Summary

Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2024 year-end report warns about threats to judicial independence, citing violence, intimidation, disinformation, and defiance of court rulings.

Roberts raises valid concerns about rising violence against judges and disregard for rulings.

However, he controversially conflates criticism of the judiciary with intimidation and disinformation, including public critique of ethical lapses by justices like Clarence Thomas.

This approach risks diminishing the seriousness of genuine threats and undermining public trust in the court.

55 points
*

We can all agree that Supreme Court justices shouldn’t face threats of physical violence.

Can we? I’m pretty sure if the U.S. is going to continue forcing children to face threats of physical violence, a corrupt Supreme Court Justice should be able to grow tougher skin. Or hey, maybe don’t be such a corrupt piece of shit that people start wanting to test the limits of your lifetime appointment.

permalink
report
reply
12 points

Yeah like at some point it’s justified to respond to danger with violence. The supreme court is dangerous for most people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

He is the physical embodiment of law in the United States. He has carved out his own fiefdom and will use all his power to defend it. What ever he thinks the law should be is how it is.

If the supreme court does it it isn’t illegal. It’s quid pro quo for what ever the president does is legal. Congress is exempt from US laws.

No Balance, No checks, all in public and all on the record.

permalink
report
reply
20 points

There are plenty of checks… being written to members of the Supreme Court. Ba dum tss

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

This approach risks diminishing the seriousness of genuine threats and undermining public trust in the court.

No, it’s just one more step towards authoritarianism.

Right now, the idea is to equate criticism of authority with intimidation. And that is pretty easy to do when the people like what authority is saying. And right now, there are plenty of people who love where all of this is going and will gladly support this movement because they think they’ll always agree with authority forever and ever and ever amen.

Once you get people to equate criticism with intimidation, it’s a much easier leap to extend that to threats, since intimidation is typically either an explicit or implied threat: Come around to my way of thinking or bad things might happen to you. Once you do that, you’ve established a chain where criticism of authority can now be seen as a form of intimidation and therefore an implied threat of violence.

At this point, it becomes again easier to normalize arresting these people under some guise of protecting society or somesuch. Some people who have grievances against the government and make threats of violence may decide to escalate and commit a mass shooting or a bombing as a form of political radicalization. And of course, the best way to prevent a tragedy like that is to investigate potential threats once you start seeing red flags. Like that guy that showed up at the town hall and asked the mayor about why he was seen handing a large sack of cash to the chief of police in a back alley. He also voted against the mayor in the last election so he clearly has an agenda against this guy and the mayor says we need to investigate before he bombs city hall…

Get the idea?

All Roberts is doing is just turning the temperature in the water by just one degree.

permalink
report
reply
21 points

It’s the words of a parent who expect their child to obey. It’s a common tactic of authoritarians–you’ll see it a lot once you know what to look for. He doesn’t have to be right, but you have to listen and do what he tells you.

It’s no way to negotiate between adults. Roberts can go fuck himself.

permalink
report
reply
18 points

This fucker is getting ready to retire so he is getting ready to blame ethics standards for his leaving. This is to justify even more flagrant violations by his to be named successor.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 18K

    Posts

  • 500K

    Comments