comment: >
  
  Is he leading? No. But he's Chief Justice, so he's... "in charge" I guess. He should, in theory, have a bit more sway than the others. He was also thought to be more moderate than the other conservative justices. Has that panned out? Not really.
context: Roberts: Keep us safe!
  Also Roberts: cops are under no obligation to help you or stop a crime in progress. >
  
  June 19, 2022: bars civil suits against federal agents for violating a person's Constitutional rights
  June 27, 2022: bars lawsuits against police for using evidence obtained without advising people of their rights >
  
  They didn't ban lawsuits, they said the constitution doesn't grant a cause of action on its own. Congress can pass a law - they shouldn't get a free pass. >
  
  We already have the laws, the decisions are saying those laws can be ignored, but surely if you pass new laws, those we'll honor, promise. >
  
  As they screech about the left ideology, their elected representatives are swiping their rights away from under them. It’s infuriating watching this without any control in our country. >
  
  We have the ability to take control, we choose to not use it. This country was founded by people who got sick and tired of authoritarians telling them how to live their lives. I think Thomas Jefferson said it best: But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
  Our government has become a thing that our founding fathers did not envision and would not support.
  We have become complacent. I include myself in that criticism. >
  
  Also, the judicial system should not consist of blatant political partisans legislating from the bench, but here we are. >
  
  It is even worse than this, they are legislating from the pew.   They are doing whatever they can to make the US a Christian state. >
  
  "Christian", not Christian.
  There is not one aspect of how they conduct their lives that adheres to the teachings of Christ. The fact is that in most cases their doctrine is directly opposed to the teachings of Christ. >
  
  I still just call that Christian, it’s too widespread to split hairs now >
  
  I hear you. And I know that I'm swimming upstream on this. I've had people throw the No True Scotsman at me a few times.
  But, the fact is that Jesus himself said that there are things you have to do to be a follower of his. He said that his followers must feed the hungry, heal the sick, house the homeless, welcome foreigners, etc. He even went on to say that "How you treat the least of these is how you treat Me."
  So, if a person won't help these people, and, in fact, shows nothing but disdain for these people, how can they claim to be a Christian? It doesn't make sense to me. And, for the record, the No True Scotsman does not apply to situations where there are set rules in place in order to claim to be a member of the group in question. >
  
  It isn't particularly relevant that modern US citizens who call themselves "Christian" aren't following the original supposed values of Jesus. "Christianity" is a social phenomenon/movement, and as such evolves over time, not to mention splinters in to differing groups that can and do go in quite different directions. Sometimes they change their moniker to reflect their change in values, sometimes they don't.
  If you want to claim they aren't "Original Christians" or "Jesus-ites" or something, well... okay. It doesn't really change anything though. They call themselves "Christian". They consider themselves part of an organized religion. We don't have another established name to call them as a group, and they probably wouldn't accept being called anything else anyway. >
  
  I can accept the meaning of a word changing. I have a gay child. Yes, she's also generally happy.
  And if that's what we are experiencing with the word "Christianity" or "Christian", I can accept that. Just so long as they are not claiming that they follow the teachings of Christ. But they do make that claim, so I feel a need to call out the hypocrisy. >
  
  The public should not live in fear of the judicial system. 
  It is said that in Europe the governments are afraid of their people, while in the United States the people are afraid of their government. >
  
  My biggest fear is DeSantis. >
  
  Imagine trump, but he actually knows what he is doing. >
  
  Just cause he knows what he's doing doesn't mean he's good at it >
  
  Oh, he’s very good at it. And that’s a big problem for this country. >
  
  I mean he has been progressing his politics in Florida but hasn't necessarily gotten away with anything. All his shitty schemes have been revealed all along. I would like to hope it would be harder to pull off on a national level especially after we've been primed for this bs by trump but who knows these days >
  
  If they’re “revealed” but no consequences happen to him then how is he not getting away with what he’s doing? >
  
  Exactly. Trump's bullshit was revealed his entire presidency and absolutely nothing was ever done about it. Hell, a lot of it was done blatantly in front of the public. On camera.
  DeSantis would be an unmitigated disaster for the country. >
  
  His ideological party literally just spent 4+ years blindly supporting a guy that threatened judges and juries. >
  
  Donald Trump, angry over his Muslim ban being struck down: ''Can we just get rid of the judges? Let's get rid of the fucking judges. There shouldn't be any at all, really.' >
  
  Roberts is leading an illegitimate court. >
  
  Is he leading, though? Alito and Thomas mostly seem to be running this circus, with Barrett and Boof as their sideshow. He's complicit, sure. But "leading" might be too strong a word for whatever the fuck he's doing.