Submitted 3 weeks ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to globalnews@lemmy.zip
One critic described Alito’s cavalier expression of his right-wing views as “deeply troubling” for the Supreme Court.
Archived version: archive.ph/CSrN6
Well that’s terrifying. I’m starting to think you can’t have areal democracy without strong recall abilities on politicians. The fact that these people are untouchable in office no matter what we find on them is insane.
Question is, how do you keep that from being abused?
Recall those that abuse it.
But we are lazy. So we wouldn’t do that. So it would be abused.
Project 2025 piece of shit is what he is.
Your face when you gave control of your society to a death panel of Dark Ages clerics who interpret doctrine into law.
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
I think this clown missed the class where US Constitution mentions “separation between Church & State”.
alilbee@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I really wish it did, but the constitution does not contain that phrase. It does contain “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” (the establishment clause) but “separation of church and state” comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.
Coasting0942@reddthat.com 3 weeks ago
No no, my Christian fan fiction says the Founders were really thinking about the Jesus when they were writing that part, so it cancels out.
vonbaronhans@midwest.social 3 weeks ago
Except the US constitution does not include that language. The “a wall of separation between church and state” phrase most notably comes from an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. Not a legally binding document by any means.
I imagine you’re thinking of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution which forbids the US government restricting the free exercise of religion.
I believe, iirc, the Supreme Court over several decades has affirmed and reaffirmed the overall position that the US government must remain secular and not favor a particular religion. Which is effectively what you’re getting at.
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
You are correct. Though the meaning behind the phrase remains true and biding precedent. If only precedents meant anything in today’s court system. They reinterpret the Constitution on a daily basis to suite the billionaire needs, whose paying them that day.