@rosiezazu2.bsky.social
Reposted
We consider most of Alito's opinions as attacks on the American people🤷♀️
October 4, 2026 at 10:21 PM
We consider most of Alito's opinions as attacks on the American people🤷♀️
Reposted
No federal judge should have lifetime appointments. Period.
An independent judicial ethics board (WITH POWER) as overseer is necessary. And Justices should serve no more than 12 years on the court.
An independent judicial ethics board (WITH POWER) as overseer is necessary. And Justices should serve no more than 12 years on the court.
October 5, 2026 at 1:01 AM
No federal judge should have lifetime appointments. Period.
An independent judicial ethics board (WITH POWER) as overseer is necessary. And Justices should serve no more than 12 years on the court.
An independent judicial ethics board (WITH POWER) as overseer is necessary. And Justices should serve no more than 12 years on the court.
Reposted
Alito may think expanding the court will be a further politicization of the judiciary. In that he might be correct. Balancing the court now won’t stop a president from putting more people like Alito on a yet bigger court.
Political appointments are the problem.
Judges shouldn’t be liars like Alito.
Political appointments are the problem.
Judges shouldn’t be liars like Alito.
October 4, 2026 at 10:46 PM
Alito may think expanding the court will be a further politicization of the judiciary. In that he might be correct. Balancing the court now won’t stop a president from putting more people like Alito on a yet bigger court.
Political appointments are the problem.
Judges shouldn’t be liars like Alito.
Political appointments are the problem.
Judges shouldn’t be liars like Alito.
Reposted
4 Liars lying at hearings,
1 Stolen seat,
1 Sex predator not
investigated,
5 Beneficiaries of gifts, trips, rvs, homes, debts
paid, land sales, stock
wealth,
Shadow docket cowards unwilling and/or unable to satisfactorily explain their rulings,
FUCK ALITO!
Corruption requires reform.
1 Stolen seat,
1 Sex predator not
investigated,
5 Beneficiaries of gifts, trips, rvs, homes, debts
paid, land sales, stock
wealth,
Shadow docket cowards unwilling and/or unable to satisfactorily explain their rulings,
FUCK ALITO!
Corruption requires reform.
October 4, 2026 at 10:49 PM
4 Liars lying at hearings,
1 Stolen seat,
1 Sex predator not
investigated,
5 Beneficiaries of gifts, trips, rvs, homes, debts
paid, land sales, stock
wealth,
Shadow docket cowards unwilling and/or unable to satisfactorily explain their rulings,
FUCK ALITO!
Corruption requires reform.
1 Stolen seat,
1 Sex predator not
investigated,
5 Beneficiaries of gifts, trips, rvs, homes, debts
paid, land sales, stock
wealth,
Shadow docket cowards unwilling and/or unable to satisfactorily explain their rulings,
FUCK ALITO!
Corruption requires reform.
Reposted
If it wasn't corrupt, why would it be intimidating?
October 4, 2026 at 10:59 PM
If it wasn't corrupt, why would it be intimidating?
Reposted
25 sounds better to me.
Less chance of a few radicals twisting the Constitution for one person like the seditious 6 are doing now.
Less chance of a few radicals twisting the Constitution for one person like the seditious 6 are doing now.
October 5, 2026 at 12:13 AM
25 sounds better to me.
Less chance of a few radicals twisting the Constitution for one person like the seditious 6 are doing now.
Less chance of a few radicals twisting the Constitution for one person like the seditious 6 are doing now.
Reposted
13 would make it a fair court for the people.
October 4, 2026 at 11:53 PM
13 would make it a fair court for the people.
Reposted
Alito is a hateful twisted person and should not be on any court, he is in no way just.
October 5, 2026 at 12:03 AM
Alito is a hateful twisted person and should not be on any court, he is in no way just.
Reposted
After 50 YEARS of deliberate court packing, it is just a rebalance to 13=to courts of appeal, away from the evident racist/shareholder oligarch radicalism of 6-3.
October 5, 2026 at 12:23 AM
After 50 YEARS of deliberate court packing, it is just a rebalance to 13=to courts of appeal, away from the evident racist/shareholder oligarch radicalism of 6-3.
Reposted
An expanded court would dilute the power of an individual justice to influence devisions. That’s what Alito is afraid of.
October 5, 2026 at 12:45 AM
An expanded court would dilute the power of an individual justice to influence devisions. That’s what Alito is afraid of.
Reposted
The court wouldn't have an image problem if it wasn't actively trying to destroy democracy & rewrite our constitution unilaterally. They act as if their word is final and they reinterpret things in their own vision. Maybe try following the law instead of making it up to suit your needs as you go.
October 4, 2026 at 9:37 PM
The court wouldn't have an image problem if it wasn't actively trying to destroy democracy & rewrite our constitution unilaterally. They act as if their word is final and they reinterpret things in their own vision. Maybe try following the law instead of making it up to suit your needs as you go.
Reposted
Alito is incapable of taking constructive criticism. He’s not the only one on the Supreme Court with that problem. He has no ability to do any self reflection and admit that maybe he’s letting his bias and personal/religious beliefs take precedence over delivering wise judicial decisions.
October 4, 2026 at 9:44 PM
Alito is incapable of taking constructive criticism. He’s not the only one on the Supreme Court with that problem. He has no ability to do any self reflection and admit that maybe he’s letting his bias and personal/religious beliefs take precedence over delivering wise judicial decisions.
Reposted
He was not muddying the waters; he knew exactly what he was doing. All of this was propaganda they helped spread. The U.S. Supreme Court was not acting in accordance with the U.S. Constitution or the will of the American people, but was simply serving the interests of the wealthy.
October 5, 2026 at 1:00 AM
He was not muddying the waters; he knew exactly what he was doing. All of this was propaganda they helped spread. The U.S. Supreme Court was not acting in accordance with the U.S. Constitution or the will of the American people, but was simply serving the interests of the wealthy.
Reposted
Alito is just one reason why reform is needed.
October 4, 2026 at 11:36 PM
Alito is just one reason why reform is needed.
Reposted
Reposted
That’s an admission of guilt.
If SCOTUS interprets laws according to integrity, precedent, and the constitution, they wouldn’t be intimidated by expansion.
Adding unbiased, ethical justices would only change things if the current court wasn’t, in fact, unbiased or ethical.
If SCOTUS interprets laws according to integrity, precedent, and the constitution, they wouldn’t be intimidated by expansion.
Adding unbiased, ethical justices would only change things if the current court wasn’t, in fact, unbiased or ethical.
October 4, 2026 at 11:38 PM
That’s an admission of guilt.
If SCOTUS interprets laws according to integrity, precedent, and the constitution, they wouldn’t be intimidated by expansion.
Adding unbiased, ethical justices would only change things if the current court wasn’t, in fact, unbiased or ethical.
If SCOTUS interprets laws according to integrity, precedent, and the constitution, they wouldn’t be intimidated by expansion.
Adding unbiased, ethical justices would only change things if the current court wasn’t, in fact, unbiased or ethical.
Reposted
We know the court needs reform when justices use the shadow docket as a way to circumvent proceedings on the merit & avoid making precedent but still expect to enforce their opinion on lower courts
It isn’t right for a SCOTUS not to have standards of practice to uphold.
It isn’t right for a SCOTUS not to have standards of practice to uphold.
October 4, 2026 at 11:41 PM
We know the court needs reform when justices use the shadow docket as a way to circumvent proceedings on the merit & avoid making precedent but still expect to enforce their opinion on lower courts
It isn’t right for a SCOTUS not to have standards of practice to uphold.
It isn’t right for a SCOTUS not to have standards of practice to uphold.
Reposted
Sure like they could be intimidated. The only one I see that tried to intimidate them was Trump who showed up at the court, trying to intimidate them. It didn’t work. They up held that if your born in the U S you are a citizen.
October 4, 2026 at 9:42 PM
Sure like they could be intimidated. The only one I see that tried to intimidate them was Trump who showed up at the court, trying to intimidate them. It didn’t work. They up held that if your born in the U S you are a citizen.
Reposted
If we wanted Alito's opinion we would've rattled his cage.
October 4, 2026 at 9:43 PM
If we wanted Alito's opinion we would've rattled his cage.
OK, yes, but look at what they have also done refused to do that makes then so guilty + look at Clarence Thomas He’s best friends w Putin & stays in his palace in Russia. give me a break. This is the worst SCOTUS IN American History all bc of Republicans w their criminally insane agenda Against USA
Sure like they could be intimidated. The only one I see that tried to intimidate them was Trump who showed up at the court, trying to intimidate them. It didn’t work. They up held that if your born in the U S you are a citizen.
October 5, 2026 at 3:22 AM
OK, yes, but look at what they have also done refused to do that makes then so guilty + look at Clarence Thomas He’s best friends w Putin & stays in his palace in Russia. give me a break. This is the worst SCOTUS IN American History all bc of Republicans w their criminally insane agenda Against USA
Reposted
We just want to uphold the Constitution and our laws. That's not too much to ask.
October 4, 2026 at 11:25 PM
We just want to uphold the Constitution and our laws. That's not too much to ask.
Reposted
Reposted
He is doing so intentionally. Opus Dei sez it’s OK
October 4, 2026 at 10:24 PM
He is doing so intentionally. Opus Dei sez it’s OK
Reposted
How would expanding the court be an attack on the court?
The constitution does not state how many justices are to be seated..Congress sets that number..it went from 6 to 7 to 9 and briefly 10, but Congress didn’t want Andrew Johnson to make any appointments so the Judiciary Act of 1869 settled at 9
The constitution does not state how many justices are to be seated..Congress sets that number..it went from 6 to 7 to 9 and briefly 10, but Congress didn’t want Andrew Johnson to make any appointments so the Judiciary Act of 1869 settled at 9
October 4, 2026 at 10:28 PM
How would expanding the court be an attack on the court?
The constitution does not state how many justices are to be seated..Congress sets that number..it went from 6 to 7 to 9 and briefly 10, but Congress didn’t want Andrew Johnson to make any appointments so the Judiciary Act of 1869 settled at 9
The constitution does not state how many justices are to be seated..Congress sets that number..it went from 6 to 7 to 9 and briefly 10, but Congress didn’t want Andrew Johnson to make any appointments so the Judiciary Act of 1869 settled at 9