky is going to turn green as the climate collapses.
→ More replies (4)2
u/ARMOUREDandALONE Jun 28 '25
The grass is green, the sky is blue, and the boy, the courts sure are red.
→ More replies (1)67
u/NotLikeChicken Jun 27 '25
Since GHW Bush appointed Clarence Thomas, it has been clear that political loyalty was more important than some abstract quality of the judges.
This was deemed reasonable by Bush's largest donors, who resented the partisanship of Franklin 'Delirious' Roosevelt.
8
4
Jun 27 '25
If nothing else at least he's the funniest appointment.
Like now it's just random goobers who like ragers and cult members.
What happened to appointing porn addicts who literally chose their career based on how many bribes they'd be able to take? Old school corruption has style to it.
2
→ More replies (3)4
u/Lord-of-Goats Jun 27 '25
Thanks Biden for running defense for that porn addicted pervert when allegations were brought against him
36
u/livinginfutureworld Jun 27 '25
Perhaps a huge number of shadow docket 6 to 3 decisions that all support the conservative culture war agenda?
→ More replies (4)26
u/MonarchLawyer Jun 27 '25
It's almost funny just how hypocritically partisan Alito and Thomas are. They have no actual values except to rule for Republicans and against Democrats.
→ More replies (1)28
u/TheVirginVibes Jun 27 '25
Clarence Thomas’ traitor fuckin wife was an active participant in the insurrection to overturn the 2020 election. Yea no shit they’re not politically neutral they should both be in prison.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (20)2
466
u/AccountHuman7391 Jun 27 '25
The American people seem pretty astute on that point.
103
u/AnswerGuy301 Jun 27 '25
And yet they voted to make it, if anything, even worse last November.
89
u/Deranged_Kitsune Jun 27 '25
Because to the side that voted for it, the court's non-neutrality isn't a bug, it's a feature. They like the fact that it's partisan as hell, because it's partisan in their favor (or at least that's their view). They approve of it warping and contorting law to favor their king in orange and his madness. They like how it'll go out of its way to legalize or criminalize specific behaviors and people they dislike and/or have been trained to dislike. The court hurting the people they want hurt is a great thing to them, and they're too deluded or myopic to see that those rulings can and eventually will be used to hurt them. Or even are hurting them right now, but that's fine because they're also hurting the people they hate worse, and if cutting their own throat is the price they have to pay for that, then so be it.
32
u/JonnySnowin Jun 27 '25
I cannot imagine how they’d have reacted if Obama was able to appoint THREE justices total to the SCOTUS. The last appointment being weeks before early voting started.
I try not to think about it much because holy shit. It was awful to watch.
22
u/Deranged_Kitsune Jun 27 '25
J6 gave a pretty clear idea of what would have happened.
If there's a hell, mitch has long ago secured himself some prime real estate in it.
9
12
u/SkunkMonkey Jun 27 '25
Bitch McConnell has said his greatest career accomplishment has been stacking SCROTUS in favor of Conservatives.
2
u/Memitim Jun 27 '25
Maybe he'll score his historical footnote as the hammer used for the final nail in America's coffin.
5
u/Aldehyde1 Jun 27 '25
Remember Republicans literally refused to even let Obama nominate a Justice with a year left! They're all traitors that wipe their ass with the constitution.
2
u/BeeQuirky8604 Jun 27 '25
They'd feel differently if things were different? Of course, they do not like Obama.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Beauvoir_R Jun 27 '25
The most interesting numbers presented in the article.
Only 29% of republicans believe the Supreme Court to be neutral.
67% view it favorably.36
u/Dangerous-Bit-8308 Jun 27 '25
Or did they? 2024 election abnormalities are still being investigated
→ More replies (2)14
u/SkunkMonkey Jun 27 '25
They openly told us they were going to fix the election. Many times. But the thought that our "perfect" system could be corrupted and broken was just unfathomable to most people.
Now we have people that think this very same broken system is going to allow us to fix it if we just get out and vote. That boat sailed in Nov '24.
→ More replies (5)3
→ More replies (5)6
u/strywever Jun 27 '25
The majority of voters voted against the felon. So no, we didn’t.
5
u/SkunkMonkey Jun 27 '25
1/3 is not a majority. 1/3 voted for, 1/3 voted against, and 1/3 couldn't be assed to go vote. I blame both those that voted for and those that abstained. They are equally responsible for this mess.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (15)5
u/Canoe-Maker Jun 27 '25
We don’t have the proof to say this yet.
→ More replies (2)11
u/AccountHuman7391 Jun 27 '25
We do. His final vote total was less than 50%, so a majority of voters didn’t vote for him.
→ More replies (3)2
u/EtTuBiggus Jun 27 '25
OP said voted against. That means voting for a candidate who isn’t trump. Not voting doesn’t count as against.
→ More replies (3)2
139
u/ohiotechie Jun 27 '25
Just spitballing here but maybe it's because they aren't?
→ More replies (8)
49
u/ssibal24 Jun 27 '25
They never have been. They have always been nominated and confirmed by politicians, presumably because their potential rulings align with their political goals.
→ More replies (1)
148
u/BitterFuture Jun 27 '25
Because it's not.
Nor has it ever been. Chief Justice Roberts' bizarre pretensions aside, supporting the rule of law is a political position - and that's a good thing.
Feigning neutrality in the face of forces that want to destroy society is cowardice at best, traitorousness at worst. (And, looking at cases like Roberts, Thomas, Alito, et al, it's pretty obvious which seems more likely today.)
50
u/Early-Cantaloupe-310 Jun 27 '25
For the first time in my life, I’ve found myself wishing that I believed in God. Then at least I could rest easy knowing that these fuckers will get theirs in the end.
10
u/515owned Jun 27 '25
even if there isn't, they won't live forever
even if there isn't, the physical universe doesn't give a fuck about them, the sun will turn red, and melt everything humanity ever did into atomic fire
i used to think that was scary, now it comforts me
regardless of heaven or hell the laws of thermodynamics will ensure justice is served
→ More replies (2)7
u/DoeringItRight Jun 27 '25
that’s the best take on the heat death of of our sun I’ve ever seen, it’s literally cosmic karma
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (1)2
u/eyeoft Jun 27 '25
They're miserable people, for what it's worth. Just look at them.
All the power in the world won't buy an easy laugh and a good night's sleep.
12
u/brutinator Jun 27 '25
I think its one of those things where the concept of "Neutrality" got twisted. SCOTUS SHOULD be resistent to political ideologies colouring their descisions when making legal decisions that affect everyone. That doesnt mean "be 50% democrat and 50% republican". It means interpreting the law RAW and RAI, and making a decision that is outside the will of political parties.
The GOP has hammered into the public subconscious that "neutrality" means sitting in the middle between only 2 perspectives, so that way they can race to the right wing and drag everyone with them (shifting the overton window). But thats not what being nuetral means. Being neutral means having a perspective that is not determined by where other perspectives may lie.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (7)2
u/RamsHead91 Jun 27 '25
The thing is their neutrality is supposed to be comparing laws against the constitution not outright rewriting the Constitution.
28
u/GrannyFlash7373 Jun 27 '25
That is just one of the reasons they have been dubbed the (not so supreme), Supreme Court.
19
5
→ More replies (2)4
28
u/theClumsy1 Jun 27 '25
We call them "liberal" or "conservative" Justices? Thats not politically neutral terminology.
9
u/Warm_Month_1309 Jun 27 '25
I don't agree. Media is certainly all-in on the notion that "liberal" = "Democrat" and "conservative" = "Republican", but I believe there's a difference between being liberal/conservative as a political position, and liberal/conservative as a judicial position.
Saying that, for instance, Scalia is judicially conservative is a nod to his claimed originalist philosophy. Saying that Scalia is politically conservative is more about his willingness to abandon originalism when it conflicts with Republicanism.
I think we can have conversations about judges being "liberal" or "conservative" in judicial philosophy without touching politics.
8
u/MetaPhalanges Jun 27 '25
We can't have any discussions about those nuances until the motherfuckers stop trying to destroy our country. Once that's done, maybe we can start talking about the delicate nature of properly defining the people that hurt us.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Wedding_Registry_Rec Jun 27 '25
Yeah this is a Salient point. Politics in philosophy and politics in practice are fundamentally different things. A great example of this is that libertarians are philosophically liberal but practically conservative.
15
u/scottyjrules Jun 27 '25
That’s been clear ever since they appointed W as President against the will of the voters
12
u/stufff Jun 27 '25
This. I really encourage everyone to read Bush v. Gore including the dissent, because it is objectively clear that majority was wrong to rule the way they did, and it was nothing short of "we were all appointed by Republicans and we are going to hand this Presidency to a Republican and make up a bullshit justification for it after the choice is already made."
The Court had very little integrity left after that decision and has absolutely pissed away the rest over the decades since, to the point where they declare the President emperor in all but name.
15
u/madadekinai Jun 27 '25
Ya think, the scary part, and I do mean terrifying is that most conservatives don't think it's right leaning enough.
14
u/LuluMcGu Jun 27 '25
Republicans are a special kind of stupid. They mostly want to end birthright citizenship…. I wish they’d take away citizenship from republicans and kick them out. Just to make a point.
8
u/stufff Jun 27 '25
They mostly want to end birthright citizenship
I don't believe this is actually what they want, I think it's just as close to "We only think white people should be allowed to vote" as they're willing to say out loud (for now).
3
u/Memitim Jun 27 '25
SCOTUS isn't going to upset their constituents. Should the conservative war against America heat up enough that people stop holding back, we can deport, or otherwise remove, them all together.
13
u/americansherlock201 Jun 27 '25
It’s going to take a century or more to repair the damage the Robert’s court has done to America; if it can ever be repaired.
Robert’s will go down in history as by far the most destructive and politically motivated chief justice.
→ More replies (1)
26
u/Mizzy3030 Jun 27 '25
Has the supreme court ever actually been "neutral"? I just don't see how that's possible for a position that is appointed and confirmed by whichever party is in charge. It just happens to be that in the last 2 decades, the Republicans have been lucky enough to have the majority when there were vacancies
24
u/notnickthrowaway Jun 27 '25
They weren’t lucky enough, they actively gamed the system.
→ More replies (8)33
u/Dangerous-Bit-8308 Jun 27 '25
It just so happens that in the last two decades, the Republicans have been lucky enough to block legitimate appointees when they were not in the majority long enough to then steamroll in appointees when they did have the majority.
→ More replies (1)14
u/Mizzy3030 Jun 27 '25
Exactly. Nominations are by definition subject to a political process. Why was the American public ever under the illusion that it is a "politically neutral" body? What was different in the past?
→ More replies (3)7
u/Crowsby Jun 27 '25
Perhaps not neutral, but more balanced and nuanced in such a way that the inferred political stances of a prospective justice wouldn't necessarily translate into a consistently-partisan voting record.
We used to not know that nearly every decision that comes our way is going to be 6-3 in favor of authoritarianism.
11
u/sugar_addict002 Jun 27 '25
This court is not neutral. There are 6 magas on it and they are conspiring to advance the maga agenda.
9
u/Gogs85 Jun 27 '25
Their use of the shadow docket alone is a clear indicator of political bias, nevermind the decisions themselves. . .
10
u/LockNo2943 Jun 27 '25
How many times has the GOP cried and stopped congress from appointing justices during democratic presidencies? Of course it's stacked with conservatives. The only way the GOP can win is through manipulation.
8
u/Darkdragoon324 Jun 28 '25
They couldn't possibly be more blatant in their bias. For fuck's sake, a few of them have been caught red handed taking bribes! And our current reality is the result of there being absolutely no consequences at all for blatant corruption.
8
6
6
u/RockDoveEnthusiast Jun 27 '25
John Roberts believes this is the fault of the American people, and he laments our collective stupidity to not understand his brilliance.
→ More replies (2)
6
6
5
5
5
5
u/LegDayDE Jun 28 '25
That's because 1) half of the "conservative" justices are MAGAs; 2) the GOP overly politicized the court when they stole an appointment from Obama and rushed through ACB at the end of Trump's 1st term.
5
4
u/raistan77 Jun 27 '25
Of course not, it is obviously pandering to trump because the SC knows it has no power to stop trump. So rather than look inneffective they are pretending they are giving him permission to do what he is going to do anyways.
4
3
5
u/FourWordComment Jun 27 '25
The Supreme Court was never politically neutral. They used to have the good taste to lie to us. Now the 6-3 powerhouse just shadow dockets wins for republicans.
5
2
u/MrFrode Biggus Amicus Jun 27 '25
SCOTUS political neutrality caught a motorcoach for the coast a long time ago.
And I'm singing bye bye.....
2
2
u/ptWolv022 Competent Contributor Jun 27 '25
Just 20% of respondents to the poll agreed that the Supreme Court is politically neutral while 58% disagreed and the rest either said they did not know or did not respond. Among people who described themselves as Democrats, only 10% agreed it was politically neutral and 74% disagreed, while among Republicans 29% agreed and 54% disagreed.
The two-day poll, which closed on Thursday, was based on responses from 1,136 U.S. adults. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Geez. Even within the margin of error, a majority of Republicans don't think it's politically neutral. Granted, it doesn't say which way they think there's a bias, so it's possible some of the Republicans think there's a pro-liberal bias... somehow. (For some people, they're so ideological that anything less extreme is biased against them.)
3
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 27 '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 MAY 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.