Behold the most corrupt Supreme Court in history
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2025
277 points (98.9% liked)
News
32759 readers
3236 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You can't say that! You'll hurt poor John Roberts' precious feefees.
Must be time for a new NYT op-ed about Robert's furrowed brow in regards to the public opinion of the court.
this is intentional, facists like to hide behind rule of law to make them look legitimate but everything is already deciced behind closed doors, including court cases
see: russia
I am wondering how safe the holdouts are? Sotomayor may be on a list for "scheduled for a window accident".
Pretty safe. They legitimize the facade of the institution.
They don’t have any power so I don’t think they’re priority on the enemy’s of facism list
Several of them are illegitimate
They recently legalized bribes. Don’t really see any reason they wouldn’t allow this as well.
Fuck the people and their opinions; sell the country to the highest bidder!
/s
I think I have a 20$ bill in my stash'o'misc-foreign-jimjams-I've-accumulated-on-my-travels. But given the current state of the US, I guess a terminally online scandinavian dork owning the country isn't so bad in comparison.
I promise I'll be less corrupt than most administration's. I'll probably just collect dues in the form of semi-monthly street tacos at TJ Birria Y Mas down in Stafford, Houston TX.
And maybe a crate of Blue Moon. Other than that, keep calm and carry on, underlings.
Oh, and you can refer to me as King, as 50% of the populace seems to be into that these days. But I don't think the same 50% would be very happy with the king's decrees.
Legitimate question as a non-american.
If the country is just a series of "united" states, each with their own supreme court and their own election laws, What stops a state from simply declaring that federal supreme court decisions have no authority within their borders?
My understanding is that the whole system of U.S goverment is basically the the federal government governs by the consent of the individual states.
So why not stand up and say "This federal court is a rubber stamp for a buffoon and they have no legitimacy in the state of whichever"
I'm pretty sure I realize that it would kick off a constitutional crisis, but if the alternative is more of this shit, what have they got to lose at this point?
article 6 clause 2 of the US constitution
In short: sometimes nothing at all, sometimes self survival
In practice, when a state becomes a part of the United States it concedes total independence, giving itself to the jurisdiction and control of the federal government. In exchange, a state is given representation in the federal government to influence what laws make up that control and because after a few different rounds of early government structures post colonial independence, the federal government was kneecapped in terms of the types of laws it can pass. If a law passes Congress and survives a legal review by the federal courts, strictly speaking a state has no choice but to agree and cooperate. At best a state could work with other states to repeal laws a single state doesn't want/like.
The vast majority of the time states operate in relative good faith and follow federal law. When a state does openly defy the federal government, it depends on the exact law being ignored. Marijuana is illegal on the federal level where mere possession of it lands you in jail, but many states turn a blind eye to citizens using it and states like Colorado make bank off of taxing the sale of it. This kind of stuff happens a lot and the executive branch makes a judgement call on if it's politically worth punishing a state in defiance.
This current administration has proven repeatedly to be very vindictive and retaliates against even the perception of defying their rule. The last time a state continued defiance against the federal executive branch this nation threw itself into civil war and lost 2% of its population in the process.
I am not a constitutional scholar buy I think this may be already happening between a gun case with the US Supreme court and the Hawaiian Supreme Court
https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/spirit-aloha-vs-second-amendment
It's a Plutocracy .... or Oligarchy
Democracy was born with severe disabilities, lingered for a while, survived in a coma for a long time and it died years ago.
Kleptocracy I think is more accurate at this point.
Oh you mean unlimited bribery and money laundering?
Oh you mean unlimited bribery and money laundering?
Precicely. It won't really change anything. Dark money already destroyed what little we had of a democracy.
The interesting thing is that businesses rely on accurate information in order to make informed decisions. If you read the financial times ft.com you will find reliable information. Doesn't a factory need healthy workers? Yet the factory owner can make the claim that healthcare is coming out of his pocket and then advocate against it. They've been persuaded by emotional arguments not based in facts. There are unqualified people operating businesses and making high level decisions. But at the highest levels, that mismanagement cannot be tolerated. The people supporting this bullshit are just running along trying to hold things together for as long as they can until they fall apart.
Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
It isn't already? Because it pretty much happens all the time anyways. If you say superpac that makes it ok though.
Lmao there's always something a little funny, in the greek sense of the word, about seeing the continuing unending appetite for further loosening of the chains on what are essentially political rabid dogs.
Sure, it's always going to have been a goal for these, most honored gentlemen but a small sliver of my mind still has sone hope for rational thought from them. Too much an optimist I guess.
You expect rational thought from a rapist that melted down at his televised job interview?