Summary

MAGA has turned on Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, after she sided against Trump in two recent 5-4 rulings.

Online critics accuse her of disloyalty, with some even calling her a “DEI judge.”

Barrett has consistently ruled in favor of conservative causes but has occasionally taken a more independent approach. However, Trump supporters expect personal loyalty from the justices.

The backlash mirrors previous attacks on judges ruling against Trump, raising concerns about threats and judicial independence.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1572 days ago

    Disloyalty? The whole point of a Judge is to be impartial and not just vote how they are told to. Otherwise what is the point. Just put any yob off the streets into the judiciary to vote yes to what you want.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      472 days ago

      Democracy is a matter of conflict and peaceful resolution towards solutions that benefit the most people. They don’t want democracy, they never did.

      • @kmartburrito
        link
        62 days ago

        He can’t talk right now, mouth too full of dick

    • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)
      link
      fedilink
      English
      272 days ago

      They are supposed to be the interpreters of the law, and to send things back down to lower courts for things that are not spelled out in laws or the constitution so that the courts can help settle the grey (untested/unsettled ) areas of the law.

      The Court currently is anti human rights, pro corporate, anti environmental, pro Christian indoctrination, and pro Trump and/or fascists. The majority hasn’t ruled on anything based on case law in years. And that became super apparent when Trump got to stack the court with rubber stamp judges.

      • BigFig
        link
        English
        72 days ago

        They are supposed to be the interpreters of the law

        Uhhh don’t forget that the supreme court literally GAVE themselves that power and job. The Constitution does not say at all that the supreme court is to interpret law.

        Judicial review was established in 1803, and was just never objected to because neither of the other 2 branches want to do the job (and IMO they immediately recognized the tool or weapon it could be)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          82 days ago

          True, but I have a hard time imagining them not having that job. What else would be the point of a court?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 days ago

      Just put any yob off the streets into the judiciary to vote yes to what you want.

      This is what Trump expects from them. He appointed him, they owe him everything. It’s not surprising his supporters feel the same