As Trump dodges court orders, Samuel Alito suggests obeying judges can be optional
A justice suggests flouting democratic norms after taking part in a decades-long project to weaken democratic rights.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/samuel-alito-lower-courts/Open linkView original on lemmy.zip
20 replies
Cool, I’ll optionally listen to the next judge I get in front of and I’ll let you know how many feet under the fucking jail I end up.
You'll be lucky if there's a real judge involved in the future if this is the way things are going to progress. You'll get an immediate hearing with a judge from an executive branch judiciary division.
Police officer: "you're under arrest for walking outside of your socioeconomic zone."
Defendant: "When's my trial?"
Judiciary officer: "Right now." [Gaval sounds] "Guilty."
You laugh, but this is coming soon if it's not here already.
We already have Administrative Law Judges (ALJ). You can get tied up in a "court" hearing with a person that has never practiced law as a "judge". This happens in administrative offices like Child Protective Services, the Social Security Administration, state unemployment agencies, and even the ATF. You can eventually appeal yourself out of these idiot-run hearings, but if you make a misstep like a missed hearing call or late form within the complex process you get denied justice.
Thanks for teaching me something new, albeit highly concerning. Can you imagine how bad it might get if an administration that promotes unitary executive theory took control? Oh, boy. We'd be in some hot water then.
The Fascists are in power now.
These are people who want power, only care about power, and only ever 'respect' power greater than their own.
They don't ever question power. They worship it.
Luigi walks
Le reddit response
And yours, more so.
It's treason then
You heard him folks, remove the nazis in the Supreme Court!
Damn Alito, why do we need you then?
His purpose is to prevent a moral and ethical non-fascist from taking the seat.
Of course he did.
I didn't realize Marbury v. Madison was controversial. Good precedent since 1803, so in the dumper it goes?
What Webster dictionary definition did he base this legal opinion on?
I just think about whats going to happen to clarence thomas once judges are powerless.
Oh course he does.
So we're just done with the rule of law? Anything goes now? I don't think that's a door he necessarily wants to open.