comment: >
  
  Then stop doing shady fucked up shit.
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. >
  
  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. >
  
  It's a silly system. The last guy in charge left so the next new guy they hire is the boss. No one listens to the new boss when he just started the job >
  
  We have many aspects of our system that are dumb, this is absolutely one. The Chief Justice should be voted on by the other Justices on the Bench at the time the old Chief Justice is replaced. End of story. >
  
  Is that his way of saying that they shouldn't be accountable to the American people, or what? >
  
  Most American politicians think they’re rulers and overlords and not public servants. This isn’t a novel thing. >
  
  Maybe giving justices lifetime appointments with no oversight was a mistake. >
  
  Is he still trying to pretend that the Supreme Court isn’t just a tool controlled by the most conservative wing of the Republican Party? >
  
  In its defense the last time the Supreme Court was unbiased was never remember they gave them selves judicial review and the power to over ride any law short of a constitutional amendment >
  
  Why didn't they ask Clarence Thomas, the head of the Supreme Court? >
  
  You spelt Ginni wrong >
  
  Hey, Chief Justice, I live in daily fear that the wife of the currently longest serving Supreme Court justice isn't going to face any consequences for blatant sedition solely because she's married to the currently longest serving Supreme Court justice.  What are you going to do about that? >
  
  Well, I guess this signals which way he'll swing on Moore. >
  
  I hope not,  but I fear you might be right. >
  
  It's like, I mostly agree, but than I really think fascists should live in fear!
  Conundrum, but wait! I have an idea!
  Let's just get all fascists out of any seat of power within the judicial system! >
  
  Don't want to live in fear, don't rule against the people. >
  
  “The justiciable system cannot and should not live in fear… [that’s for women and gays]”
  -John Roberts 2022 >
  
  What a sick, delusional and twisted fuck this man is.
  
  The chief justice likened the divisive environment swirling around the current court to the years after the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that desegregated America's schools.
  
  He literally is comparing himself and his regressive, unethically nominated, Christofascist buddies to the first judge to allow desegregation, a landmark progressive event.
  These guys are pure evil, and they are going to pull every card in the book to persuade themselves and their supporters that they're doing the right thing. >
  
  This was my takeaway as well. He literally equated striking down Roe v Wade with Brown v Board of Education. Like no asshole, taking away rights in no way equates to giving them. >
  
  Yea but Roe was bad law it’s probably the worst argued and decide case studies in US Legal history, but the real blame is on congress who for decades refused to pass abortion protection into law. It’s honestly surprising that it lasted as long as it did considering at the time most legal analysts thought that it had no chance in being found in favor of roe >
  
  It's only "badly argued" if you adhere to strict constitutionism, which is akin to Biblical literalism... The idea that nothing is legal except the exact words written 200/2,000 years ago, as understood by the writers at the time, except only conservatives get to interpret what that understanding was/is and no, you can't quote the original authors from their other writings to show what they say they meant.
  Even by this bullshit standard, many recent arguments by conservatives on this court are ridiculously inadequate.
  Now if you interpret the constitution and precedent differently to say that things are rights unless explicitly denied, well we're in a different situation. Conservatives on this court give rights to corporations, not women. >
  
  Well if we want to talk campaign finance I’m with it’s BS corporate lobbying but I disagree on purely libertarian grounds the founding fathers gave us ways to pass new amendments if strict constitutional was not the purposes there would be no need for constitutional amendments but we have been having this argument since Jefferson I personally think he was right but that’s my opinion >
  
  A broad strokes document like the constitution cannot encompass everything, especially in a case where we are legislatively incapable of passing a new amendment. When in doubt, it's not the Supreme Court's job to legislate or go against popular opinion that often exceeds 80% of the population. By that logic, black prisoners are still slaves, and if we had never had a 14th amendment, they'd still be slaves and would count for 3/5 for representative purposes.
  In recent opinions, conservatives have decimated gun control legislation in DC and NY state by saying there was no historical precedent to control guns. WTF? I mean of course there wasn't. The state of NY just passed it.
  In my mind, justices should be sufficiently open minded to consider that language about "all men with property" actually means all people regardless of gender or race or creed or wealth, even if an amendment wasn't passed to grant rights to those groups. We should presume rights as natural rights and leave it to the legislature to take them away. Same goes for abortion, ie medical privacy. >
  
  Neither should the public. >
  
  The lack of ethics is sickening. The same corporate influence that bought Citizens United free $peach. >
  
  If the judiciary becomes politically motivated and runs counter to the will of the people then it should absolutely live in fear. >
  
  Well, neither should we. >
  
  I have more respect for a pile of shit than I do for John Roberts. Suck an egg you spineless weasel. >
  
  At least the pile of shit does not run around pretending it is something else. >
  
  No. Live in fear. I’m fine with that >
  
  It weird that non violent protests outside justices homes are being cast as cause for concern of violence against the conservative court when right wingers have been showing up for years at protests armed with Ar 15s to exercise their 2A rights and few headlines were devoted to this fact. >
  
  What a whiney little douche. He's upset they're making everyday citizens live in fear with their bullshit and we're not just taking it lying down. >
  
  I love how these fucks want to be completely insulated from the terrible decisions they make. This country is corrupt to the core. >
  
  Then maybe you shouldn’t have a court with three justices who lied to Congress to be confirmed, and a fourth whose spouse contributed to the Insurrection! It is terrifying to have a Court with so much illegitimate power! >
  
  What about us, who are in fear of losing our rights? Should we not also say that we cannot and should not live in fear, of your court, John Roberts? >
  
  This >
  
  They just made a ruling that took away women’s rights to control their own bodies. They just forced every woman in the US live in fear. You better believe the justices that voted for that ruling should live in fear from a pretty pissed off half the population of the country. >
  
  Neither should women >
  
  My thoughts exactly. >
  
  This guy is gutting our rights and over-riding the will of the people and he wants sympathy?  Fuck him and his corrupt, extremist, pay to play court. >
  
  As long as women live in fear, so should they. >
  
  Did anyone point out to him that the symbol of the judicial system is a statue of a woman? That could change his mind. >
  
  That's the definition of irony.
  It's not just that America is going full Gilead, America just has annoying seemingly inborn custom of entitlement to women's reproduction. 
  To be too overtly specific, there was one widely disdained Time headline about Amal Clooney "showing her baby bump" to the UN or something like that, because apparently, baby bump is the most impressive feature of being international lawyer specializing on human rights violations. That's how I found out about her, by the way.
  To get back, women are routinely denied tubal ligation, because some doctors want husband's approval or because she might change her mind. I don't care how happy a woman is with her partner, I don't care how badly be wants children, he ain't carrying one, he should have no say in this shit.
  And of course the weird absence of appropriate recoil against how abortion bans are made. They're made by old, hyper religious, sexually repressed men who wouldn't locate vulva if their lives depended on it, because they don't even know what female reproductive system even looks like let alone how it works. And they want to make laws to override actual medical judgement? Doesn't matter how painful pregnancy is or hundreds of possible ways it can be life threatening, law is the law.
  And of course, with it come Crisis Pregnancy Centers that lure desperate non suspecting women into non-abortion, they manipulate them and shame them while impersonating medical professionals without actually being so, so no HIPAA protection. And they get to be tax-funded, while legit clinics like Planned Parenthood that actually employ medical professionals and offers true medicine and effective ways that reduce abortions and they don't!!! Imagine if Christian Scientists set up "Crisis illness centers" that masquerade as hospitals and they served to lure sick people to convince them that they are healthy until they die and they were tax-funded. The backlash would be HUUUGE!
  But one of the symbols of America is a woman. Crazy. >
  
  Don't they know? By taking away human rights, they're giving implied consent to life in fear!
  They made their choice, so now they should live with consequences. >
  
  Yea but it's cool for all those women in Texas trying to get abortions to live in fear.... he can GFH >
  
  ‘"Judicial opinions speak for themselves, and there is no obligation in our free country to agree with them," Roberts wrote in his first extended commentary since last summer.’
  That’s very nice but the reality is that we ARE under obligation to agree with them by the power these opinions have to enforce or create law that are enforced upon us. We aren’t quite at the point of thought police just yet, and he’s deluded if he thinks we can simply just disagree with them and everything is hunky dory. >
  
  Yea. Only the innocent citizens of this country and every other country should live in fear of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. >
  
  I don't care if he afraid or not, the system is suppose to serve us not the other way around and if it isn't, we should change the system until it does. >
  
  Yes, as long as “us” includes everyone and one group doesn’t get all the judicial “wins”. >
  
  "The law requires every judge to swear an oath to perform his or her work without fear or favor."
  The conservative judges have shown that their oaths are worthless.  Why would the public trust judges who lie to get a job?  They're judges on the Supreme Court, the highest standard in the country.  They should be held to the highest standard for conduct. >
  
  Hell we are living in fear of this judicial system- when 9 people can peel backs our rights it impossible to move forward- how about some ethics rules and full transparency of all the SCOTUS members and term limits to start with so these judges who represent 300M Americans gain some trust back and for god’s sake add more judges to balance things out and keep separation of church and state (religion) out of politics and decision making >
  
  Good thing death comes for us all — it’s the great equalizer. It cares not about your privilege, oblivion awaits you just like everyone else. >
  
  Tell that to the 165 million American women you took abortion from in 2022.  Tell that to the 165 million American women you want to take contraception from in 2023.  I don't see why you should live in a more safe world than them. >
  
  They're supposed to be public servants.  
  They deserve to live in fear if they don't do what they took an oath to do. >
  
  Live in fear? Like millions of us do already? >
  
  He didn’t say “corrupted” or “bought w dark money” so these actions are okay… >
  
  Never trust anyone who always has a smirk on their face. This man is diabolical and methodical. >
  
  You have it completely backwards. No person should live in fear of its government or judicial system. >
  
  An unbalanced, out of touch, conservative, judicial system should not be allowed to exist, free of the checks and balances fear inspires in those who pass our laws.  The will of the people is just that, a growl in the dark, to a Supreme Court system that refuses to acknowledge basic human rights in opposition to political and corporate interference on a local and state levels. >
  
  Credibility and integrity are your shield, John.
  You shouldn't have laid it aside. >
  
  "...but don't worry, we're working as fast and hard as possible to end its misery and kill it off once and for all" >
  
  Oh, I disagree. >
  
  Violence, or threats of it, are never okay. However, the justices deserve all the criticism in the world, and John Roberts better suck it up. >
  
  Oh John, we (or those people scaring our sweetheart justices) would play along and abide by your rules if the rules were actually representative of our views—ever!!!
  Maybe you will respect the Executive branch since you don’t respect the American people. Hopefully you take Harry Truman’s advice: “If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. >
  
  Lol.
  Lmao.
  I hope he goes to bed gripped in the throes of fear every night, the worthless prick. >
  
  They should fear widespread perception of their illegitimacy. Cuz that is where we are. >
  
  Fuck this hack. He should be very afraid. >
  
  Well this is what happens when the SCOTUS becomes an arm of the Republican Party.  They choose to become partisan hacks, big surprise when that gets a reaction. >
  
  So he wants total isolation - with no consequences at all for their activities.   Sort of like the Iranian Revolutionary Court, despite 70% of the population thinking they're full o' BS.
  He used to be unpredictable, and frequently wrong about Citizens United, etc.   Now it doesn't matter.  The nutcases have a super-majority.  Roberts can vote 100% on the Left and it would make no difference at all. >
  
  Judge Roberts, why should you get to feel safe , when you don't work to make us feel safe? >
  
  Reap what you've sown. >
  
  "We are special. You are not." >
  
  When they attempt to legislate from the bench and undermine the will and rights of the citizens, yes, they absolutely should fear consequence. >
  
  That only works when the judiciary is clearly impartial, and whether Roberts cares to admit it, the federal bench has become more partisan under his watch. >
  
  Sure, but when it stops being a system for justice, what's the point of keeping it? They've already proven to be partisan and in turn, cannot be trusted to do the right thing. >
  
  No peace for us, no peace for you. 'WhAt'S tHiS? tHe CoNsEqUeNcEs Of My OwN aCtIoNs?' >
  
  Why not? Women do now because of his court. >
  
  Then do the right thing!! >
  
  Six of them are doing the right thing >
  
  Well maybe the judicial system should stop sucking the dick of the party that confirmed them. >
  
  Wrong on both counts motherfucker. >
  
  Instead, we the people should live in fear. Is what he meant. >
  
  Will anyone please think of poor John Roberts? The man who has overseen one of the biggest declines in the public’s trust in the court? The man who somehow can’t admit that Alito leaked his own opinion? The man who is fine with sexual predators being on the bench? >
  
  Then stop being political hack jobs. >
  
  They should not be so obviously corrupt and bought out. >
  
  How’s that leaker investigation going there, Johnny? Spoken to Sam yet? >
  
  Well then maybe not disabling regulation and laws concerning guns, while making it easy for anyone to obtain as many as they want, carry them wherever they want, and have a good chance at avoiding consequences and responsibility for firing them with a simple claim of fear or revenge. >
  
  Fear is just for regular people, right? >
  
  They do not fear to do the bidding of their Federalist Society masters.  Take away rights from ordinary Americans and give more power to conservative / corporate causes. These are traitorous pieces of shit. >
  
  Well the SCOTUS is packed with MAGA traitors and fascists so I guess Robert thinks we should be the ones to live in fear. 
  The truth is the MAGAs are enemies of the America people and always will be >
  
  If only he realized that they SHOULD live in fear when they rule against what 80% of the nation thinks is fair. >
  
  As opposed to the citizens, which should absolutely live in fear.  Right Robert?  Right?! >
  
  No the courts should live in fear. They are doing that to the rest of us. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. >
  
  After he joined an opinion written by Gorsuch on Kennedy v. Bremerton School District that included blatant lies about the facts of the case to arrive at the partisan result they wanted - they ought to be afraid.  If there were any justice in this misbegotten world all six who signed on to that opinion would have been tarred and feathered at the least when they exited the court that day.  They ought to live in cold-sweat fear the rest of their lives for such a debasement of the rule of law.
  People shouldn't be afraid of their governments.  Governments should be afraid of their people.
  --V For Vendetta >
  
  The rest of us living in fear of a Supreme Court taking away our freedom is just fine for him though. >
  
  They very much can and they very much should. It's kinda necessary to be afraid of consequences in a healthy democracy >
  
  I would say that the judicial system cannot and should not be based on your shitty religious beliefs