The Supreme Court Should Represent The People Not A Handful Of Billionaires

[DanieRains]

Who's dark money put them on the bench.

Link to tweet

?lang=en

It is not bad.

It is real bad.

Billionaires extracting from us will be on steroids now.

The planet? Our children? Good luck.

[dchill]

1. What don't you get about the word "Supreme?"

[andym]

2. They will also represent the evangelical Christians who did the hard work

of voting for Republicans to get the job done for billionaires.

[COLGATE4]

3. They'll get their payback when Roe v Wade is consigned to

the dust heap of jurisprudence. Followed soon by the demise of the ACA and probably Obergefell as well as Griswold.

[world wide wally]

4. Sheldon Whitehouse would make a good SC Justice

[Hortensis]

5. :) Strictly speaking, justices should NOT "represent" any of us,

regardless of our income level. For that we elect representatives to government to act for us.

But of course agree with the sentiment, which touches on the idea of a "living" constitution that evolves with and serves society as part of government of, by and for the people.

Those seeking to use government to oppose and control of course have a problem with that. And so these current scoundrels argue that "textualism" and originalism" are intellectually and morally valid concepts, instead of what they are: dishonest tools to detach the law from the will of the people, dismantle it, and reinterpret the constitution to serve their religions, their smallmindedness and bigotries, and of course the secular powers they feel should rule.

[DBoon]

8. They don't represent us

but they should respect the interests of the citizenry at large and not a handful of billionaires

[RainCaster]

6. SCOTUS has no oversight

They are free to accept any payments, favors or other renumeration and there is nothing we can do about it.

[DBoon]

7. "A republic not a democracy"

When right wingers use this cliche, they are referring to exactly this situation.

They want this, they dream of this.