United States Supreme Court Sucks

The United States Supreme Court Sucks because most of the “Justices” are partisan HACKS selected solely because they’re expected to rule on key issues a certain way. The US Supreme Court is also illegitimate because five (5) were installed by Republican Presidents who weren’t voted for or elected to office by the Majority.

Two (2) “Justices” were installed by George W. Bush who LOST the 2000 election by 543,895 votes and Three (3) “Justices” were installed by Donald Trump who LOST by 2.8 Million votes.

One of the “Justices”, Neil Gorsuch obtained his seat by THEFT so he is without question, an illegitimate “Justice”.

Obama was President when Antonin Scalia died. Obama chose Merrick Garland as Scalia’s replacement but Republicans violated their constitutional duty by refusing to provide “Advise & Consent” to Obama’s pick. Instead, they proved to be Dirty Rotten Bastards by holding Obama’s seat open until illegitimately elected Republican TRUMP was made President who filled Obama’s rightful United States Supreme Court vacancy with PARTISAN HACK Neil Gorsuch.


Only 40% Approve of the United States Supreme Court (lowest in recorded history)

This incompetent partisan Supreme Court has in recent years made horrible decisions such as “Bush Versus Gore” stopping the vote count & handing the 2000 election to Bush on a silver platter, “Citizens United”, striking down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and failing to strike down the Texas “Heartbeat” Law which bans abortions in Texas and turns Anti-Abortion Zealots into Bounty Hunters.


Republicans have hijacked the highest court in the land. First, they stole a Supreme Court seat from President Obama. Then, they changed a 70-year old rule to install two of Donald Trump’s far-right justices and confirmed Brett Kavanaugh despite credible allegations that he committed sexual assault and lied under oath.

Now, the politicized Supreme Court is enacting a far-right, partisan agenda that favors corporate interests and Republican Party special interests. Reproductive freedom, civil rights, environmental justice, common sense gun safety laws, and our right to vote are all at risk. And the Court has eroded confidence in our system of government with ethical lapses and lack of transparency.


The Illegitimate, Rigged by Republican Supreme Court Upholds Republican laws designed to undermine & destroy the Voting Rights Act of 1965



Supreme Court Justices should be appointed by Presidents who were elected to office by the majority of Americans so their viewpoints reflects the majority. That has NOT been the case due to the Electoral College, which made Republicans Bush & Trump President (who received less votes than their opponent)… and the Senate, which doesn’t represent the majority.


The roots of America’s democracy problem


The Senate Is Rigged for Republicans

The Senate does not represent the Majority and is rigged for Republicans because Red States like Wyoming which has a small population get as much say a California or New York, with huge populations.

According to 2018 Census Bureau estimates, more than half of the US population lives in just nine states. That means that much of the nation is represented by only 18 senators. Less than half of the population controls about 82 percent of the Senate.

This is UNEQUAL Representation and another reason why the United States Ranks 25th as a “Flawed Democracy”.




‘Stunning’ SCOTUS Decision Regarding Texas Abortion Laws Creates ‘Citizen Bounty Hunters’

Lawrence O’Donnell talks to Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe about the Texas anti-abortion bill that the Supreme Court refused to block.


Chris Hayes On Why Texas Abortion Law Design Is Particularly Egregious


Justices Write SCATHING DISSENTS – Call Out Their Colleagues For Cowardice

Jesse talks about the draconian Anti-choice abortion law that went into effect last night in Texas. He reads the dissents of the two remaining reasonable women on the bench, Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor!




Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse gives outstanding presentation how Big Business “Dark Money” has been playing a role in the Supreme Court nomination process.



The United States Supreme Court is a Illegitimate Kangaroo Court because 5 of the Justices were appointed by Illegitimate Presidents NOT supported or elected to office by the majority of Americans.


• The Majority voted for Al Gore in 2000 by 543,895 votes yet George W. Bush was crammed down the American Majority’s Throats. The election was STOLEN by the Electoral College, PLUS Florida Republicans illegally purged thousands of minorities off voters rolls and vote counting was stopped by the Republican Majority Supreme Court. The installation of George W. Bush caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis due to the misguided and unjustified war with Iraq. Trillions was added to the National Debt due to George W. Bush’s incompetence.

• Bush appointed 2 Justices against the will of the MAJORITY = 2 Supreme Court Seats Stolen


• Republicans STOLE a 3rd Supreme Court Seat from the American Majority by blocking President Obama’s Supreme Court appointment stating “The people should decide” during an election year.


• The Majority voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 by over 2.84 Million votes yet Donald Trump was crammed down the American Majority’s Throats. The election was once again STOLEN by the Electoral College which made the LOSER the “winner”.

Trump is a also Illegitimate President because it has been established that Russia hacked, interfered with and likely influenced the outcome of the 2016 Election.

• Trump filled Obama’s Supreme Court Seat, plus a 4th Supreme Court Seat against the Will of the Majority

• After Ruth Ginsburg died Republicans proved to be PARTISAN HYPOCRITES by committing to fill her seat weeks before the 2020 election with Conservative Supreme Court nominee Amy Barrett who is being appointed SOLELY because she’s expected to rule on issues like Roe V. Wade & “Affordable Healthcare” a certain way

• Appointing & confirming “Justices” because they are expected to rule on issues a particular way is not justice

• The Majority is NOT Conservative and does not support BACKWARD, REPRESSIVE, CONSERVATIVE, 1800’s ideologies and values

• The Senate is RIGGED for Republicans and doesn’t represent the Majority. Half of the US population lives in just nine states yet is only represented by 18 Senators. Democrats led Republicans by more than 12 million votes in Senate races in the 2018 election, yet suffered losses due to our UN-Democratic Rigged-for-Republicans Government

• The Supreme Court is now Rigged for Republicans and doesn’t represent the Majority. It’s become another tool to cram unpopular conservative ideologies down the Majority’s Throats.

• Republicans are behaving like Fascist Authoritarians, who only care about power and cramming what they want down citizens throats, lacking decency, fairness, ethics and integrity.


Did Russia Affect the 2016 Election? It’s Now Undeniable

For some time, there has been a conflation of issues-the hacking and leaking of illegally obtained information versus propaganda and disinformation; cyber-security issues and the hacking of elections systems versus information operations and information warfare; paid advertising versus coercive messaging or psychological operations-when discussing “Russian meddling” in the 2016 US elections.




Judge Neil Gorsuch Would Have Let this Trucker Die!

On a freezing night in January 2009, Alphonse Maddin was driving a truck with a load of meat through Illinois. The brakes on the trailer froze. The temperature was 27 degrees below zero. As he waited for help, he started having trouble breathing. His skin was cracking and his speech was slurring.

He called his employer. They told him to remain with the truck. Instead, he detached the trailer from the truck and drove to safety. For saving his own life, he was fired by the company. He sued the company and Gorsuch was the only judge who sided against the trucker.


Only One Judge Ruled Against Freezing Truck Driver… Trump’s.


Sen. Al Franken Grills Neil Gorsuch on Frozen Trucker Case in Extended Questioning

Senator Al Franken (D-MN) grilling Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing about the so-called frozen trucker case of Alphonse Maddin. Gorsuch ruled it was right


Father Testifies That Gorsuch’s Decision Against Autistic Children Tore His Family Apart

In this Majority Report clip, we watch a portion of Jeffrey Perkins—the father of an autistic child who was compelled to move his child to a private school in Boston because public schools could not meet his needs—testifying to the way that Neil Gorsuch’s 10th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion following the court’s decision to lower the federal standards to practically nothing for students with disabilities cost him a fortune and tore his family apart.


Neil Gorsuch is anti-women and anti-LGBT



Barrett proves to be totally unfit to be a Judge in ANY Court, let alone the United States Supreme Court by being unable to answer the most basic legal and constitutional questions.


Amy Coney Barrett can’t name five freedoms in the First Amendment


Unearthed video from 2016 in a CBS News interview with Amy Coney Barrett shows her warning of Supreme Court appointments that “could dramatically flip the balance of power in the court.”

Judge Barrett has the approval of ultraconservative and anti-abortion groups, and her views are out of step with the majority of Americans, who overwhelmingly support access to safe, legal abortion care. Seventy-seven percent of people in this country believe the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade. We need a Supreme Court justice who will honor precedent, including Roe v. Wade.


Amy Coney Barrett Proves She’s As Corrupt As We Feared She’d Be

Amy Coney Barrett has decided that she doesn’t need to recuse herself from a case involving the Koch-funded group Americans For Prosperity, even though the group spent big money to run pro-Coney Barrett ads during her confirmation. This is a blatant conflict of interest, and she is proving that she is just as corrupt and immoral as everyone thought that she would be.


Amy Coney Barrett refused to say that the Supreme Court decision that protects access to birth control was rightly decided. When past Republican and Democratic-appointed nominees were asked the same question, their answers were very clear.


Amy Coney Barrett Caught Lying To Senate?

Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court Senate hearing quickly went off the rails.


Amy Coney Barrett Confirmed To Supreme Court In Unprecedented Vote, Against RBG’s Dying Wishes

In an unprecedented vote one week before voting concludes in the 2020 election, the Senate approved federal appellate judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve as the next Supreme Court Justice Monday night in a 52-48 vote along party lines. She is the first justice confirmed with support from just one party since 1869, according to The National Journal.

Amy Coney Barrett Confirmed To Supreme Court Against RBG’s Dying Wishes

Per the above article; “In an unprecedented vote one week before voting concludes in the 2020 election, the Senate approved federal appellate judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve as the next Supreme Court Justice Monday night in a 52-48 vote along party lines. She is the first justice confirmed with support from just one party since 1869, according to The National Journal.

All Republicans except for Sen. Susan Collins of Maine voted to confirm Barrett, and all Democrats voted against it.

Barrett’s confirmation makes the Supreme Court a 6-3 conservative majority, with Trump having nominated one-third of the court. Five of the six conservative justices have now been appointed by Republican presidents who lost the popular vote (George W. Bush in 2000 and President Donald Trump).

This is the fastest a nominee has been confirmed to the highest court in the land since 1975 — and confirmation has never happened this close to an election, or in the midst of an election: as of Monday evening , at least 63.6 million Americans have already voted. That 1975 confirmation was for Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, who had much more broad bipartisan support than Barrett does: he was confirmed in a 98-0 vote, in stark contrast to Barrett’s 52-48 vote. President Trump and Republicans rushed to make that a reality in the midst of federal elections they are at risk of losing, breaking their own rules and precedents in the process.

The late Ruth Bader Ginsburg died of complications from cancer on September 18, 2020. Seven days after Ginsburg’s death, Trump held a nominating ceremony for Barrett in the White House Rose Garden, against the express wishes of Ginsburg. NPR reported that Ginsburg told her granddaughter in the days before her death, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”



Supreme Court rejects Trump claim of ‘absolute immunity’ from grand jury subpoena for tax returns

In a history-making decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled President Donald Trump cannot claim “absolute immunity” from criminal investigation while in office and may need to comply with a New York grand jury subpoena seeking his personal financial records. “The court found that the president is not above the law.

A 7 to 2 Supreme Court decision rejected Trump claim of ‘absolute immunity’ from grand jury subpoena for tax returns.

And who were the IDIOTS who felt Trump should be treated like a Dictator and have ‘absolute immunity’?

REPUBLICANS APPOINTED “Justices” Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.!


Clarence Thomas’s vote caused worst president ever, George W. Bush to be installed as President.

Clarence Thomas’s vote caused a Key Provision Of Voting Rights Law to be struck down.

Clarence Thomas cast the key fifth vote enabling corporations to spend unlimited money influencing U.S. elections. As a result of this vote, outside groups spent nearly $300 million influencing the 2010 elections — much of which would have been illegal before Justice Thomas approved this spending.


An array of extraordinary opinions

In Thomas’ most eye-catching separate decisions, he only occasionally attracted the vote of even one other justice. Here’s a selection:

  • He dissented when the court invalidated the conviction of a black man tried six times for the same crime by the same prosecutor with juries that were either all white or nearly all white.
  • He once again wrote that the constitution’s ban on government establishment of religion does not apply to the states — in other words, that states are free to prefer or endorse one religion over another.
  • He twice called on the court to reverse its abortion decisions, in one case going further to link birth control and Planned Parenthood to the eugenics movement of a century ago.
  • For the first time, he called for overturning Gideon v. Wainwright, the 1963 landmark decision requiring that criminal defendants too poor to pay for a lawyer be provided an attorney paid for by the government.
  • In another first, he called for overturning the 1964 landmark freedom-of-the-press decision New York Times v. Sullivan, which set in place standards to make it more difficult for public figures to sue for libel without proof that falsehoods were knowingly published.

Here Are 5 of Clarence Thomas’ Worst Decisions – And Proof Judge Brett Kavanaugh Is Cut from the Same Cloth

When Justice Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall on the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991, it was obvious that philosophically, the two of them were diametrically opposed. Marshall, appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson and sworn in by Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1967, was the High Court’s first African-American justice-and he was a liberal.

Justice Clarence Thomas’ head-scratching, jaw-dropping dissents

Just because Justice Clarence Thomas has a reputation for staying silent on the bench, doesn’t mean the polarizing conservative didn’t apply his own brand of knotty logic in his written dissent of the court’s rulings.

Here are two head-scratching, jaw-dropping examples of Thomas’ recent logical gymnastics at work.

Discrimination exists, we just have to live with it

In the case dealing with the Fair Housing Act, the Supreme Court ruled that the law constitutionally protects against actions that lead to discriminatory results — known as disparate impact — in addition to implicit discrimination. Here’s a nugget from Thomas’ dissent.

“Racial imbalances do not always disfavor minorities … [I]n our own country, for roughly a quarter-century now, over 70 percent of National Basketball Association players have been black. To presume that these and all other measurable disparities are products of racial discrimination is to ignore the complexities of human existence.”

Thomas appears to be saying that, sure, there’s plenty of discrimination floating around but it’d be unfair to chalk it all up to racism. Just look at the NBA. They’re fine, even though most players are black.

In making that point, Thomas fails to acknowledge the actual application of disparate impact claims. Just because the NBA employs a majority of black players doesn’t mean that there is discrimination at work — or that a white player would file a suit to claim as much. Even if that were to happen, the courts would then still have to determine whether the claims of disparate impact discrimination were valid and violated the law. So merely claiming that, in some industries, for instance, minorities have a majority stake apparently does nothing to address the actual application of the law.

But there is one aspect of Thomas’ argument that is indisputable: A majority of NBA players are black.

Your dignity is not the government’s problem

In a win for marriage equality advocates around the country, the court ruled that all states must license and recognize same-sex marriage — regardless of state laws or where the marriages were performed. Justice Anthony Kennedy notably used the word “dignity” nine times in his 34-page opinion. Thomas had a different take on the issue of dignity.

“The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”

Despite being beaten, raped, and treated as subhuman property — all while living under a government that ostensibly permitted such treatment — slaves either did not lose their dignity at all or, in a broader reading, they can’t blame the government for any loss of dignity. Basically, not the government’s fault, Thomas appears to be saying.

By that application, Thomas’ point seems to be that same-sex couples should just buck up and recognize that it’s the not the government’s role to “bestow dignity.” Article source: msnbc.com/msnbc/justice-clarence-thomas-head-scratching-jaw-dropping-dissents


Clarence Thomas accused of sexual abuse in confirmation hearings with lewd details of “Pubic Hair” & “Long Dong Silver” on National TV

In the above video Anita Hill stated in her Senate testimony on 10/12/91 about Clarence Thomas;

“He would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters. His conversations were very vivid. He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes. He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involving various sex acts. On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess. Because I was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex with him at all, and particularly in such a graphic way, I told him that I did not want to talk about this subject. I would also try to change the subject to education matters or to non-sexual personal matters, such as his background or his beliefs.” Hill also claimed Thomas stated “there is a pubic hair in my Coke” and that he spoke of “Long Dong Silver“.


The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas

On the same fall night in 2016 that the infamous Access Hollywood tape featuring Donald Trump bragging about sexual assault was made public by the Washington Post and dominated the news, an Alaska attorney, Moira Smith, wrote on Facebook about her own experiences as a victim of sexual misconduct in 1999.

Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas

The Daily Caller is a 24-hour news publication providing its audience with original reporting, thought-provoking commentary and breaking news.

Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas

In the above article, ex girlfriend Lillian McEwen stated “He was obsessed with porn.” “He would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting.”

McEwen also said that the conservative Thomas was constantly on the make at work. “He was always actively watching the women he worked with to see if they could be potential partners,” said McEwen. “It was a hobby of his.” She added that he once told her he had asked a woman at work what her bra size was.

Lying Under Oath Could be Grounds for Removal from Office

If McEwen’s accusations are true, that would collaborate Anita Hill’s testimony and prove that Clarence Thomas lied to the Senate, committed perjury, engaged in Sexual Harassment and should be removed as a Justice of the Supreme Court.



Serious questions remain about whether Kavanaugh lied to the Senate. Under Republican direction, the Senate requested and reviewed only a small fraction of Kavanaugh’s records, and what it did receive was provided through a partisan Republican lawyer instead of by the nonpartisan professionals at the National Archives. The few documents that were made public show that Kavanaugh was less than forthcoming, and probably outright untruthful, on a number of issues. Leaked emails have been damning.

Experts agree that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath numerous times.


Kavanaugh Sided with SeaWorld After Trainer Was Drowned By Whale

After a SeaWorld trainer was drowned by a killer whale in 2010, Judge Kavanaugh said the company was immune from penalty. Kavanaugh has proven to be a Corrupt Corporatist who rules against consumers and 87% of the time in favor of Corporations.



New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly discuss the reporting in their new book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation” about the allegations of sexual misconduct that came out during the confirmation hearing of now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Aired on 09/16/19.



Ret. Justice John Stevens: Kavanaugh Disqualified Himself From Supreme Court

John Paul Stevens, one of the only living retired Supreme Court justices, believes that Brett Kavanaugh’s emotional, angry testimony disqualified him from being able to serve effectively on the Court.


The above video shows examples of Brett Kavanaugh LYING


Accusations Against Kavanaugh



Trump, Mitch McConnell and Republicans has been packing the courts with unqualified judges. Here is how we go about fairly, honestly and ethically unpacking the courts


Two ways Democrats can remove Kavanaugh – without impeaching him

Before Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in, critics were calling for his impeachment. The political polarization over allegations that he had assaulted Christine Blasey Ford when they were teenagers doesn’t show much sign of abating. Impeachment is a polarizing process itself, though, one that even many Democrats appear uneasy about pursuing if they win control of Congress in next month’s elections.

Per the above article: “A Democratic Congress and a future Democratic president could remove Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court if they wanted without needing to impeach him. There are two other ways to kick a sitting justice off the court – neither of which requires a supermajority.

In the first, a new president would nominate and the Senate would confirm by majority vote a justice – in this case Kavanaugh – to a different post on an intermediate court of appeals (say the D.C. Circuit, where Kavanaugh formerly served). The justice would, in effect, be demoted.

It finds support in an 1803 Supreme Court case called Stuart v. Laird. The fading Federalist Party of John Adams had created 16 new federal judgeships in 1801 – in part to spare Supreme Court justices from having to “ride the circuit” and hear regional appellate cases. Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans triumphed at the polls and abolished the new positions in 1802.

The second alternative method of relieving a justice of his or her duties. In a 2006 article in the Yale Law Journal, two scholars (conservatives, as it happens), Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, amassed historical evidence that the Framers understood the “good behavior” standard to be judicially, rather than just politically, enforceable.

They pointed out that judicial removal proceedings were used in English law in the 1780s, and were included in the New York, South Carolina and Massachusetts pre-1787 constitutions. Moreover, they noted, “good behavior” was included by the Continental Congress as a standard in the 1787 Northwest Ordinance for courts in the territories – before there were a separate House and Senate to conduct an impeachment.

As (roughly) proposed in the Yale article, Congress could pass a statute authorizing a specially constituted bench of federal judges – say, five randomly drawn judges – to determine whether a particular judge (here, Kavanaugh) had violated the “good behavior” standard. That special bench could hold a hearing and, if convinced by the evidence, make the requisite finding to trigger exit from the bench. This approach wouldn’t require a congressional supermajority. It would need a presidential signature.

Current federal law contains a trace of this mechanism. When a judge is convicted of a felony, whether in state or federal court, the law now states that he or she “shall not hear or decide cases” unless a council of judges decides otherwise. To be sure, the judge keeps a salary in the interim. But the judge is effectively sidelined – as completely as if he or she were impeached.

The creation of a new vehicle for judicial peer review seems to be the optimal option, as it would create a nonpartisan, procedurally robust device for disciplining judges.

Supreme Court justices right now have no real supervisors when it comes to ethics, and impeachment has come to seem excessively partisan. A standing body, available for all cases of misconduct – not just a ticket for one ride only – would resolve that problem, no matter who the appointing president.


Brian Fallon: Roberts Court is Facing a Crisis of Legitimacy

WASHINGTON, D.C. March 13, 2020 – On Friday, Demand Justice Executive Director Brian Fallon released the following statement in response to news that a former Hawaii judge has joined a federal district court judge and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in criticizing the Roberts Court’s recent actions: The Roberts Court is facing a crisis of legitimacy.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman published a paper entitled “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy”

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman published a paper entitled “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy” in the forthcoming issue of the Harvard Law & Policy Review blowing the whistle on the Roberts Court’s partisan, anti-democratic bias. “The Court’s hard right majority is actively participating in undermining American democracy,” he wrote. “Indeed, the Roberts Court has contributed to insuring that the political system in the United States pays little attention to ordinary Americans and responds only to the wishes of a relatively small number of powerful corporations and individuals.

Both of these judges followed Justice Sotomayor in sounding the alarm on the five Republican justices’ allegiances to the Trump administration. Issuing a scathing dissent to a 5-4 decision permitting the Trump administration to institute a wealth test for immigrants, she wrote, “perhaps most troubling, the Court’s recent behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others.


The US Supreme Court has proven that it is not “Just”. Proof is how they almost always vote down party lines. This underscores how flawed our justice system is in general.

The US Supreme Court has become nothing more than a tool to force political policy of the prevailing majority of justices beliefs down the American people’s throats.

Justices of the Supreme Court should be allowed to serve for a maximum of 12 years. NO ONE should be guaranteed a job for life. Anyone appointed should be non-political and not affiliated with any political party.

We need a Supreme Court that can be trusted to be fair, nonpolitical, and ethical. We need to reform the Supreme Court.

Hits: 60