comment: >
  
  Can't imagine why.
context: Because there's no reason to think they're impartial. It'd be impossible to make that argument given the changes made and the politics involved in appointing them. >
  
  And basically there's an odd number of them, so in normal circumstances there's always going to be a bias towards the majority party affiliation. Even if you argue that they can be partial themselves, the selection process via President and then Senate confirmations all but ensures a highly partisan nature just to get past that screening. >
  
  It also doesn't help they dropped the requirement for confirmations to a simple majority of 51, down from 2/3s majority. Sure it doesn't help if 2/3 of the Senate is represented by a single party, but in today's world it would be a much more moderating requirement as the candidates would have to appeal to both parties to get confirmed. >
  
  You can thank Mitch McConnell for that change.  He oversaw the filibustering of practically any judge that Obama wanted to appoint, to the point that they had to reduce the threshold to 51 to confirm judges in order to get any through.
  While the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments specifically wasn't abolished until after Obama's presidency (to get Gorsuch on, after the outrageous holding-open of a seat for an entire year), had the Dems had 51 senators when Scalia dies you can guarantee the filibuster would have been abolished then too.
  Supermajorities only work if the political environment pressures the minority to be reasonable, otherwise they can just hold everyone hostage. >
  
  should've just ripped the bandaid off at that point, the court wouldn't be skewed right now >
  
  The GOP had the senate majority when Scalia died, so Obama's nominee couldnt even get a vote regardless of the filibuster. >
  
  So at that point, you say that since the Senate hasn't even held hearings on the nominee that they are providing tacit assent to the nominee and seat them anyways. If the Senate doesn't like it, they can hold hearings to actually vet the nominee and vote on whether they approve or not. You don't let them hold the entire process hostage and undermine our democracy. >
  
  Then that claim is challenged, and the Supreme Court rules on it. The appointee voting on their own appointment obviously isn’t appropriate, so it’s an 8-person court. How do you think that would play out? >
  
  No idea, would love to actually have seen it played out tho. Like, at least try to prevent the GOP from ruining everything. >
  
  I agree. At some point someone’s going to call their bluff, and things are going to get very messy. 
  I’d much rather watch that happen in the Supreme Court than on the streets. >
  
  They're not wrong. >
  
  Yup.   Just a bunch of religious fanatics and shills for billionaires >
  
  Pretty much... >
  
  "The American People Are Aware of Reality In This One Specific Instance"
  I guess that's newsworthy. I still have neighbors with trump signs. >
  
  No irony in the “He won, is your Prez… Get over it” mantra of 2016 >
  
  to them theres no irony because trump won fairly and biden didnt i guess >
  
  Right? It's insane that they claim the 2020 elections were stolen but by that logic then the 2016 elections were also stolen? Right? 
  Not to mention that Trump was already hinting in 2016 that the elections were corrupted because he thought he was gonna lose. He knew how much Russia was trying to influence the elections, he was ready to spend 4 years screeching that Hillary had somehow lost.
  The gymnastics with Trump supporters is absolute madness. >
  
  "No no, you see when a conservative wins then it's definitely a fair election because I voted for conservatives. If a conservative loses the election was obviously rigged because I would never vote for libruls"
  Conservative "thought" process in a nutshell >
  
  It depresses me how many grown ass adults I've seen seriously use this argument >
  
  Yup. Conservatives seem to really have a hard time understanding that everybody doesn't think like them. It just never occurs to them that they might not be the majority; they keep crowing about how they represent "the people" >
  
  Oh, were we supposed to believe that it's impartial? >
  
  Alito demands you believe it.  Not believing it is crossing a line! >
  
  I stopped believing it before he was even on the supreme court but I'm old and it was still legal back then in the before times. >
  
  Yeah, Bush v Gore is when the illusion of impartiality went out the window for me. >
  
  It's an especially egregious example when you note how many people involved on the Bush legal team for Bush v Gore ended up Republican nominees for SCOTUS and eventually confirmed. Hint: it's more than 1. >
  
  When the wife of a Supreme Court Justice attends an insurrection and that guy doesn't recuse himself from the case.. that'll do that. >
  
  Not just attended. Contacted public officials on their personal phones to pressure them into overthrowing the election or not certifying the vote at the very least. 
  She’s a traitor and so is he. >
  
  Honestly, seeing the response in Brazil to their insurrection has been really interesting. It seems like they’re just doing what America should have done. >
  
  I'm a little out of the loop on this, what has the response been so far? >
  
  They've arrested and detained about 1500 people so far, fired top officials that conspired/allowed it to happen, and apparently arrested the chiefs of the Military Police and Public Security Police.
  Basically everything the US should have done, but have dithered on and only gone after the MAGA minnows. >
  
  Wow, okay. So Brazil officially has its shit together more than the US. Good for them. They're actually doing what should be done. >
  
  They're also currently discussing freezing Bolsonaro's assets, seeing as he's currently hiding out in Florida. >
  
  I am old enough to remember a time when the SCOTUS was an esteemed institution. I no longer believe that. I think the first step was Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings with Anita Hill. Then there was Mitch McConnell's unwillingness to confirm Merrick Garland.  We went off the ledge with all the Trump appointments. I think I'll be dead before their credibility is restored. >
  
  I think the country will be dead. These people are given lifetime appointments and it seems we, the People, have no way to remove them from their appointment.
  Four years ago, when McConnell rushed in the Handmaid, I had friends actually crying and I thought they were being a little dramatic. I don't think that anymore. >
  
  
  we, the People, have no way to remove them from their appointment.
  
  The Founding Fathers did it. It's about time to do it again. >
  
  Please before I expire >
  
  Yup.  When repubs (specifically Senator McConnell)  used dubious morals to stack the court, many of us feared the court would tilt towards the more insane elements of the Right.  When the court overrode Roe and stopped the rights of half our population, what we feared became reality.  This court is not only politically partial, it is essentially immoral. >
  
  It's not about morals. It's about money, power and control.
  Their "think of the children!" moral arguments are just to manipulate the masses. >
  
  I disagree.  Well somewhat.  It is about control.  Religious control of our country from the Christian pulpit. >
  
  I think a lot of it is a desire for personal power hidden behind religion.
  Look at all the (R)'s that have had affairs, or pressured their mistresses into having abortions. Not even they practice what they preach. And they never will.
  They jumped on the religious bandwagon because "I'm a good Christian!" gets votes.
  It's not so much ideological, it's just plain greed. >
  
  Those genuinely religious seem especially susceptible to grifters wanting money or power.  I agree that many greedy and immoral people use religion as a door to both the money and power of the Christian religion.  That door is too easily opened in my opinion.  I wish the religious could be a bit more suspect of the grifters while retaining the very real applaudable morals they believe in.  Unfortunately, they remain ever gullible to anyone who claims to take the side of their lord. >
  
  I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. 
  - Susan B. Anthony >
  
  What a fucking G