this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
95 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19274 readers
2177 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Chief Justice John Roberts warned that violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats to disobey court rulings are endangering judicial independence in the U.S.

In his annual report, he highlighted a rise in threats against judges, citing examples of attacks, murders, and doxxing incidents.

Roberts also criticized political interference, referencing past comments by Donald Trump and Chuck Schumer.

Public confidence in the Supreme Court is at historic lows amid ethics controversies. Critics, including Rep. Jamie Raskin, accused Roberts of ignoring these internal issues in his report.

all 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago

What praytell is the recourse left to the public for the open blatant corruption of Justice Thomas et al., Mr. Robert's? You dipshits undermined yourselves.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

"judicial independence"

Haha. Thats the best joke I've heard all day. We still get to keep our sense of humor at least, so thats something.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Is he saying he needs an RV or a yacht or something?

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 92 points 2 days ago

"don't threaten us, please," from the dumbass that said "official acts" have blanket immunity?

get bent.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 71 points 2 days ago (1 children)

With all due respect Mr. Roberts, this is known as reaping what you sow.

Precedence was established in the landmark case FA v. FO

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 55 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

"Corrupt Official Prefers Compromising Integrity for Bribes Instead of Threats"

It's like an Onion headline.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 64 points 2 days ago

Maybe don't support a fascist take over then? Whoops too late for that.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

And then there's stuff like judges revoking the FTC ban on Non Compete Agreements. I can't imagine why there might be ~~discussions about judicial reform~~ threats

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 51 points 2 days ago

So do bribery and corruption but eh, those he doesn't mind so much

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

The greater risk is from corruption. Roberts doesn't seem interested in discussing that, though.

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago

Right. Because they were such paragons of independence before.

[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 19 points 2 days ago

Roberts is a cuck and a shitbag.

[–] sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Wait. Is he saying they could be LESS independent (than their current "tip" model)?

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 10 points 2 days ago

He's afraid that they'll lose all power, and the bribes will stop, and the threats start coming instead.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 13 points 2 days ago

How about "If you fuckers aren't going to have judicial independence anyway, might as well not have it on our terms."

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago