this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
136 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23023 readers
23 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’ 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 63 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago

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