Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday declined an invitation to meet with Democratic senators to talk about Supreme Court ethics and the controversy over flags that flew outside homes owned by Justice Samuel Alito.

Roberts’ response came in a letter to the senators a day after Alito separately wrote them and House members to reject their demands that he recuse himself from major Supreme Court cases involving former President Donald Trump and the Jan. 6 rioters because of the flags, which are like those carried by rioters at the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a member of the Judiciary panel, had written Roberts a week ago to ask for the meeting and that Roberts take steps to ensure that Alito recuses himself from any cases before the court concerning the Jan. 6 attack or the Republican former president’s attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

  • anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    So all that stuff about the independence and integrity of the court was just big talk? Figures. I’m surprised his robes stay on his body at all with a spine like that.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Stuff the fucking courts. Their “legitimacy” is completely fucking lost so we should at least have a good illegitimate court - right now we’ve got the worst of both worlds… the court is illegitimate and it is sucking away our rights.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    7 months ago

    These motherfuckers forget that asking politely is the compromise that benefits them the most. When it doesn’t work, people look for other ways to depose with tyrants.

  • BertramDitore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    So, checks and balances are officially bullshit, eh? If they won’t allow themselves to be checked, then the other branches must balance them. That’s why we have co-equal branches.

    These 9 people are supposed to understand the constitution better than anyone, it’s their whole freaking job. It’s clear that they’re high on their own power. This isn’t the first time the chief justice has refused a request from congress.

  • Arghblarg
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’ll say it again: since the SCOTUS intends to slow-walk a decision on presidential ‘absolute immunity’, Biden needs to announce RIGHT NOW that he’s dissolving the SCOTUS effective 2 weeks from the time of the announcement, at midnight, intending to appoint an all-new roster of his choosing, as well as replacing all state-level judges, also of his administration’s choosing.

    If the SCOTUS, on the other hand, suddenly finds they do have the time to make a decision on presidential immunity before that deadline, well maybe Biden won’t do it, after all.

    • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      While the president can’t dissolve the court, according to the majority, the president can order them assassinated and be covered by presidential immunity.

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        There hasn’t been an opinion dropped on Trump V. US yet. The arguments were only just over a month ago.

      • Arghblarg
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Exactly. Maybe I didn’t propose the “right” action – the entire point is that if the SCOTUS won’t rule a president does not have absolute immunity, and is subject to the law of the land, then really ANYTHING is possible isn’t it?

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the fundamentals of US governance. The President can’t dissolve SCOTUS. He hasn’t been granted that power.

      • Argongas@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        No, but if he the president does have absolute immunity Biden could just have seal team 6 kill Trump and some of the justices.

        Not that he would, but imagined the surprised Pikachu face on the GOP if Biden called their bullshit.

        • Arghblarg
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Exactly. The Democratic party needs to push the issue and make the GOP see that the Leopards can eat their face too.

      • Arghblarg
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        But Trump is currently asserting in court that he does have that power! Absolute immunity remember? Who are you to say, peon, that the POTUS cannot dissolve the SCOTUS? He has absolute immunity, remember? That means he has absolute power to do anything!

        What I was trying to say is that Biden should call the bluff, and force the SCOTUS to decide right now. Why not? If the POTUS really does have absolute immunity, why not? Do you see the insanity this road leads down?

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Who are you to say, peon, that the POTUS cannot dissolve the SCOTUS?

          Just your average joe who is able to read a few paragraphs. The federal government doesn’t have any power not explicitly granted to them.

          What I was trying to say is that Biden should call the bluff, and force the SCOTUS to decide right now.

          It not a bluff it’s an important case. They should write an actually well founded opinion that doesn’t set up terrible case law for future generations.

          Why not? If the POTUS really does have absolute immunity, why not? Do you see the insanity this road leads down?

          You’re operating under the presuppositions that it does have absolute immunity and I don’t believe he does. As I said, the case hasn’t had an opinion. And I didn’t mention it previously but the state judge thing you’d mentioned earlier is also not in the power of the president.

          https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/

          Article 2 is the bit to read.

          • Arghblarg
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            I would like to say, for the record, that I wrote that late at night, and my phrasing probably came across incorrectly.

            It wasn’t my intention to call you personally ‘a peon’. I was trying more to adopt the voice, for argument’s sake, of what an imagined President, using this supposed absolute immunity, might say to their critics – ‘who are you (out there, the people) to question my power?’

            My apologies for it coming out the way it did.

            • FireTower@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              I wasn’t taking that personally, my point was that in America the sovereign power rests in the people (vs England in the crown). We hold the authority under which the government exists.

              • Arghblarg
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                As it should be! I hope in the long-term, that is proven to be true.

  • Bookmeat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Deal with it like you do with all unwanted institutions. Kill their budget and see how long before they’re willing to talk.