comment: >
  
  It's a MAGA court and MAGA are traitors
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 >
  
  Can't imagine why. >
  
  I don’t even know why this is news. Some already lost faith during trumps era. I did. Then Roe v Wade was the nail in the coffin. 
  I’m pissed these archaic dust bags will be dictating my life for the foreseeable future. >
  
  From column:
  Never in recent history, perhaps, have so many Americans viewed the Supreme Court as fundamentally partisan.
  Public approval of the nine-justice panel stands near historic lows. Declining faith in the institution seems rooted in a growing concern that the high court is deciding cases on politics, rather than law. In one recent poll, a majority of Americans opined that Supreme Court justices let partisan views influence major rulings.  
  Three quarters of Republicans approve of the high court’s recent job performance. But Democrats’ support has plummeted to 13 percent, and more than half the nation overall disapproves of how the court is doing its job. 
  Public support for the high court sank swiftly last summer in response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a landmark ruling that revoked a constitutional right to abortion. The decision delighted many conservatives but defied a large majority of Americans who believe abortion should be legal.  
  Yet, partisan anger runs deeper than Dobbs. Liberals are fuming about a confluence of lucky timing and political maneuvering that enabled a Republican-controlled Senate to approve three conservative justices in four years, knocking the panel out of synch with the American public. >
  
  
  a Republican-controlled Senate
  
  (Republicans elected by less than half of American voters, under a president who lost the popular vote) >
  
  A twice impeached, disgraced ex president under multiple criminal investigations who lost the popular vote >
  
  A failed real estate mogul credibly accused of at least 24 sexual assaults who palled around with one of history's most notorious child sex traffickers and met his future wife here from a Soviet-bloc country on a bogus "Einstein visa" while forever being unfailingly bizarrely/suspiciously obsequious to America's greatest adversary. >
  
  Don't forget bankrupt casino owner. Somehow lost money owning a casino... >
  
  They've taken up a case that could make strikes illegal - just one.more step towards Fascism. >
  
  Clearly they don't remember that strikes were the compromise instead of burning capitalists alive in front of their families... >
  
  Yep. If the goal of conservative judges is to keep the working class as poor and miserable as possible, there's really nothing for them to lose if they start specifically targeting capitalists and right wing judges with political violence. >
  
  Alright, so what's the next step we take when the Supreme Court is impartial? Ignore their rulings? >
  
  Wouldn't be the first time in history that their rulings were ignored. >
  
  They couldn’t give a shit what the public thinks. >
  
  Only since they very literally stole the presidency in 2000. >
  
  Right!?! I read the post title and thought "Welcome to the party! We've been going strong since 2000." >
  
  Because they’re not. >
  
  They just factually are not impartial. If this Supreme Court was the court of another country all the news articles about them would state that the court had been illegally packed by the conservatives over the past decade. >
  
  This is a great twitter thread of how the US would report about the US if we were any other country. >
  
  Lol, they're not. Why think otherwise? Thomas's wife literally was trying to help Trump overthrow the gov. 
  Gorsuch, Alito, and Barrett do whatever the Federalist Society tell them to. Shockingly Boof seems to be the least partial out of the hard-right justices. 
  We should generally stop holding the Ivy League up as some sort of standard. Their product has been god-awful. 
  They're private institutions that act as networking clubs for rich kids and a slush fund to funnel taxpayer money into private hands.
  Honestly I'd like a pres that refused to nominate any ivy grad (undergrad/jd/whatever) to any federal judgeship. >
  
  How's that legacy you were so worried about, Chief Justice John Roberts? >
  
  
  The Left was used to, for the most part, getting its way with the court,” said John Malcolm, a senior legal fellow at conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation.
  
  Is he referring to the 1940s? >
  
  
  Is he referring to the 1940s?
  
  It's the Warren Court in the 1960s and extended briefly into the early 1970s. That court gave us Roe and Miranda - and  that's what got the Republicans butthurt. It got them so incensed that they mounted an all out assault on the court with the Heritage Society and the Federalist Society.  
  It was a 50 year war and they won when Moscow Mitch packed the court with the Seat Thief, the Mean Drunken Rapist, and the COVID Handmaiden. >
  
  It didn't help that on top of scheming, political machinations, dirty tricks, and gobs of dark money from the likes of the Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, senate Republicans, etc., Republicans just got lucky.  It's a pretty horrible system.
  President (years) | SCOTUS apptointments | appts/year
  - | - | - 
  Nixon (6) | 4 | .667
  Ford (2) | 1 | .5
  Carter (4) | 0 | (n/a)
  Reagan  (8) | 3 | .375
  H. W. Bush (4) | 2 | 0.5
  Clinton  (8) | 2 | 0.25
  W. Bush (8) | 2 | 0.25
  Obama (8) | 2 | 0.25
  Trump (4) | 3 | 0.75
  Biden (2) | 1 | 0.5 >
  
  Hmmm, I can only wonder what could have possibly given them that thought. Anyways, it's been how I felt ever since Mitch McConnell violated my Constitutional Supreme Court pick with Obama. I vote for presidents with the Supreme Court on my mind, and this violated any pretense of fairness and impartiality.
  Obama had about eleven months left of his presidency when Scalia died and they didn't hold a hearing, saying it was too close to the election. Then Ginsberg dies with four months left in Trump's presidency, and suddenly the Senate decides it can easily seat her replacement. Yeah, the Supreme Court is heavily compromised.
  edited for a word >
  
  We had an attempted coup with the wife of a Supreme Court Justice, not only in the middle of it, but actively aiding it, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. The Supreme Court has lost all impartiality. >
  
  22% of 330 million Americans identified as Catholic.
  78% of SCOTUS (7 out of 9) identified as Catholic. >
  
  
  78% of SCOTUS (7 out of 9) identified as Catholic.
  
  One of whom traveled to a conference in his role as a SC Justice just outside the Vatican where one of the sessions he contributed to was on "Entrenching our beliefs into legal code".
  When someone is willing to do that, what are the odds they will rule in an unbiased fashion about any religious separation issues? >
  
  What?! Who? >
  
  "Believe" is a generous word. I don't "believe" the sky is blue. >
  
  It's quite clear the conservative justices have an agenda. >
  
  The Supreme Court has convinced the American public through their own actions actions that they are not impartial. >
  
  Never has been >
  
  They lied under oath about roe. It was settled law until it wasn’t. Of course they’re impartial three of them were sat by a traitor another is married to one. >
  
  It objectively is not impartial, so of course the public is going to arrive at that conclusion >
  
  I'll say it once again:  
  
  Roe was an unpopular decision made by an unpopular Supreme Court packed with the nominees of unpopular presidents who were confirmed by an unpopular Senate led by an unpopular Senate majority leader who is part of an unpopular party in an unpopular Congress. 
  
  What could go wrong? ^^^/s  
  
  A previous comment here to expand on this:  
  Two very obviously telling stats I always resort to are as follows:  
  
  
  Republicans haven't won the popular vote to become president since 1988; 34 years ago, and he was a one-term president  
  
  
  The current Supreme Court is a reflection of how unrepresentative and unfair the rule of law and federal government overall is:  
  
  
  6 of the 9 Supreme Court seats are filled by conservative-appointed justices.  
  
  
  5 of those 6 justices were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote to become president.  
  
  
  3 of those 5 justices were appointed by a president who not only lost the popular vote, but was impeached twice and has been documented by multiple investigative authorities as being helped into office by way of Russian efforts.  
  
  
  1 of the 6 willfully accepted his appointment into a vacancy intentionally held open by the Republican Senate majority leader who blocked the opposing party's 1st and only presidential nomination, citing an upcoming election "to let the people decide", which was 237 days out.  
  
  
  the 6th conservative justice was nominated 35 days before the 2020 election, the shortest period of time between nomination and the next presidential election in US history.  She was confirmed only 8 days before the election.  She also willfully accepted her nomination by an already impeached president who went on to become a twice-impeached president following her appointment that took place before the election he lost.  
  
  
  The only 1 of the 6 conservative appointed justices who was appointed by a Republican president who won the popular vote was credibly accused of sexual misconduct before being confirmed, and he is not the only one of the 6 to be.  He is also currently under scrutiny for his wife's role in an insurrection and his own dissent on a case involving her role.  
  
  
  All 6 are members of The Federalist Society, a conservative organization known to have associations with dark money and vast influence in conservative politics.  
  
  
  An unprecedented leak that still goes unresolved preceded the overturning of Roe v Wade, removing major rights from Americans for the first time in roughly 50 years, and going against several of the prospective justices' positions during confirmation hearings.  
  
  
  The Senate is undemocratic - it's the most powerful body of government and does not represent the people fairly, or at all.  Yet it's entirely responsible for the second bullet point, among other things, and nearly all policy. >
  
  At the age of 35, I only realized in recent years just how powerful SCOTUS is. Being able to change laws with the stroke of a pen when you can hold your position for 40 years is so damn dangerous in hindsight. >
  
  That's why relying on precedent is so important. And why perhaps the worst thing this court has done is to completely disregard precedent. Yes, some rulings are bad and should be overturned. But when you completely disregard precedent it turns the court into basically the new legislative branch who can change any and every law they see fit on a whim. It's also why their decisions to overlook lack of standing and their pattern of ruling far beyond the scope of their cases is such a problem. Those two things as well in the past helped to keep the Supreme Court from being as powerful as it is today. Unfortunately standing, precedent, and scope were just things that court respected with nothing actually binding the court to respect them. >
  
  That’s because it’s not. >
  
  The United States has been replaced by a soft theocracy, and it's getting stronger every single day. The religious minority has a stranglehold on our nation. >
  
  Because it’s not lol…it’s all about ideology now and not the law or it’s ramifications. >
  
  Never fails to amaze me how this sentiment has only really become widespread over the past ~4 years.
  SCOTUS showed its true colors in Bush v. Gore and it has been a downward spiral since. Not to say SCOTUS has not made horrific, backwards decisions throughout time, but there has been a consistent pattern over the last 20 years that has seemingly flew under the radar until very recently. >
  
  It’s almost like they are blatantly partisan or something >
  
  The court has become an activist court. Not just an impartial one. 
  The media always seeks to present a sense of normality even when things are completely abnormal. >
  
  Yup. No mention of the court actively making up "facts" in cases to justify them reaching their predetermined conclusions. >
  
  When all you need is one historical figure to support your conclusion, you don't need to make up facts. I'm sure I could find a historical figure to support almost any position. >
  
  But they did. And everyone just shrugged.
  Massive violence is coming... I don't see this going any other way. Shits fucked. >
  
  Not even from the US and it's clear as day that it's not impartial.
  But was it ever, considering it is always politically appointed judges?
  Maybe it's just MORE partisan now than it was, but I dont think you can say its ever been truly impartial seeing as they're politically appointed judges >
  
  Exactly the whole system is bizarre. Why tf do you have politicians appointing judges. 1700s political theory and ideas are in desperate need of an update. >
  
  Did anyone ever think that? >
  
  Hard to argue otherwise. >
  
  Of course the public doesn't. The court is absolutely biased. It's a disgrace. >
  
  Could have something to do with the conservative political activists that sit on the bench >
  
  If all legal avenues are exhausted, what's left? >
  
  Is this poll from 2000 when they picked the President? >
  
  Alt headline: American public has eyes and ears. >
  
  Absolutely RICH coming from the most influential public policy organization in our whole country. 
  Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society and CATO are the behemoths who are driving the fundamental shift in the judicial branch since the 1980s. 
  
  Now that the Left is not getting its way with the court, they’re trying to tear it down and delegitimize it
  
  Who destroyed almost a 60 year ruling for a human right that has massively improved our society since its ruling? One the largest retractions in a human right in modern history? 
  Who has destroyed "Federalism" for "States' Rights" while providing no guidance? Leaving a free for all at the state level and has increased in-fighting between states? >
  
  No shit. >
  
  ...and they are right! >
  
  And in other news, the sky is blue and grass is green. >
  
  Captain Obvious wrote that article >
  
  Why do you think it matters to the political parties whether a judge is from the Democrats or the Republicans ? Because they are not impartial ! >
  
  That's your legacy, John Roberts. Cheers! >
  
  They were appointed on purpose specifically to enforce conservative viewpoints.  That is an objective, known fact, not a belief. >
  
  The American public is correct. Good job guys. >
  
  The nomination process was a joke under Trump, and Clarence Thomas' wife helped in an attempted coup. Oh yeah, and Trump likely threatened Breyer in order to get an additional appointment during his term. How could we possibly think it's impartial?
  Edit: typo
  Edit: oh yeah, and Mitch Tits McConnell held up the nomination of a qualified judge for almost a year so that his treasonous shill of a president, who lost the popular vote by millions could steal the pick. The court is essentially a sham. >
  
  I no longer think they are competent. >
  
  What was most troubling was the undue partisanship of the nomination process. McConnell used spurious reasoning for denying Merrick Garland’s nomination and then jammed through Amy Barrett’s at the last minute ignoring his own reasoning for denying Garland’s nomination, essentially packing the Court ideologically. >
  
  When the wife of a SCOTUS judge is caught trying to overthrow the government with other high level officials and nothing happens, it's hard to imagine there is any impartiality, especially when three justices were replaced by a president that lost the popular vote. 
  The pigs are standing on their hind legs and rewriting the rules on the wall. There simply is no legitimacy. >
  
  Supreme courts job is to rule on the constitution. Not public opinion. >
  
  That would be because they make it VERY clear that THEY’RE NOT >
  
  Why did anyone think they were impartial before? It never had been. >
  
  
  The American public no longer believes the Supreme Court is ~~impartial~~ legitimate
  
  FTFY >
  
  After Trump installed the religious zealots, how could anyone pretend it’s impartial? >
  
  They lost impartiality when Republicans refused to elect any democratic picks AND then lowered the required to a simple majority. 
  Republicans prove over and over again to break their own rules just to gain control >
  
  Wonder why. Surely nothing to do with them going down the conservative wishlist at break neck speed throwing out years of precedence with flimsy to no reasoning. Seems like a very impartial thing to do. >
  
  Uh oh, the American public is crossing Alito's line! >
  
  Humans are not impartial.  Institutions are not impartial.  The issue is that the Supreme Court of the past had made things more fair, to grant opportunities to people to live their best lives.  Now the Supreme Court wants there to winners and losers in the life.  And the want the winners to keep winning and the losers to keep losing. >
  
  When you lie on the stand about your beliefs and then strip women of their civil rights that is bound to happen. >
  
  Because it isn’t. >
  
  Shocked pikachu face lol >
  
  The Supreme Court has never been partial and its great that people have finally caught on. Rules of interpretation and precedent are constantly manipulated by the courts to decide a case, not by merit and facts, but rather whatever the judges want. >
  
  Because they're clearly not impartial.  They've become the GOP's lap dogs.  It's depressing that we're stuck with them for the foreseeable future. >
  
  Because it’s not and they’ve shown us this much >
  
  It’s not… >
  
  The Heritage Foundations cackling intensifies. The Koch brothers organization cackling intensifies. 
  Corporatism, Oligarchy, Religious Fascism. >
  
  This isn’t news, we learned this when they overturned Roe v. Wade. >
  
  I mean, no shit?
  Literally nothing in government is impartial.
  If you’re only realizing this because of Dobbs… maybe you’re in a bit of a bubble >
  
  Gee. I wonder why. >
  
  That’s because it isn’t. >
  
  I wonder why they could possibly think that? >
  
  Idk but now we’re all gonna get yelled at by Alito about it 🙄 >
  
  But if you pack it with a bunch of liberals, it would totally be impartial. >
  
  Well yea, when they put 3 conservative judges, that were very religious, it changed the landscape extremely away from balance and reason. The one thing I always appreciated about the SC was reading all the cases that became precedent and were argued on rational grounds rather than hate and greed. Now it's just corporations and what their religion agrees with. >
  
  They're not. They're bought off just like every other politician in existence. >
  
  15 years ago as a British student studying American politics, I was taught that the supreme court was heavily politisized - a constant battle for a  conservative or liberal majority based on the appointment of (literal) politicians. Did Americans believe it was an impartial institution back then, and if so why? >
  
  Not only impartial, but the length they go to in order to justify their decisions is unbelievable and inhumane. Citing centuries old jurisprudence such as how Dobbs was argued in order to rationalize not only abortion rights, but laid the groundwork to overturn other settled law such as Loving and Obergefell. >
  
  Gee, maybe if they didn't pull their fascist judges DIRECTLY from cults like the FedSoc & "People of Praise", citizens would be more easily fooled by the obvious move to take away our rights. >
  
  Anyone appointed by Trump should be removed from office.  Sucks for them >
  
  The Supreme Court overstepped by overturning Roe v. Wade. The institution is obsolete & should be dismantled. >
  
  That's because they're not. 
  It was the GOP's long-term goal, and they succeeded. Source: Mitch McConnell >
  
  Impartial or not, the American public has come to realize that politicians AND the Supreme Court, do not operate with the People’s best interests at heart. >
  
  If I can predict with great accuracy how a Justice will vote by knowing who nominated them, it ain't impartial. >
  
  Impartial, or indeed, legitimate >
  
  Because they’re objectively not. Even their behavior outside the court would lead you to that conclusion. >
  
  Brett Kavanaugh perjured himself during his own confirmation hearing by lying to downplay his history of working closely with the Republican Party. It hasn't even been pretending to be impartial since 2018. >
  
  It's pretty obvious ! >
  
  The makeup of the current court is not the least of Trump's assaults on the fabric of our country >
  
  I don't believe in SCOTUS ability to be unbiased. Especially now they are party and personally driven. I don't think they should get a life long appointment and citizens should be able to vote who gets the position >
  
  People with uteruses: yeah duh >
  
  Not surprising, considering it's fundamentally a political body. >
  
  I wonder what gave it away… >
  
  Biased judges hired because of the federalist society >
  
  They make it quite obvious >
  
  What, the small group of rich people who have more or less unchecked power and aren’t elected aren’t impartial? Who could have guessed! >
  
  It's a MAGA court and MAGA are traitors >
  
  Once abortion was thrown out and they set out a full fence three times higher than the capitol had on January 6th to defend themselves should have been the wake up call that they were impartial. They had the whole police force guarding the supreme court that day as well. They know what they are doing and they understand they are destroying American lives. >
  
  I mean when you pass laws based on your religion (Christianity) and your religion alone, ofc it seems biased >
  
  Do you think that possibly has something to do with they are no longer a body of impartial judges but in fact have political agendas? >
  
  Well duh. They aren’t impartial. The killing of Roe vs Wade showed that. The justices don’t uphold the law. They uphold their beliefs. >
  
  Because they're not. They schemed and scammed their way to nominating a right-wing majority. Those nominees promised - up and down, day after day - that they weren't partisan and were going to keep things running as they always have been.
  Then they immediately fucked over women by overturning Roe vs Wade - a specific example they said they were not going to do - and telegraphing that they were going to keep up the hardline conservative bullshit in their opinions.
  SCOTUS needs some fucking term limits. >
  
  move this poor excuse of a court out of Washington. put them in a poor city. Expand the "court" to 50 members. Mandatory IRS and security audits. Let each case be heard by randomized 11 members or an odd numbers. Let the voters choose chief justice every 5 years. REFORM IT! >
  
  Only because they've demonstrated that they are not. They've also shown that they are 100% OK with lying to further a conservative agenda that is unpopular with the majority of Americans. >
  
  They haven’t been for a long time. They are beholden to corporate interests, just like most of our politicians. >
  
  The truth is that, except for the 15 years or so when Earl Warren was the chief justice, the supreme court has always been a conservative, if not reactionary, institution.   For example FDR had to threaten them with court expansion to prevent them from dismantling the New Deal.   Or back in 1881 when they twisted the 14th amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship to create corporate personhood based on a lie they knew was a lie.   And then of course there are heinous rulings like Dred Scott (black people are not citizens) and Korematsu (putting American japanese in concentration camps).
  The mistake liberals made was trying to defend the rulings of the Warren court as impartial instead of simply saying "these are good, principled liberal rulings."   So even after Warren retired and the court reverted to its typical right-wing lean, liberals had to keep up the pretense.    They basically gaslighted their own voters into thinking all the right-wing rulings since were impartial,  when any truly objective observer could see that they were plainly not. >
  
  Consistently the right wing/white nationalists making life worse. >
  
  The Christian Taliban needs to be stopped. >
  
  Which is a good thing because it’s not. >
  
  Look what you've done, republicans. >
  
  It's the klan court and we all know it. It needs to be right-sized or dismantled. They are the enemy of the American people >
  
  The American Public no longer believes the government works in the average citizen's best interest, either. Because it doesn't and never has. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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" >
  
  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. >
  
  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 >
  
  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. >
  
  After that and the shit he pulled with the appointment under Obama he should..... reddit would ban me. >
  
  I think that piece of hypocrisy is one of the most enraging things I've witnessed in my life. No decency. >
  
  From column:
  Never in recent history, perhaps, have so many Americans viewed the Supreme Court as fundamentally partisan.
  Public approval of the nine-justice panel stands near historic lows. Declining faith in the institution seems rooted in a growing concern that the high court is deciding cases on politics, rather than law. In one recent poll, a majority of Americans opined that Supreme Court justices let partisan views influence major rulings.  
  Three quarters of Republicans approve of the high court’s recent job performance. But Democrats’ support has plummeted to 13 percent, and more than half the nation overall disapproves of how the court is doing its job. 
  Public support for the high court sank swiftly last summer in response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a landmark ruling that revoked a constitutional right to abortion. The decision delighted many conservatives but defied a large majority of Americans who believe abortion should be legal.  
  Yet, partisan anger runs deeper than Dobbs. Liberals are fuming about a confluence of lucky timing and political maneuvering that enabled a Republican-controlled Senate to approve three conservative justices in four years, knocking the panel out of synch with the American public. >
  
  
  a Republican-controlled Senate
  
  (Republicans elected by less than half of American voters, under a president who lost the popular vote) >
  
  A twice impeached, disgraced ex president under multiple criminal investigations who lost the popular vote >
  
  A failed real estate mogul credibly accused of at least 24 sexual assaults who palled around with one of history's most notorious child sex traffickers and met his future wife here from a Soviet-bloc country on a bogus "Einstein visa" while forever being unfailingly bizarrely/suspiciously obsequious to America's greatest adversary. >
  
  Don't forget bankrupt casino owner. Somehow lost money owning a casino... >
  
  They've taken up a case that could make strikes illegal - just one.more step towards Fascism. >
  
  Clearly they don't remember that strikes were the compromise instead of burning capitalists alive in front of their families... >
  
  Alright, so what's the next step we take when the Supreme Court is impartial? Ignore their rulings? >
  
  Wouldn't be the first time in history that their rulings were ignored. >
  
  They couldn’t give a shit what the public thinks. >
  
  Can't imagine why. >
  
  I don’t even know why this is news. Some already lost faith during trumps era. I did. Then Roe v Wade was the nail in the coffin. 
  I’m pissed these archaic dust bags will be dictating my life for the foreseeable future. >
  
  Only since they very literally stole the presidency in 2000. >
  
  Right!?! I read the post title and thought "Welcome to the party! We've been going strong since 2000." >
  
  Because they’re not. >
  
  They just factually are not impartial. If this Supreme Court was the court of another country all the news articles about them would state that the court had been illegally packed by the conservatives over the past decade. >
  
  This is a great twitter thread of how the US would report about the US if we were any other country. >
  
  How's that legacy you were so worried about, Chief Justice John Roberts? >
  
  Lol, they're not. Why think otherwise? Thomas's wife literally was trying to help Trump overthrow the gov. 
  Gorsuch, Alito, and Barrett do whatever the Federalist Society tell them to. Shockingly Boof seems to be the least partial out of the hard-right justices. 
  We should generally stop holding the Ivy League up as some sort of standard. Their product has been god-awful. 
  They're private institutions that act as networking clubs for rich kids and a slush fund to funnel taxpayer money into private hands.
  Honestly I'd like a pres that refused to nominate any ivy grad (undergrad/jd/whatever) to any federal judgeship. >
  
  
  The Left was used to, for the most part, getting its way with the court,” said John Malcolm, a senior legal fellow at conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation.
  
  Is he referring to the 1940s? >
  
  
  Is he referring to the 1940s?
  
  It's the Warren Court in the 1960s and extended briefly into the early 1970s. That court gave us Roe and Miranda - and  that's what got the Republicans butthurt. It got them so incensed that they mounted an all out assault on the court with the Heritage Society and the Federalist Society.  
  It was a 50 year war and they won when Moscow Mitch packed the court with the Seat Thief, the Mean Drunken Rapist, and the COVID Handmaiden. >
  
  It didn't help that on top of scheming, political machinations, dirty tricks, and gobs of dark money from the likes of the Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, senate Republicans, etc., Republicans just got lucky.  It's a pretty horrible system.
  President (years) | SCOTUS apptointments | appts/year
  - | - | - 
  Nixon (6) | 4 | .667
  Ford (2) | 1 | .5
  Carter (4) | 0 | (n/a)
  Reagan  (8) | 3 | .375
  H. W. Bush (4) | 2 | 0.5
  Clinton  (8) | 2 | 0.25
  W. Bush (8) | 2 | 0.25
  Obama (8) | 2 | 0.25
  Trump (4) | 3 | 0.75
  Biden (2) | 1 | 0.5 >
  
  Hmmm, I can only wonder what could have possibly given them that thought. Anyways, it's been how I felt ever since Mitch McConnell violated my Constitutional Supreme Court pick with Obama. I vote for presidents with the Supreme Court on my mind, and this violated any pretense of fairness and impartiality.
  Obama had about eleven months left of his presidency when Scalia died and they didn't hold a hearing, saying it was too close to the election. Then Ginsberg dies with four months left in Trump's presidency, and suddenly the Senate decides it can easily seat her replacement. Yeah, the Supreme Court is heavily compromised.
  edited for a word >
  
  We had an attempted coup with the wife of a Supreme Court Justice, not only in the middle of it, but actively aiding it, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. The Supreme Court has lost all impartiality. >
  
  22% of 330 million Americans identified as Catholic.
  78% of SCOTUS (7 out of 9) identified as Catholic. >
  
  
  78% of SCOTUS (7 out of 9) identified as Catholic.
  
  One of whom traveled to a conference in his role as a SC Justice just outside the Vatican where one of the sessions he contributed to was on "Entrenching our beliefs into legal code".
  When someone is willing to do that, what are the odds they will rule in an unbiased fashion about any religious separation issues? >
  
  What?! Who? >
  
  "Believe" is a generous word. I don't "believe" the sky is blue. >
  
  It's quite clear the conservative justices have an agenda. >
  
  The Supreme Court has convinced the American public through their own actions actions that they are not impartial. >
  
  Never has been >
  
  They lied under oath about roe. It was settled law until it wasn’t. Of course they’re impartial three of them were sat by a traitor another is married to one. >
  
  I'll say it once again:  
  
  Roe was an unpopular decision made by an unpopular Supreme Court packed with the nominees of unpopular presidents who were confirmed by an unpopular Senate led by an unpopular Senate majority leader who is part of an unpopular party in an unpopular Congress. 
  
  What could go wrong? ^^^/s  
  
  A previous comment here to expand on this:  
  Two very obviously telling stats I always resort to are as follows:  
  
  
  Republicans haven't won the popular vote to become president since 1988; 34 years ago, and he was a one-term president  
  
  
  The current Supreme Court is a reflection of how unrepresentative and unfair the rule of law and federal government overall is:  
  
  
  6 of the 9 Supreme Court seats are filled by conservative-appointed justices.  
  
  
  5 of those 6 justices were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote to become president.  
  
  
  3 of those 5 justices were appointed by a president who not only lost the popular vote, but was impeached twice and has been documented by multiple investigative authorities as being helped into office by way of Russian efforts.  
  
  
  1 of the 6 willfully accepted his appointment into a vacancy intentionally held open by the Republican Senate majority leader who blocked the opposing party's 1st and only presidential nomination, citing an upcoming election "to let the people decide", which was 237 days out.  
  
  
  the 6th conservative justice was nominated 35 days before the 2020 election, the shortest period of time between nomination and the next presidential election in US history.  She was confirmed only 8 days before the election.  She also willfully accepted her nomination by an already impeached president who went on to become a twice-impeached president following her appointment that took place before the election he lost.  
  
  
  The only 1 of the 6 conservative appointed justices who was appointed by a Republican president who won the popular vote was credibly accused of sexual misconduct before being confirmed, and he is not the only one of the 6 to be.  He is also currently under scrutiny for his wife's role in an insurrection and his own dissent on a case involving her role.  
  
  
  All 6 are members of The Federalist Society, a conservative organization known to have associations with dark money and vast influence in conservative politics.  
  
  
  An unprecedented leak that still goes unresolved preceded the overturning of Roe v Wade, removing major rights from Americans for the first time in roughly 50 years, and going against several of the prospective justices' positions during confirmation hearings.  
  
  
  The Senate is undemocratic - it's the most powerful body of government and does not represent the people fairly, or at all.  Yet it's entirely responsible for the second bullet point, among other things, and nearly all policy. >
  
  At the age of 35, I only realized in recent years just how powerful SCOTUS is. Being able to change laws with the stroke of a pen when you can hold your position for 40 years is so damn dangerous in hindsight. >
  
  That's why relying on precedent is so important. And why perhaps the worst thing this court has done is to completely disregard precedent. Yes, some rulings are bad and should be overturned. But when you completely disregard precedent it turns the court into basically the new legislative branch who can change any and every law they see fit on a whim. It's also why their decisions to overlook lack of standing and their pattern of ruling far beyond the scope of their cases is such a problem. Those two things as well in the past helped to keep the Supreme Court from being as powerful as it is today. Unfortunately standing, precedent, and scope were just things that court respected with nothing actually binding the court to respect them. >
  
  It objectively is not impartial, so of course the public is going to arrive at that conclusion >
  
  That’s because it’s not. >
  
  The United States has been replaced by a soft theocracy, and it's getting stronger every single day. The religious minority has a stranglehold on our nation. >
  
  Because it’s not lol…it’s all about ideology now and not the law or it’s ramifications. >
  
  Never fails to amaze me how this sentiment has only really become widespread over the past ~4 years.
  SCOTUS showed its true colors in Bush v. Gore and it has been a downward spiral since. Not to say SCOTUS has not made horrific, backwards decisions throughout time, but there has been a consistent pattern over the last 20 years that has seemingly flew under the radar until very recently. >
  
  It’s almost like they are blatantly partisan or something >
  
  The court has become an activist court. Not just an impartial one. 
  The media always seeks to present a sense of normality even when things are completely abnormal. >
  
  Yup. No mention of the court actively making up "facts" in cases to justify them reaching their predetermined conclusions. >
  
  When all you need is one historical figure to support your conclusion, you don't need to make up facts. I'm sure I could find a historical figure to support almost any position. >
  
  But they did. And everyone just shrugged.
  Massive violence is coming... I don't see this going any other way. Shits fucked. >
  
  Not even from the US and it's clear as day that it's not impartial.
  But was it ever, considering it is always politically appointed judges?
  Maybe it's just MORE partisan now than it was, but I dont think you can say its ever been truly impartial seeing as they're politically appointed judges >
  
  Exactly the whole system is bizarre. Why tf do you have politicians appointing judges. 1700s political theory and ideas are in desperate need of an update. >
  
  Did anyone ever think that? >
  
  Hard to argue otherwise. >
  
  Of course the public doesn't. The court is absolutely biased. It's a disgrace. >
  
  Could have something to do with the conservative political activists that sit on the bench >
  
  If all legal avenues are exhausted, what's left? >
  
  Is this poll from 2000 when they picked the President? >
  
  Alt headline: American public has eyes and ears. >
  
  Absolutely RICH coming from the most influential public policy organization in our whole country. 
  Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society and CATO are the behemoths who are driving the fundamental shift in the judicial branch since the 1980s. 
  
  Now that the Left is not getting its way with the court, they’re trying to tear it down and delegitimize it
  
  Who destroyed almost a 60 year ruling for a human right that has massively improved our society since its ruling? One the largest retractions in a human right in modern history? 
  Who has destroyed "Federalism" for "States' Rights" while providing no guidance? Leaving a free for all at the state level and has increased in-fighting between states? >
  
  No shit. >
  
  ...and they are right! >
  
  And in other news, the sky is blue and grass is green. >
  
  Captain Obvious wrote that article >
  
  Why do you think it matters to the political parties whether a judge is from the Democrats or the Republicans ? Because they are not impartial ! >
  
  That's your legacy, John Roberts. Cheers! >
  
  They were appointed on purpose specifically to enforce conservative viewpoints.  That is an objective, known fact, not a belief. >
  
  The American public is correct. Good job guys. >
  
  The nomination process was a joke under Trump, and Clarence Thomas' wife helped in an attempted coup. Oh yeah, and Trump likely threatened Breyer in order to get an additional appointment during his term. How could we possibly think it's impartial?
  Edit: typo
  Edit: oh yeah, and Mitch Tits McConnell held up the nomination of a qualified judge for almost a year so that his treasonous shill of a president, who lost the popular vote by millions could steal the pick. The court is essentially a sham. >
  
  I no longer think they are competent. >
  
  What was most troubling was the undue partisanship of the nomination process. McConnell used spurious reasoning for denying Merrick Garland’s nomination and then jammed through Amy Barrett’s at the last minute ignoring his own reasoning for denying Garland’s nomination, essentially packing the Court ideologically. >
  
  When the wife of a SCOTUS judge is caught trying to overthrow the government with other high level officials and nothing happens, it's hard to imagine there is any impartiality, especially when three justices were replaced by a president that lost the popular vote. 
  The pigs are standing on their hind legs and rewriting the rules on the wall. There simply is no legitimacy. >
  
  Supreme courts job is to rule on the constitution. Not public opinion. >
  
  That would be because they make it VERY clear that THEY’RE NOT >
  
  Why did anyone think they were impartial before? It never had been. >
  
  
  The American public no longer believes the Supreme Court is ~~impartial~~ legitimate
  
  FTFY >
  
  After Trump installed the religious zealots, how could anyone pretend it’s impartial? >
  
  They lost impartiality when Republicans refused to elect any democratic picks AND then lowered the required to a simple majority. 
  Republicans prove over and over again to break their own rules just to gain control >
  
  Wonder why. Surely nothing to do with them going down the conservative wishlist at break neck speed throwing out years of precedence with flimsy to no reasoning. Seems like a very impartial thing to do. >
  
  Uh oh, the American public is crossing Alito's line! >
  
  Humans are not impartial.  Institutions are not impartial.  The issue is that the Supreme Court of the past had made things more fair, to grant opportunities to people to live their best lives.  Now the Supreme Court wants there to winners and losers in the life.  And the want the winners to keep winning and the losers to keep losing. >
  
  When you lie on the stand about your beliefs and then strip women of their civil rights that is bound to happen. >
  
  Because it isn’t. >
  
  Shocked pikachu face lol >
  
  The Supreme Court has never been partial and its great that people have finally caught on. Rules of interpretation and precedent are constantly manipulated by the courts to decide a case, not by merit and facts, but rather whatever the judges want. >
  
  Because they're clearly not impartial.  They've become the GOP's lap dogs.  It's depressing that we're stuck with them for the foreseeable future. >
  
  Because it’s not and they’ve shown us this much >
  
  It’s not… >
  
  The Heritage Foundations cackling intensifies. The Koch brothers organization cackling intensifies. 
  Corporatism, Oligarchy, Religious Fascism. >
  
  This isn’t news, we learned this when they overturned Roe v. Wade. >
  
  I mean, no shit?
  Literally nothing in government is impartial.
  If you’re only realizing this because of Dobbs… maybe you’re in a bit of a bubble >
  
  Gee. I wonder why. >
  
  That’s because it isn’t. >
  
  I wonder why they could possibly think that? >
  
  Idk but now we’re all gonna get yelled at by Alito about it 🙄 >
  
  But if you pack it with a bunch of liberals, it would totally be impartial. >
  
  Well yea, when they put 3 conservative judges, that were very religious, it changed the landscape extremely away from balance and reason. The one thing I always appreciated about the SC was reading all the cases that became precedent and were argued on rational grounds rather than hate and greed. Now it's just corporations and what their religion agrees with. >
  
  They're not. They're bought off just like every other politician in existence. >
  
  15 years ago as a British student studying American politics, I was taught that the supreme court was heavily politisized - a constant battle for a  conservative or liberal majority based on the appointment of (literal) politicians. Did Americans believe it was an impartial institution back then, and if so why? >
  
  Not only impartial, but the length they go to in order to justify their decisions is unbelievable and inhumane. Citing centuries old jurisprudence such as how Dobbs was argued in order to rationalize not only abortion rights, but laid the groundwork to overturn other settled law such as Loving and Obergefell. >
  
  Gee, maybe if they didn't pull their fascist judges DIRECTLY from cults like the FedSoc & "People of Praise", citizens would be more easily fooled by the obvious move to take away our rights. >
  
  Anyone appointed by Trump should be removed from office.  Sucks for them >
  
  The Supreme Court overstepped by overturning Roe v. Wade. The institution is obsolete & should be dismantled. >
  
  That's because they're not. 
  It was the GOP's long-term goal, and they succeeded. Source: Mitch McConnell >
  
  Impartial or not, the American public has come to realize that politicians AND the Supreme Court, do not operate with the People’s best interests at heart. >
  
  If I can predict with great accuracy how a Justice will vote by knowing who nominated them, it ain't impartial. >
  
  Impartial, or indeed, legitimate >
  
  Because they’re objectively not. Even their behavior outside the court would lead you to that conclusion. >
  
  Brett Kavanaugh perjured himself during his own confirmation hearing by lying to downplay his history of working closely with the Republican Party. It hasn't even been pretending to be impartial since 2018. >
  
  It's pretty obvious ! >
  
  The makeup of the current court is not the least of Trump's assaults on the fabric of our country >
  
  I don't believe in SCOTUS ability to be unbiased. Especially now they are party and personally driven. I don't think they should get a life long appointment and citizens should be able to vote who gets the position >
  
  People with uteruses: yeah duh >
  
  Not surprising, considering it's fundamentally a political body. >
  
  I wonder what gave it away… >
  
  Biased judges hired because of the federalist society >
  
  They make it quite obvious >
  
  What, the small group of rich people who have more or less unchecked power and aren’t elected aren’t impartial? Who could have guessed!