> Delaware attorney Meghan Kelly argues that judges at every level—from the trial bench to the Supreme Court—may be facing improper political pressure, raising questions about whether recent landmark rulings and ongoing proceedings can be insulated from threats or retaliation.
>Her motion, submitted in J.G.G. v. Trump, contends that such pressures could undermine due-process rights for detained immigrants and erode the courts’ ability to function as neutral arbiters, placing judicial independence at the center of a case ostensibly about immigration enforcement.
Calling them out in an official capacity. Idk if it’ll go anywhere but you still love to see it.
Bagel-Byte- on
If true, this is a five-alarm fire for democracy. Judicial independence means rulings are based on the law and the Constitution, not on which justice received the most credible death threats. The moment we accept that intimidation shapes the highest court’s decisions, the entire system becomes just another extension of raw power politics.
DisastrousAd6833 on
Of course they’re based on threats because everybody knows just how violent the Democratic Party is and their supporters. God bless the Supreme Court, god bless America, and god bless Israel.
GarmaCyro on
Not just threat, but GOP has since around Obama specifically worked on replacing judges on all levels with Federalist judges.
1sixxpac on
Soon as I saw it I as “Newsweek” my confidence in its accuracy went way down.
steve_ample on
Well, Alito and Thomas are political hacks as part of their primal nature, threats notwithstanding. Thomas had to be bribed to stay in place, courtesy of Harlan Crow.
MarcheMuldDerevi on
They are public figures and they can be threatened/bribed. I’d prefer not to think they’re making decisions based on who’s paying them or who’s pointing a gun at their puppy, but it’s more than reasonable to assume they’re not exactly following the law when making the law.
7 Comments
Hell yeah! Asking the big questions.
> Delaware attorney Meghan Kelly argues that judges at every level—from the trial bench to the Supreme Court—may be facing improper political pressure, raising questions about whether recent landmark rulings and ongoing proceedings can be insulated from threats or retaliation.
>Her motion, submitted in J.G.G. v. Trump, contends that such pressures could undermine due-process rights for detained immigrants and erode the courts’ ability to function as neutral arbiters, placing judicial independence at the center of a case ostensibly about immigration enforcement.
Calling them out in an official capacity. Idk if it’ll go anywhere but you still love to see it.
If true, this is a five-alarm fire for democracy. Judicial independence means rulings are based on the law and the Constitution, not on which justice received the most credible death threats. The moment we accept that intimidation shapes the highest court’s decisions, the entire system becomes just another extension of raw power politics.
Of course they’re based on threats because everybody knows just how violent the Democratic Party is and their supporters. God bless the Supreme Court, god bless America, and god bless Israel.
Not just threat, but GOP has since around Obama specifically worked on replacing judges on all levels with Federalist judges.
Soon as I saw it I as “Newsweek” my confidence in its accuracy went way down.
Well, Alito and Thomas are political hacks as part of their primal nature, threats notwithstanding. Thomas had to be bribed to stay in place, courtesy of Harlan Crow.
They are public figures and they can be threatened/bribed. I’d prefer not to think they’re making decisions based on who’s paying them or who’s pointing a gun at their puppy, but it’s more than reasonable to assume they’re not exactly following the law when making the law.