General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAll Six MAGA 'Justices' Were Partying It Up With Trump at WH Dinner, Hours Before Gutting Voting Rights
Alarm as Supreme Court right-wingers seen at Trump's White House dinner - Rawstory via MSNAccording to MS NOW legal analyst Lisa Rubin, all six justices nominated by Republicans... attended the Tuesday night event. "None of the three justices nominated by Democratic presidents were there, invited or not," Rubin reported.
The timing is particularly striking because the dinner occurred just hours before the court released a 6-3 decision significantly weakening the Voting Rights Act, and on the eve of oral arguments about the legality of the administration ending temporary protected status for Syrian and Haitian immigrants.
Historically, state dinners feature only a single Supreme Court justice. During Trump's first state dinner in 2018, Chief Justice John Roberts and his wife were the sole court representatives invited.
Laura Coates: 'Today six Justices all but threw away the Voting Rights Act of 1965' - CNN All meaning has been erased from the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That's what CNN Chief Legal Analyst and Anchor, Laura Coates, is arguing. Laura spent years as a career prosecutor in the DOJ's Civil Rights Division. And she warns minority voting power will be diluted and efforts to change that will now be "insurmountable" to prove.
AND NOW A WORD FROM J. CARVILLE: "Corrupt Sons of B---------"
James Carville Rails Against Corrupt SCOTUS Justices - The Daily Beast via Yahoo News
There is no reason, none, that you should have any respect or any admiration for this pack of people who take money from anybody, dont report anything, are the only nine people in the entire f---ing federal government that operates under no ethic rule, he said.
What do they do? Carville continued. They take trips. They take money. They show up at the airport, and they fly on world-class fishing trips to Alaska. They sell their houses to people for more money to practice law before the Supreme Court. Their wives work as headhunters for law firms that practice before the Supreme Court.
Carville also weighed in on Robert's, calling him a (checks notes) "f---ing clown... a partisan hack clown.
um... What HE said.
UpInArms
(55,271 posts)and dont even attempt to act like they are anything but corrupt
wolfie001
(7,914 posts)NNguyenMD
(1,334 posts)Pack the court to 13? And impeach Alito and Thomas?
B.See
(8,743 posts)my druthers? tar, feathers and a rail. (figuratively speaking of course)
orangecrush
(30,937 posts)bluestarone
(22,411 posts)We will have our hands full, even if we win both houses.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,598 posts)Justices should consider not only why most believe the high court is motivated by politics, but also their own role in fueling the problem they find offensive.
Why John Robertsâ defense of the Supreme Court was so wildly unpersuasive www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
— Philly Joe (@joehick58.bsky.social) 2026-05-07T22:39:16.924Z
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/john-roberts-defense-supreme-court-unpersuasive
I think, at a very basic level, people think were making policy decisions, were saying we think this is how things should be, as opposed to what the law provides, he said. I think they view us as purely political actors, which I dont think is an accurate understanding of what we do.
His remarks to a conference of judges and lawyers from the 3rd U.S. Circuit in Pennsylvania came at a time of low public confidence in the court, and about a week after the court handed down a decision that hollowed out the Voting Rights Act.
As part of the same remarks, Roberts went on to argue that sitting justices are not part of the political process and Im not sure people grasp that as much as is appropriate......
Why does the public see the justices, as Roberts put it, as political actors? It might have something to do with far-right justices issuing regressive and reactionary rulings. And far-right justices getting caught up in indefensible ethics controversies. And far-right justices elevating the presidency above the law.
But I suspect one of the main reasons so many people see justices as political actors is the frequency with which they act like political actors. Right around the same time that the public was learning about Roberts remarks, Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has a track record of chatting with conservative media personalities, appeared on a conservative podcast, talking about his belief that young conservatives must have courage to stand by their beliefs.....
Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut argued five years ago, Judges turning into political actors, giving speeches attacking journalists, is terrible for the court and terrible for democracy. Justices proceeded to ignore the warning.
The tarnishing of the Supreme Court its credibility, its integrity and its reputation has unfolded episodically over the course of several years. If Roberts and his brethren want to whine about public reactions to their work, thats their right, but if they want to help restore the institutions standing, they have an enormous amount of work to do. To date, they have shown no willingness whatsoever to even acknowledge the causes of the Supreme Courts problems, much less take steps to address what ails it.
Roberts is a racist asshole who has been plotting to overturn or gut the Voting Rights Act since Roberts' days in the Reagan DOJ. I still remember reading the Shelby County opinion and dissent where Roberts gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That was NOT a legal opinion but a policy decision based on Roberts' belief that there was no longer racial prejudice. Alito's opinion is merely a continuation of the racist policies of the six asshole SCOTUS justices.
B.See
(8,743 posts)from day one, and Alto's cowardly b.s. arguments, merely a deliberate convolution of fuzzy logic - contorted sufficiently enough to rubber stamp and absolve racist voter discrimination and disenfranchisement. They know exactly what they were doing and why, despite posturing to the contrary.
I've posted regarding both, and promised back then one for Clarence THOMas as well, who I consider the worst of the lot (and I'll discuss why). It will include links to at least 4 articles I'd saved, all predating the Court's more recent outrage.