• flipht@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, these people haven’t even read the laws they’re supposed to be deciding cases on. You expect him to read his own website too? The privilege.

    /s

    • chaogomu@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You used sarcasm. Samuel Alito might not have read actual law in years. He mostly writes about the current manufactured outrage from Fox News, and tries to shoehorn that into an opinion. He’s gone off-topic a few times in recent years, trying to shove culture war bullshit into cases where they’re only tangentially related.

      It’s called Fox News Brain. Your racist uncle and a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court both have it.

    • What do you mean they haven’t read the laws?

      I think all of them were all good law students, law review editors, judicial clerks, and judges for some time, before being appointed. It’s all law practice, it’s all reading law. There can’t be a fundamental concept of law they aren’t well familiar with.

      • flipht@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I say that because they clearly don’t give a shit, or they’d avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

        If they can’t even be bothered to not do obvious stuff with conflict of interest/money/cases before them, why would they be putting in any actual work? Especially the ones who are there for prestige alone, their clerks are doing their reading and writing for them.

        Alito and Thomas in particular have said things recently and historically that indicate they’re just phoning it in.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is they can also decide that isn’t what that means, it’s hilariously stupid to be able to do it but they can.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        corrupt scotus justices: we’re strict constitutionalists. if it says it in the constitution, it’s the law. if it doesn’t say it in the constitution, it’s not the law

        the constitution: …well-organized militia…

        corrupt scotus justices: no not like that

        the constitution: …equal protection under the law…

        corrupt scotus justices: no not like that

        the constitution: …against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…

        corrupt scotus justices: no not like that

        the constitution: slavery is legal

        corrupt scotus justices: that’s more what we were thinking…