The Supreme Court demands we respect their institution

[bronxiteforever]

DENVER — Chief Justice John Roberts defended the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, saying its role should not be called into question just because people disagree with its decisions.

When asked to reflect on the last year at the court in his first public appearance since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Roberts said Friday he was concerned that lately some critics of the court's controversial decisions have questioned the legitimacy of the court, which he said was a mistake. He did not mention any specific cases or critics by name.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/10/1122205320/chief-justice-john-roberts-defends-the-supreme-court-as-peoples-confidence-waver

But when the Supreme Court acts like a GOP legislature, it has no legitimacy. In light of the fact that the Court has consistently harmed the American public through adherence to political ideology, has ransacked our human rights and its corruption is polluting any hope of the appearance of Justice; change must come. Otherwise we agree to be ruled by this oligarchy.

[EYESORE 9001]

1. I won't submit to a rump court

We must tackle this now. There might not be a chance later.

[pwb]

2. Yes Sir, you are a Republican institution for sure.

Of some of the people.

[GreenWave]

3. Until they stop ruling "Just us" there is no justice.

[sakabatou]

4. Ahahahahah!

Oh, wait, they're serious. Let me laugh even harder. AHAHAHAHAH!

[yankee87]

5. Reich Wing SCOTUS

This court is wholly owned by Reich Wing oligarchs. This court is an absolute joke.

[Johonny]

6. Judge Roberts disagrees with Judge Robert or else

He wouldn't keep changing settled law. The fact is, these are deranged people completely out of step with the modern world. Their opinions should not be respected because they often lack deep respect for America or Americans.

[wnylib]

7. I lost respect for SCOTUS in 2000.

They have not regained my respect since then.

VERY important that we get a strong enough majority in Congress to expand the court to 13 to cover the 13 federal districts.

So start working your asses off now to promote Dems for Congress and in local governments.

[peggysue2]

28. As did I, wnylib

The election decision in 2000 was a disgrace. Karl Rove and his Brook Brothers riot--all of it an angry scam, a mini-precursor of what we would later witness on J6. It's hard not to imagine how differently things would be had Gore taken that win and served for 8 years instead of Bush/Cheney Co.

The GOP has much to pay for as does the Supreme Court. The current Court demands respect despite it's rank partisanship and now, clear evidence of ethical lapses among right-wing members.

The Robert's Court will undoubtedly be remembered. Only not in the way the Chief Justice once entertained.

[wnylib]

33. The court can demand respect all it wants but it won't get it that way.

Maybe if DOJ investigates the bribes and corruption and we get rid of the corrupt judges, there would be a chance of them regaining respect.

But I don't expect that to happen.

I heard a Black man on NPR say that it's time to just ignore the SCOTUS rulings because they don't have the means to enforce their rulings. I understand his anger, but it wouldn't work. Not in red states, at least, where LE would enforce SCOTUS decisions. And in other states there would be individuals to file legal complaints.

[The Unmitigated Gall]

8. The Roberts Court is a sewer.

Dominated by ideologues who proceed from their reactionary viewpoint.
No respect for precedent and settled law.
Legislating from the bench? No problem.
Utterly corrupt in their conflicts of interest, accepting lavish gifts.

Sewer.

[Buns_of_Fire]

9. As far as I know, nowhere in the Constitution

does it say that I have to respect the Supreme Court.

Interpret that, Mr. Chief Justice.

[jeffreyi]

10. How about not.

You have to earn respect through good behavior and good decisions, Lightbulb.

[The Magistrate]

11. Respect Is Earned, Or Forfeited, Sir, Never Owed

What Roberts claims to be 'interpreting the constitution' is arrogating to himself and his cronies veto power over both the Legislative and Executive branches, a veto power not granted by the Constitution, and wholly unchecked by the common practices of democracy. Puffing up his judicial tyranny as 'interpreting the constitution' is mere squid's ink. With five or six votes in hand, the Constitution means whatever those votes desire it to. The document is sufficiently broad in scope and porous in detail that whatever result one desires can be readily reasoned out of it, and even declared the original intent of the founders. By people doing something themselves the founders clearly did not enumerate among their powers.


"They believed nothing they could not prove, and could prove anything they believed."

[bronxiteforever]

12. +1 "mere squid ink" that is brilliant!

[Hekate]

23. As always, Sir...

[Artcatt]

13. Distilled arrogance.

[dlk]

14. Given the blatant corruption of the right wing justices

Roberts’ defense of the court is a joke.

[WestMichRad]

15. The strength of dissenting opinions...

… issued alongside controversial decisions shows us we have every reason to disrespect their rulings. The majority does not respect state decisis, they disregard the current state of our society, and they make up bogus claims of “originalism” to support their rulings.

Damn right I don’t respect this Court!!

[roamer65]

16. Kiss my fucking ass, Roberts.

Your court is legislating.

When you abuse your powers, you are rightfully called into question.

[edisdead]

17. I demand they kiss my ass.

[republianmushroom]

18. You bet'um Red Ryder.

[LoisB]

19. Does respect for 1/3 of the court count?

[slightlv]

20. There is no legitimacy in this court!

Good cases can be made that at least two to four justices were seated using illicit means. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean it was illegal; just unethical, immoral, and hypocritical. When you have that many people being seated that the voting constituency, as well as the public at large, do not agree should have been seated -- well, regardless of HOW they vote on any particular case -- they, themselves as a court is illegitimate in the people's eyes. And I don't care how much Roberts cries about it. This court has no place in today's USA and should be eliminated, if there's no way to expand it. YMMV.

[lees1975]

21. It's not about the decisions, it's about the conduct.

You have clearly incompetent justices, known from the manner in which they make their rulings which display ignorance of the constitution and past precedent, and you have justices whose corruption has hit the alarm bell. How do you respect justices who have no respect for the court itself, demonstrated by their willingness to hide things they know are unethical and wrong? How do you trust any decision that a justice makes after they've been bribed with expensive trips and spouse business deals?

[Cha]

22. FO majority court for Billionaires. Greedy Assholes.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

24. Thbbft!

[ananda]

25. Yet all six rightwingers hae no respect for anything but wealth.

nt

[honest.abe]

26. I have zero respect or confidence in our current Supreme Court.

They are as politicized as the GOP congress. Sickening.

[Trenzalore]

27. When the court was more balanced the right wing had all kinds of rhetoric

Openly calling for the execution of justices for treason and other such nonsense.

Roberts gets a tiny bit of heat and he's like a baby with diaper rash.

[Generic Brad]

29. We're supposed to blindly accept the authority of Chief Justice Eric Cartman?

*Snort*

They deserve the exact same measure of respect they hold for the majority of us. You get what you give.

[Emile]

30. Respect is earned not demanded.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

31. Respect is earned not automatically given

As supposed full grown adult he should know that.

[struggle4progress]

32. "I like beer so you should respect me!"

[IzzaNuDay]

34. sorry Johnny, you allowed our rights to be frittered away!

you and your RW ilk can go pound sand!

[EndlessWire]

35. I have zero respect for the Roberts court.

I could give them a vote of No Confidence, if that would make him feel better.

But, what's gonna make us feel better?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

36. You got to be kiddingRoberts needs to get his house in order with a code of ethics

It looks like the Samuel Alito scandal is the final straw for Democrats. An enforceable code of ethics may piss off Thomas and Alito which would be a good thing

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/supreme-court-ethics-samuel-alito-democrats-durbin-rcna90484

Sen. Dick Durbin has had enough. After news broke about yet another Supreme Court ethics scandal — this time, revelations that Justice Samuel Alito went on a lavish vacation with a billionaire GOP donor, and failed to recuse himself from multiple cases involving that donor — Durbin, an Illinois Democrat and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has announced that the committee will vote next month on legislation to create enforceable ethics requirements for Supreme Court justices.

Durbin’s announcement, though well overdue, is a promising sign. The key now is to make sure that any attempt at reforming the court is meaty enough to fix its acute vulnerability to corruption.

The latest case involving Alito should anger anyone who cares about democracy, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum. ProPublica reports that in 2008 hedge fund billionaire and GOP donor Paul Singer flew Alito to Alaska on a private jet, which ProPublica estimated would have cost Alito over $100,000 if he had chartered it himself. Alito didn’t disclose that gift. He also didn’t later recuse himself from ruling on cases involving Singer’s businesses. .....

But the question remains as to whether measures focused on transparency and the deterrence effect of stigma is enough given what's at stake. Even more robust disclosure of gifts and recusals might not be enough to offset the reality that many justices — both liberal and conservative — take hundreds of privately sponsored trips. The premise of the Supreme Court is that the jurists are supposed to be interpreters and arbiters of the law who draw only from their own study and interpretations — so why are we leaving so many opportunities for them to be feted by powerful moneyed interests and potentially become vehicles for their agendas?

It only makes sense to look at the more aggressive regulatory mechanisms. A New York Times editorial in April suggested that the court adopt “the kinds of gift limits that apply to members of Congress and other federal employees,” while also creating an ethics office similar to the ethics committees in Congress. Whatever the exact remedy, it needs to be strong, and it needs to be chosen urgently. The Supreme Court already has too much power.