Post

Only We the People now can defeat the fascists and their corrupt, pseudo-"Christian"/Corporate owned SCOTUS cronies. We can no longer defeat them via the any "Law" nor legal means; because, thanks to Putin/Trump/GOP corruption of SCOTUS, LAW NO LONGER EXISTS IN THE USA. We're LAWLESS /ON OUR OWN.

We need to replace it with randomly selected juries. Easy for a court of people in gated communities with clean water to say that clean water laws are against the Constitution because of something some dead guy said in 1832. A lot harder when you have to drink that water

I have considered something along those lines. Not for day-to-day matters, but for impeachments. Rather than the Senate, which is highly conflicted, we could empanel a jury composed of former judges, congressmen, Presidents and Governors, randomly selected but with at least some from both parties.

Votes cast by any of the compromised justices should be tossed following current conflict of interest & recusal guidelines established by the fed judiciary. Include decisions influenced by gifts from parties with cases before the court before & AFTER the decision. Looking at you, Citizens United…

How do folks interpret the good behaviour requirement of Article III Section 1? Because if it's intended the way I read it, a mandamus filing asking for the removal of Thomas and Alito would be fascinating.

We do have a giant flaw in the Constitution. There is no recourse if SCOTUS acts in an unconstitutional manner by taking powers unto itself that it doesn’t have and acts as a mini legislature, subordinating the legislature and executive to its whims. 1/2

2/2 If we continue to honor the idea that everything SCOTUS does is sacrosanct, nothing stops it from simply declaring everything it doesn’t like unconstitutional, even if law and precedent say otherwise. Once everything is inside the MAGA constitutional lockbox, Congress might as well go home.

Sadly, some SCOTUS Justices are ruling according to their OWN PERSONAL BELIEFS, *not* the law or the people's interest because they know: * There is no higher Court to OVERRULE them * There is no enforceable ethics code to BIND them * They have LIFETIME appointments > Elections have CONSEQUENCES!

You're not far off I've thought of this for a while and they could be elected. It would be hard for legislators to vote against a thing like establishing a super supreme court that is elected. In a country based on Democracy we need more elected officials not less

We need term limits and an enforced ethics code. State courts have much stronger professional ethics codes for judges with financial reporting every year to avoid even the appearance of impropriety

Constitution: Art III, Sec 2 The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution UNDER this Constitution Marbury v Madison placed the Court OVER the Constitution NO law passed through Congress and signed into law is unConstutitional Overturn MvM

I have no idea why this court even remains seated. Aside from these three perjurers we now have Thomas and Alito to contend with? There HAS TO BE A RECOURSE for this level of impropriety!! Seriously—WTF!?

Not if they’re all republicans. Some of them committed perjury against the senators promising the roe v wade is a settled law and won’t touch it and yet, they got away with it. Justice is dead 😑🇺🇸

As of January 20th, all US laws are irrelevant until the guy with 34 criminal convictions is in prison. Americans should refuse to pay their federal taxes. Let Harland Crow and his billionaires buddies try funding everyone in the entire federal government including the Supreme Court.

Laws are written in the language of mathematics. Everything else is mere penciled ramblings of madmen. Gentlemen's agreements. Until one side breaks the social contract. Those make peaceful revolution imposable, makes violent revolution inevitable. Over rulled.

"We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution—not over it. In our Courts we want a government of laws and not of men." FDR Fireside Chat - March 9th, 1937

😂😂😂😂 I know it’s so strange !! It was VeeVee on Twitter for years .. I came here and had to change it ? Anywho… that’s what came out… ya, it’s pretty cheesy! 😂😂😂😂😂

We needed Dickie Durban to have done his job. He coulda used subpoena power to drag insurrectionist judges like Canon, Thomas, Alito, Roberts into hearings; held feet to fire, showcase corruption, force change. He and other Dem leaders sent stern letters; they should have been throwing haymakers.

mAga is in the process of tearing it down now , making it the way they want it. They have spent decades twisting founder intent and convincing half of the public it should go back to white male property owners who are the only ones with rights. Oh, and for good measure…it is god’s will.

How about we teach the public about how the Senate can impeach corrupt Supreme Court Justices, and create a media that talks about how we do it every day. Let’s Make Jan 6 Benghazi Again, starting with Ginni Thomas’s Bible Bribe.

Building these narratives into a story that everyone has heard and wants to see fixed, will create the groundswell to get people elected and policies defined for them to pass into law. Defined consequences for illegal and corrupt activities will get people fired up for Justice VERY delayed.

We should amend the constitution and have all Supreme Court justices be chosen from a bipartisan panel of 10 from each party. Also this panel can enforce a code of ethics.

Sadly all we have is Dick Durbin and the judicial oversight committee. Who can’t even be bothered to make corrupt justices come before that committee for a hearing. Durbin is gone in 2026. Illinoisans should recruit State Senator Mike Simmons to run for Durbin’s seat.

I’m one of those “make them VOTE and let’s see who they are” people. If he only got 53 votes - we could lobby the 47 who were wrong. Then take another vote. Repeat until we get 60. Could it have worked that way if Schumer wanted it to?