How The Supreme Court May Threaten Democracy

The U.S. Supreme Court is under the spotlight following the controversy around the right to abortion. The Supreme Court is the most powerful court of law in the U.S. Their rulings are often rarely overturned, profoundly shaping the course of public policy in America for years to come. But some experts find such immense judicial power deeply problematic. Is the Supreme Court truly in need of reform and what solutions can the U.S. consider? Watch the video to find out.
» Subscribe to CNBC: cnb.cx/Subscri...
» Subscribe to CNBC TV: cnb.cx/Subscri...
» Subscribe to CNBC Classic: cnb.cx/Subscri...
About CNBC: From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.
Connect with CNBC News Online
Get the latest news: www.cnbc.com/
Follow CNBC on LinkedIn: cnb.cx/LinkedI...
Follow CNBC News on Facebook: cnb.cx/LikeCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Twitter: cnb.cx/FollowCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Instagram: cnb.cx/Instagr...
#CNBC
How The Supreme Court May Threaten Democracy

[@NotYourFathersAccountant]

This is all Congress's fault. The Supreme Court would not have to be making these decisions if Congress could actually work together, do their jobs, and pass actual legislation.

[@christina678]

Judicial Review~ The Supreme Court would still be able to declare the law unconstitutional. Checks and balances.

[@jimk8520]

I disagree. There is no fault. They do their jobs, work together, pass actual legislation and the system is working exactly as intended. Your confusion stems from the misbelief that they are doing any of this for the general public.

[@afriedrich1452]

Actually, the question should be, "How did the Supreme Court become so anti-democratic in the past?" The Supreme Court is not elected. Only elected representatives should be making the laws, not the Supreme Court!

[@sebastianwrites]

What are you talking about? The Supreme Court has been dominated by the Republicans since 1970... if that doesn't say to people the system is broken, what will?

[@afriedrich1452]

@@sebastianwrites This is exactly why the Supreme Court should not be making laws.

[@maxisussex]

Institutions in the US are so undemocratic. The highest judges in the land should not be described as "liberal" or "conservative" because those things shouldn't matter, judges should be apolitical. Their job is to interpret and impose the law and the fact they split between conservative and liberal just shows they are offering their personal opinions which masquerade as legal ones.

[@franciscodanconia4324]

That's mostly a leftist justice issue.

[@maxisussex]

@@franciscodanconia4324 Except it isn't. The conservatives vote as expected each time too.

[@Saxxin1]

@@maxisussex I fully expect the right to follow the constitution and the left to twist it to take away your rights. Which is exactly what happens almost 100% of the time.

[@adrianbuck8772]

In my eyes the entire political System in the US (an similar structured systems) are not able to correctly transform majority of votes into majority of political power and reprensenting the nuanced and pluralitility way of life/views/opinions within a country.

[@franciscodanconia4324]

@@maxisussex Yes, conservative textualist Justices vote the way you'd think a conservative textualist justice would, i.e. following the plain language of the Constitution. Not making up things as they go along to find rights that don't exist in the text. I would wager that 5 of the 9 Justices also might have been on board with declaring unborn children have 14th Amendment rights, but they didn't because they are devolving power from the court, not accumulating more to it.

[@faywhite7886]

The Court became more powerful when Congress doesn't do their job. Congress waits till the Courts rule on a case rather than passing laws. ie Abortion rights.

[@ralphgreenjr.2466]

You are absolutely correct. It is much easier for a Senator or Congressperson to do nothing and when something goes off the rails blame the court, who has no authority to make legislation. It is the DC shuffle, "pass the buck", practiced by all office holders.

[@dom85esc1]

@@ralphgreenjr.2466 Probably why McConnel made it a point to pack SCOTUS and many other courts with as many republicans as he could. Justice took off the blindfold and joined the conservative party line.

[@ralphgreenjr.2466]

@@dom85esc1 Every president nominates judges at all levels based on who will support their agenda.That unfortunately is the political influence on the judiciary. President O'bama did it, President Trump did it, and President Biden has done. Look at his Supreme Court appointee, someone that he knew the Democrats would own! That is the DC shuffle, like it or not. I understand your frustration, but that is what it is.

[@mayainverse9429]

@@ralphgreenjr.2466 they have to also be confirmed. things would be much more ok if 1. people stopped trying to rely on the supreme court for literally everything. 2. if there was a requirement for bipartisan votes to confirm someone. although I would say the right has far better court picks as they are not activist justices. the ruling on this current thing "roe" is the most bipartisan and unity based ruling you can have. it gives all people the right to have the laws they want in their state with a highly controversial topic. meanwhile the other option is 1 side forces their way on the other half.

[@ralphgreenjr.2466]

@@mayainverse9429 Ma'am, you have a good understanding of things. The current political situation is the worst I have seen in my 73 years. I hope God can take the time to bless these United States as we surely need it. Republicans/Democrats work for the people, please.

[@ORMONDROPON]

When you care about getting reelected, it is easier to pass the buck to someone else so they can be the bad guy. We don't have to live in a world where congress is so feeble and useless, while the Supreme Court seems so powerful; This is just a reflection of the quality of your elected officials.

[@BeatMedicare]

True, Congress does nothing but play theatre like that loser Booker with his “Spartacus” moment 😂😂😂 I don’t recall Spartacus running like a coward from some vandals

[@leorkoubi4626]

We should stop blaming the court and start blaming ourselves. We elected these politicians we chose the voting system. Until we take more responsibility things won't change.

[@slevinchannel7589]

@@leorkoubi4626 The Court is Broken. Juiscemedia and Second Thought both have great criticism of it and do mention what can be done by You.

[@goabparty9574]

@@slevinchannel7589 no. Court works just fine. You’re just mad you can’t steam roll the constitution.

[@theenigmaticnovaofactivity4065]

People seemed strangely fine with this level of unaccountability until a week ago.

[@miketackabery7521]

True that. As long as the Supremes rule in your favor, regardless of whether or not it's constitutional, then you're happy. Finally there's an actual conservative court letting Congress know: "you want this law? Then you do it. Stop being lazy money -grubbers and do your work because we're not going to do it for you.

[@nicknolte8671]

@@miketackabery7521 That's disingenuous. The SC knows what it's doing and knows that Congress won't act. And it's a fascist agenda, not a conservative one. This always happens... "Facing the demagogic trend, [political] liberalism is the form of suicide committed by our sick society. With this perspective it gives itself up. The merciless, embittered class war that is waged against it finds it ready to capitulate politically, after having helped spiritually to forge the enemy’s weapons. "Only the conservative element, weak as it was in the 19th century, can and will in the future, prevent the coming of this end (125)." What Spengler refers to as “conservatism” is thus simply a means to shelter liberal society from itself, rescue the economic order from the suicidal tendencies of its politically liberal “protectors.” Like Donoso, Spengler palpably shows how “conservatism” and “anti-liberalism” are not necessarily motivated by opposition to capitalism or a longing for the socioeconomic order predating it, but can come precisely to succor the economic liberal order in its hour of greatest need. Conservatives are thus willing to toss out the bathwater of political liberalism to save the baby of capitalism." Conservatives are willing to do away with democracy and resort to fascism to rescue capitalism, or the economic liberal order. Or what's known in the US as the fiscal conservative order.

[@adampkalb]

I was never fine with this unaccountability. The seditionists from January 6th who were domestic terrorists are just the tip of the unaccountability iceberg. Long before a week ago, we had loads of corrupt Supreme Court Justices who broke their oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. People who try to throw out elections and pass voter suppression bills are already breaking the Fifteenth and Twenty-Sixth amendments, and any time they remove rights that they say are not part of the constitution, like the rights to abortion or clean air and water, they violate the Ninth and Tenth amendments. George Carlin was right. Our rights are an illusion, and they can take away all of our rights until we are nothing but slaves with no freedom, who are criminals for choosing to disobey their every instruction! This is madness! This is fascism! They do not care about supporting and defending the constitution. They just want more power for themselves, like Napoleon from Animal Farm! July 2, 2022, 4:07am

[@lolcatjunior]

@@miketackabery7521 The courts are reviewing state legislature theory which allows gives law making power to the state legislatures including voting laws. That could end democracy right there.

[@jankington216]

@@miketackabery7521 Your tiny mind must be working overtime, the supreme court is going out of their way to open cans of worms that create huge amounts of work for themselves.

[@gloriathomas3245]

The framers never intended for the court to be powerful other than being a check on both the legislature and executive.

[@Saxxin1]

Which is what they did. they put the power back in the states hands where it belongs.

[@x_zahvi9156]

The founding fathers knew what they were doing

[@Tom-nd1fs]

And that's the exact job they do today. They dont make laws, they make decisions on whether the laws that legislative branch are passing violate the constitution or not.

[@moranii1843]

Madison V Marbury happened during many founder's lifetime

[@bernardfurst9133]

And that's exactly what they are doing. And that's where their power lies. These criticisms of the Supreme Court are simply because Democrats don't agree with the outcomes of some of the judgements.

[@markmyjak7739]

Isn't the Supreme Court part of the check and balances? How are they threatening our democracy? It's theie job to scrutinize the laws Congress makes.

[@jp2440]

Hey also we are constitutional republic with democratic values.

[@raizil0513]

They didn't follow the narrative...

[@ericwood3709]

By being unaccountable to anyone and having no code of ethics that they must follow. They are becoming more partisan as the congresses and presidents appointing them become more partisan. The justices make massive amounts of money from book deals and stock trading, easily biasing their decisions. Then there is the way congress under McConnell's control has hypocritically prevented appointments to the Supreme Court by Democratic presidents while breaking their own made-up rules to appoint justices during the Trump administration in particular.

[@supercharger5727]

Well no body can over rule them

[@abram730]

A bunch of unelected criminals and political hacks are legislating from the bench.

[@letmelick]

So powerful that they deleted this video with in seconds.

[@JAMM264]

Boy 😅😂

[@Samir12357]

Was going to comment the same..

[@higherquest3842]

It is still up. 🤷

[@letmelick]

@@higherquest3842 They re uploaded it.

[@benitolopez725]

So not funny

[@Axis.]

Democrats: **expands the Supreme Court and fills it with liberal justices** “woooooo” Republicans: **takes back congress, and expand the court again themselves and fills those with conservative justices** Democrats: “this is so wrong and is an attack on our democracy and this is very unfair and they can’t do that!!!! 😭”

[@sebastianrubin7476]

The democrats don't have to wait; they can just point out the anti-democratic behavior of the GQP which led to the current conservative majority on the SCROTUS.

[@drunkenn1nja]

Both are wrong, you can’t be drinking the “democrats bad” cool aid when both sides are pretty similar in their ideas, it’s all political theater, there’s nothing apolitical about a majority liberal or conservative Supreme Court, there’s no objectivity.

[@Mike-ne8eb]

I wouldn't care if the Supreme Court had 435 justices on it. If Republicans expand it again, we'll just go back and forth. It will force the country to have another constitutional convention.

[@mihirvora2010]

Supreme Court: Getting more powerful. Checks and balances: Am I a joke to you?

[@edwinamendelssohn5129]

Yes

[@miketackabery7521]

Absolutely you are.

[@krikerb]

So because the Supreme Court ruled that abortion rights belong in the hands of the states and up held the seconded amendment as intended it is are all of a sudden broken and too powerful? What a clown world we live in. "This didn't go my way so this is broken." Maybe look at yourself and see if you are in the wrong.

[@mrwilliamwonder]

The majority is right here….it’s you that’s wrong.

[@freddytang2128]

As a Canadian I’m proud that very few people (even politically engaged Canadians) can name a single Canadian Supreme Court Justice

[@jessegarman7899]

Good for you. Now bow to to your master PT.

[@mahive2097]

Same goes for India

[@collinhennessy6558]

Why would you be proud of that?

[@alexl1178]

@@collinhennessy6558 It means they're doing their jobs well enough that we don't have to care.

[@Spytel1]

The US Supreme Court has a generally different role than the Canadian one. The Canadian Court focuses more on the execution of proper justice under the law, and the US Court focuses on the legal limitations of Government authority to make and execute laws.

[@TheNJB]

The Supreme court lessens their power be repealing a nationwide ruling. CNBC: How the supreme court got so powerful lmao

[@freedomlover3323]

That's the hilarious part. ROE V Wade was a political stunt that ended up with a judge creating law. Now that it finally saw the light of day in the SCOTUS, news networks act like the court is creating law, which is 100% false. They gave up the power to create law by handing it off to the state's governments.

[@aussiekingofmongrels]

Your logic is “smooth brain” undeniable

[@linusmlgtips2123]

lessons? It took away a right.

[@freedomlover3323]

@@linusmlgtips2123 Lessen, not lesson. They're two different words. Also, NO RIGHT was way taken away from anyone. It's very simple, ROE VS Wade was unconstitutional. All the court did was hand the power back to the states and they did NOT ban abortions, like the left is spewing. Anyone that claims that is a liar or is ignorant to the 54 years of B.S. with it.

[@linusmlgtips2123]

@@freedomlover3323 Roe v Wade was constitutional for 50 years. Anything is subject to interpretation, and a liberal court would've sided against a conservative minority. Abortion is no longer a right. A right means that you can do something and have access to it. Neither applies in the handful of states that have nearly outlawed all abortion.

[@tavelkyosoba]

started off a little strong on the "Democracy only works if i get my way" but did bring it around to a more reasonable assessment near the end.

[@joebidenisyourpresidentget2481]

If you lie during your job interview you can get fired for it later. Lets talk about “reason” now.

[@ralphw3636]

Exactly. CNBC is surprisingly good at this which is why I watch their videos.

[@Tential1]

@@joebidenisyourpresidentget2481 Also, if this is such a hot button issue, dems will murder the mid terms. Otherwise, I think there was a lot more nuance to Americans being OK with abortions. Yet it seems there will still be a red wave. So I have to wonder how big the support for roe really was, I think Americans want abortion legal, but if it was to pass federally, it would probably be more restrictive than liberal states are willing to go for which leaves us with each state deciding on their own.

[@j.s.2094]

HOW DOES THE IRS GOT SO POWERFUL?

[@grumpypumpkin1]

Sorry, that isn’t the narrative right now. Stay focused on this ONE topic because…….DeMoCrAcY 🤡

[@j.s.2094]

@@grumpypumpkin1 well fi that is the case, get rid of the USPS votes, the voting machines, let republicans be present when counting the votes, count votes manually and verify them and then you will have real DEMOCRACY.

[@ruthsaunders9507]

@@grumpypumpkin1 Republic?

[@franciscodanconia4324]

So, anyone want to make a bet that if Roe had been upheld, CNBC wouldn't be running this?

[@Dank_Matmo]

I think you’re absolutely right, and it’s no surprise or coincidence

[@baldisaerodynamic9692]

exactly. this is a bias video made by these bought and paid for dirtballs...the same thing they are saying they are against here LOL

[@lynnmckenney1987]

To be fair, removing the rights half of Americans is cause for questioning those in control.

[@matthewledford7209]

Yea, just like they said republicans liked term limits until they dominated the courts, but couldn't that be said about democrats as well? When they had the power they didn't fight for term limits either.

[@awildtannerwasfound5045]

@@lynnmckenney1987 Abortion rights never were constitutional rights, they were constitutional interpretations. Going through American history, it has always been the states decision to decide on abortion. Which meant in the mid-late 1800s and with actual medical knowledge was exposed, most states became opposed to abortion in casual use. That was the way things were, there was still abortion access in several other states until the 1973 case with Roe V. Wade. Which saw a depressed woman (Roe) with a very tragic life with 2 kids want to get an abortion after getting pregnant. The Texas court said no, but her attorneys said no and off to the Supreme Court it went. It was a landmark ruling at the time that removed the state's right of its citizens to vote for the candidates that would either support or restrict abortion. The end result of Roe saw women across the country gain access to abortion, but Roe, had her baby before she could get one. She put the child up for adoption, and slowly came to become pro-life and against abortion. That child is still alive.

[@richardmann3396]

So now that the court has ruled in a way as to please the less vocal "everyone " thinks they have too much power...hmm.

[@piwetshombe4684]

Democrats are a very divisive crowd. They couldn’t accept Trump’s presidency and now can’t accept the rule of the court. I think they’re more a danger to democracy than anyone else.

[@justrandomthings319]

When the Spreme Court makes a ruling liberals don't like. Liberals: the Supreme Court is "deeply problematic". When the Supreme Court makes a ruling liberals like. Liberals: True justice has prevailed.

[@linusmlgtips2123]

Yes, because conservatives want christian theocracy

[@nate4fish]

I mean the fact that roe v wade even was decided the way it was so long ago shows how much power the court can wield.

[@williamcrawford4829]

Bull crap

[@williamcrawford4829]

No k v

[@williamcrawford4829]

No hi

[@williamcrawford4829]

No

[@Viviko]

What? All they did was INTERPRET laws. The Supreme Court doesn’t make laws. They have no actual power, dimwit.

[@layalumpar4218]

I'm from a country where our supreme court is a joke. Our government can easily bend the supreme court to its will. This results in having our government officials breaking all the laws they want. The president, legislators, justice department, prosecutors, investigators, etc. interpret our laws freely. Even if our supreme court says this thing is illegal and that thing is illegal (especially in issues of civil liberties, economic rights and human rights), the government cares little and does not change its implementation of laws at all. That's why I kinda envy how the US supreme court decisions are always binding to your whole nation, and your government is always compelled to implement changes as a result of those decisions. In my country, what we have is a broken clock that is right once or twice a day. In the US, what you have is a good clock that skips a second once or twice a day. Your Supreme Court is not broken, especially when compared to a lot of other countries. You may advocate for changes to make it better (and not skip a second), but don't advocate for a complete overhaul of its system. Otherwise, you may end up with a supreme court that is like in my country, too powerless to have its interpretations implemented thoroughly by the government. Impeachment of justices is the first step to that decline in supreme court's power. In my country, one or two justices always get impeached and removed every time a new president is in power. This makes all the current justices, who are afraid of being impeached, to always intepret our laws in accordance with how the president interprets them. Supersizing the supreme court will only result in the same. The only real reasonable solutions are term limits and a change in the system on how the justices ard nominted and selectec.

[@miketackabery7521]

Absolutely! It's shocking how many likes you're NOT getting. It's clear that people just want their own way and don't care at all for the law.

[@aparajitasuman9727]

Funny, I am also from a similar country

[@abram730]

Unelected criminals shouldn't rule over us and be free to take away our rights. Impeach the criminals on the court. "I kinda envy how the US supreme court decisions are always binding to your whole nation" Only when the government chooses to listen. Fourteen years ago the Supreme court essentially close Guantanamo Bay prison, yet it is still open. "term limits and a change in the system on how the justices ard nominted and selectec." I can agree on that.

[@davidcole2004]

@@abram730 hell no

[@Bluequaz]

Ain't no way you think I want to read a KZbin comment essay

[@aaronhinson2114]

They're powerful because the constitution made it so, intentionally. They are there to protect and interpret the constitution

[@mirquellasantos2716]

They are here to protect the super rich and whites especially rich whites. They are not here to protect us, minorities, as they voted to limit our access to vote meaning that only whites can fully vote especially in the south.

[@mra.prasetio]

They are also institutions that accept the separation of powers, namely judicial power. It is the nature of the Supreme Court to have great power.

[@Dakidpepe]

Their old & outta touch with the people like most of this politicians are gonna be dead or in a retirement home in 10-20 years.

[@p.t.4960]

Actually, until John Marshall's landmark decision in Marbury, the S.C. was weak and inconsequential.

[@CaseyEm]

The fact that the senate is the group who confirms justices gives incredible power to small states.

[@miketackabery7521]

And thank heavens for that!

[@CaseyEm]

@@miketackabery7521 because minority rule makes sense. "Trust me guys, equality is actually evil. If everyones vote counts equally, you might get radical changes like livable wages tied to inflation and maternity leave. And we all know how evil that is"

[@AnshuGSharma]

@@miketackabery7521 A voter in a more populous state doesn’t deserve less relative power in the legislature than a voter in a less populous state.

[@ruthsaunders9507]

@@AnshuGSharma We are a Republic. That's how it works. Mob rule is a horrific thing.

[@AnshuGSharma]

@@ruthsaunders95071) part of living in a Republic is a majority cannot legislate away the rights of a minority, 2) 9th amendment and the writing of the Framers shows that the Constitution is not an exhaustive listing of rights, and 3) we’d still be a Republic if the House of Representatives rather than the Senate voted to confirm judicial nominees (or if we had a unicameral legislature with multi-member districts)

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

How did banks, asset managers, pharmaceutical companies, and conglomerates/monopolies become so powerful?

[@littledudefromacrossthestr5755]

Kakashi

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

@@littledudefromacrossthestr5755 kakashi is a drawing that has little if not, no influence on real life issues

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

@@glocen What?

[@deebee4575]

Imagine a Canadian news outlet whining about democracy 🤣😂🤣🤣😂

[@JXY2019]

Wouldn’t the overturning of Roe be the court giving up power?

[@chrisbentley71]

The SC gave the states the power when it comes to Roe.

[@YorktownUSA]

Yes, in a weird way, maybe not it's personal power but indirectly.

[@MOKayakFishing]

You are contradicting yourself. If they give people of the states the right to choose they are in fact giving the power to the people. Congress has to act. The Supreme Court interprets the constitution.

[@byronwatkins2565]

Overturning Roe is the court EXERCISING its power to inhibit the US government from enforcing women's rights.

[@Viviko]

@@hughparker9384 In case you forgot, one of the principles this country was founded on was the balance of power within the Government branches. All the Supreme Court did was take away the Federal Government’s power to dictate the legality of abortions and gave it back to the states. AKA: It was doing it’s damn job. It never “exercised its power” to take rights away from the citizenry. It just transferred the power to decide Abortion’s legality from the Federal Government to the individual State governments where it rightfully belongs. Why the hell should the central government (Federal Government) dictate to states that x should be legal when that wasn’t even in the constitution or Bill of Rights as a power that should be in the hands of the central government.

[@Po101080]

When supreme court makes a ruling that the media likes: silence When supreme court makes a ruling that the media doesn't like: REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[@joebidenisyourpresidentget2481]

Rights are always granted, never taken away.

[@derekh1593]

@@joebidenisyourpresidentget2481 LMAO!!!

[@willmont8258]

The left had no problem with the court having a lot of power when it was ruling the way they liked.

[@Solidsnake856]

Blaming the opposition will definately move us forward on this country, not working together to reform our government for the betterment of the common man

[@franksilverstein3339]

SHOW ME EXACTLY WHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, WHERE THE "RIGHT" TO A ABORTION IS!

[@mattsipes6186]

This video blows my mind. If you want to change debate and change people's minds. Vote. Run change through the legislative process. If you want to blame anyone - blame our elective representatives that have full control over writing laws and changing things.

[@LewyGooey3]

Voting has been so gerrymandered that elected official decided elections before we even vote.

[@Djdaniel77]

Who knew democracy could threaten democracy.

[@Viviko]

I’m all in for term limits. But, why the hell would you want the branch that writes laws to tell the branch thst interprets laws that some of the laws the branch thst writes laws pass can be reviewed? Sounds like it would give the legislative branch too much power. Imagine if a conservative-controlled congress passed a law criminalizing abortion nation wide and they say the Supreme Court can’t review it because it’s outside their jurisdiction. Or, if it review was given to HHS, conservatives could just flood that court with their cronies and avoid the Supreme Court when they know what they are passing will get turned down by the Supreme Court.

[@megamanx466]

How can you decide what "good behavior" is without a code of ethics for the Supreme Court!? How was this never questioned before? Idiocy!

[@turkishdelight6032]

That's a good point, but a lot of companies have a Code of Ethics/Conduct and still violate them

[@meenki347]

When the Constitution was written, raping your slaves was considered "good behavior"

[@bgm769-g2k]

My guess is strategic ambiguity. When the Constitution was written there were certain parts of it that the framers wanted to keep more vague and open-ended so that way the America of the future could interpret it the way they wanted it to. Thus, questions about impeachment such as for presidents or justices depends on what the people of the United States at any given time feel is appropriate or inappropriate. The problem with codifying and ethics code is precisely that if there is something that is largely seen as unconscionable by the American people and by congress, then they are constrained by whether or not such a behavior is covered in the ethics code. In other words let's say the ethics code left out something that is considered egregious. In such an instance then if Congress has tied their hands by using this ethics code as the standard measurement, then Congress has no way to get rid of a Justice who commits whatever the egregious act is but is not covered by the ethics code.

[@jamesharmon3827]

ethics in whose opinion? Any governing body that would applaud killing a child up to the day of birth has no ethics

[@akasgsvirgil9503]

It was never questioned before because radical politics in this country were never mainstream before. The High Court has issued a number of decisions that the Democrats have seized upon to promote their political agenda by lying and creating false narratives about these decisions. For example, the EPA decision follows the Constitution to the letter. The EPA does not have the power to decide what environmental standards should be. That's a power reserved exclusively for Congress. Congress sets those standards and the EPA enforces them. That's how it works. The same is true with the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe. The High Court did not ban abortion. It simply returned the matter back to the states where it belongs. Congress is free to pass a Bill that establishes abortion legality and set the regulations for it. But, that's not what they're doing. They're actually calling for either an overhaul or a dismantling of the United States Supreme Court. That is radically dangerous and must not be allowed to prevail. The common thread here is that the Supreme Court is returning power back to the People of the United States to be exercised through their elected representatives in both Congress and their state legislatures. That benefits us all. This is how out Democracy was designed to operate and until 2001, is essentially how it operated. But, the Democrats have other ideas. They see the Constitution as an inconvenience. There are 100 million Americans who will defend that Constitution to the bitterest of ends. We must avoid that terrifying truth from becoming a reality at all costs and this cannot be done without mutual cooperation. This nation is a rudderless ship and that is not good. If something isn't done and done soon, I fear for the worst.

[@brandonannisette6023]

Maybe this issue will force people to take interest on local elections

[@albertogonzalez7631]

No only federal

[@listenwhileyouwork1367]

Boring. People only want to watch the super bowl, not all the stuff leading up to it.. you know, wings, chips, dogs, beer and the boys.. none of that teamwork, dedication, hard work, trails and tribulations. No we want fun time and we want it now! No consequences! Just like their stance on abortion.

[@edwinamendelssohn5129]

@@albertogonzalez7631 🤦🏻‍♀️

[@murphman76]

Wait until the Supreme Court - once again - has a liberal Supreme Justice majority....then there will be a NEW CNBC video about how fabulous an institution the Supreme Court is!

[@slevinchannel7589]

The Court is Broken. Juiscemedia and Second Thought both have great criticism of it and do mention what can be done by You.

[@Promano1978]

When it comes to the 2nd amendment the Supreme Court has been a champion of that right.

[@trinaija]

Everything else is dismissed

[@colinhiggins4779]

Suddenly the Court needs to be “fixed”

[@ashishranjan887]

The court needs DIVERSITY.... 😂😂😂

[@lovepieguy6292]

Hahah right what a joke

[@stevencouitt4286]

Big joke what about fixing the House and Senate!

[@LowlyThinker]

It’s not surprising that CNBC (a left leaning institution) is posting this after retraction of the abortion case

[@all2jesus]

Why didn't this video come out after pro-leftist rulings?

[@lynnmckenney1987]

What "pro leftist" rulings are you referring to?

[@all2jesus]

@@lynnmckenney1987 The lgbt stuff for example.

[@Jose_Jimenez]

It doesn't matter what side the court is on as long as they can truly justify a decision based on the Constitution. But this is not the case here, liberals are upset just because the decisions didn't go their way. Not one liberal has given any Constitutional argument as to why the decisions were wrong.

[@9wiseart117]

You'll are attacking an established institution because it gave part of society an answer it does not want to hear. You're gonna break down the walls of your own hone because someone made you uncomfortable. This is sad.

[@wordwarrior2350]

The main problem which is only coming to the fore in the past few years is that "EVERYTHING" we base our laws and values on is more based on religious beliefs than on what the majority of THE PEOPLE want now, in the 21st Century.

[@grumpypumpkin1]

The main problem with your statement is that you believe a “majority” of people feel the exact same way you do - when sometimes, they don’t.

[@wordwarrior2350]

@@grumpypumpkin1 The use of the word, "Sometimes", ruins your argument. If the majority of women and/or the voting public agree with me. or I with them... I can see by the normal conservative trick of an inaccurate statement. No wonder you are "Grumpy". Can you name another problem with my statement, since you only metioned one and it wasn´t accurate. The majority of the people with an opinion and the voting public are for abortion rights for women in one way or another, in the, about 25 weeks... YOU are in the larger minority.

[@-constantine--di8xf]

Wow, I've never heard more bad ideas in my life. Switching jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to government agencies ?!?! Is this guy serious? So unelected bureaucrats should make decisions regarding interpretation of the Constitution? So the CDC, which accepted $130-million from from pharmaceutical companies should be the guys telling us when and how to take their vaccine concoctions. Yeah, great idea.

[@Lone432345]

Well the Supreme Court Justices are Unelected. So What the Difference.

[@-constantine--di8xf]

@@Lone432345 Yes, but they don't have conflicts of interest. All of the decisions that have recently come down appear to be entirely based on the Constitution. There is no Constitutional right to an abortion, for instance. That's not a statement on what I think of abortion. It's a statement of fact. Read the Constitution. The word does not exist. Similarly, the 2nd amendment cannot be more clear. The court's job is not to have opinions and act on them. It's to interpret the law.

[@jamesharmon3827]

they dont' care, they are lashing out violently against anyone and anything.

[@Christiangjf]

unelected appointees are already making those decisions wtf 😂

[@grumpypumpkin1]

Fauci wasn’t elected - remember that.

[@ryankan3013]

"how SCOTUS got so powerful" point a- the constitution Thank you ladies and gentlemen, that is all

[@wesleypederson5497]

Uh, Marbury v Madison isn’t in the constitution.

[@Misaka-gt5yj]

"Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overrulted; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the PEOPLE and their ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. Pp.8-79. You people make it sound way worse than what it actually is.

[@edwardhammer5427]

You lack the larger picture of the issue at hand!

[@helontitus7645]

An unconstitutional ruling was sent back to the states to decide for themselves if abortion is legal in the state. Maybe use your brain and think before speaking about what others don’t “see”.

[@darkgalaxy5548]

Returning an issue to the people and their elected representatives?! Why that sounds dangerously like democracy!

[@Misaka-gt5yj]

@@helontitus7645 And you should should just convince your local state representatives instead of forcing federal overreach in state matters.

[@Misaka-gt5yj]

@@edwardhammer5427 You lack the details of the issue at hand

[@slawekwojtowicz]

They KEY problem with the American legal system: it’s not based on ethics but on greed instead.

[@Piketom1]

The short answer(s): activist justices and a dysfunctional federal legislature.

[@benitolopez725]

Yea remeber judges striking down trump immagration

[@derekh1593]

Such "activists" that they are allowing the states to decide LMAO!!

[@grumpypumpkin1]

Do you hear yourself? Activists? Allowing states to decide for themselves is not dysfunctional, it’s actually very functional by not letting DC elites tell Oregonians or any other far away state how to live.

[@grumpypumpkin1]

@@HAL-9000x so you want MORE federal oversight on localities? You’re suffering from Stockholm Syndrome - seek help.

[@kayclifton5983]

😭

[@garciaglz3556]

The court is not being way too conservative, it was way too liberal-democrat. Now that they lost control of the court they feel threatened!

[@Chozo_Ghost]

So "Checks and Balances" is now referred to as "threatening democracy" Lul

[@donjuan8124]

Threatening authoritarianism

[@ruthsaunders9507]

@@donjuan8124 It put the power back on the states and legislatures. That's not authoritarian.

[@donjuan8124]

@@ruthsaunders9507 no I meant the Supreme Court is threatening the authoritarianism of the regime

[@XOPOIIIO]

Why you didn't make this video before abortion laws scandal? Or it hasn't been that powerful back then?

[@jamesnichols270]

Thanks for watching and commenting...... ☎️ Hit me up on my helpline 👆👆..

[@333crt]

If you don't like the Court's decisions, get out and vote and speak up for change at the legislative level. The Supreme Court doesn't threaten democracy; it responds to it.

[@billwhitis9997]

Still stating this disaster as a question by media corporations is the truly shocking and disturbing aspect of this issue.

[@rayg9168]

I am trusting in my lifetime this democracy falls, I will be witness to civil liberties being returned to the people.

[@joeking433]

Like what, Ray?

[@jugurtha7800]

You folks are not complaining when a decision favors your beliefs.

[@DiannaCarney]

Knowledge is power. Unfortunately, those in the power are educated in loopholes and the how the system works, therefore how to take advantage of it. There’s a reason that education isn’t their priority.

[@MrKh4O]

It's just became an instrument.

[@markbosky]

Lifetime terms need to be eliminated. SCOTUS is the biggest vulnerability in our current structure of government.

[@Musicalowl12]

“The Supreme Court made a decision I don’t like, therefore it is broken” If anything, this decision made us more of a democracy because now people in their individual states can have a voice and vote on the issue.

[@TheMrDamp]

How did you come to your conclusion? An issue with widespread bipartisan support (70%) is now banned in over half of states. Should people just move? Many can’t and don’t have the resources to leave the hellholes throughout the country

[@TheMrDamp]

This decision only put people through unnecessary pain and suffering. At least be consistent. If a fetus is a person, I should be able to claim the fetus on my taxes as a dependent. We need to start getting social security numbers at conception and not birth. Why don’t we do that? Oh yeah the government doesn’t consider a fetus a person. Religion does. Why are peoples religions dictating how I live my life?

[@Musicalowl12]

@@TheMrDamp if it has widespread support, than it shouldn’t be an issue voting for it in the states where it’s illegal. Or even better, just vote to make abortion law of the land on a federal level. The Supreme Court didn’t make anything illegal.

[@TheMrDamp]

@@Musicalowl12 you didn’t answer my question. Why are peoples religious beliefs dictating how I live my life? In a country with “separation of church and state”. Something isn’t right here

[@Musicalowl12]

@@TheMrDamp no one’s religious beliefs are dictating anyone’s life. Because of the Supreme Court decision, you now get to choose the outcome in your state through the power of your vote. Choose wisely :)

[@johnnywang206]

Are you advocating for insurrection?

[@lynnmckenney1987]

No, thats what republicans did after the last election. 🥱

[@johnnywang206]

@@lynnmckenney1987 nobody has been charged with nor convicted of insurrection. It was a riot. Just like all the ones Democrats commit.

[@FalconFastest123]

As a conservative who has spent decades feeling oppressed by liberal supreme court decisions, I find it hilarious now to hear the liberals complaining about the same feeling.

[@bernardfurst9133]

I feel exactly the same way and was thinking the same after I started hearing all the criticisms because cases aren't going their way.

[@linusmlgtips2123]

Great thing that this is a false equivalence. Thisnt isn't like picking your favorite sports team. Rights are on the line

[@biboebbs624]

climate change shouldn’t be a left or right issue.

[@nicknolte8671]

"feeling oppressed" muh feels... Lmfao, fascists are hilarious. How the hell were you oppressed, fascist?

[@Dirtymacked]

Is this a serious video? Does CNBC not see the irony in this?

[@poorwotan]

Of course the Court (or anything else) can be changed. It's called a Constitutional Amendment and - gasp - the process is even outlined in Article V of the US Constitution itself. The proposed Amendment is passed by 2/3 of Congress (no action by President) and then ratified by 3/4 of the states (currently 38 out of 50). It becomes effective the moment the 38th state ratifies it. Alternatively, a Constitutional Convention called by the states (2/3rd of them - guessing round up is 34) can also propose thus bypassing the 2/3 of Congress part (but still needs 3/4 ratification afterward).

[@christina678]

You are so right! And maybe in 60 years they'll get the change they are looking for, whatever that is... (my soap box) My thing is people are saying that things need to change, but have not given an outline as to what that change should be; how it will impact the other branches of government and the people. The framers of the constitution wrote the amendment process just this way to reduce the number of changes made. People just need to do their due diligence and vote for representatives that will vote their way-- a president can't just put whomever they want on the bench, they have to confirmed by the senate (our elected representatives)...

[@theresahall5141]

Problem is with the important issues that the government could decide on they rather short cut it through the courts and that isn't showing to be a long term problem. In the short term it works but in the long term it doesn't work. And the no real rules for the highest court is a bad idea considering nobody should be rule free.

[@elephantgrass631]

Please stop using facts. Us liberals are disgusted by them.

[@crecasens]

@@elephantgrass631 - liberals may be disgusted by it but progressives are not! Everything that they said with how the court works is true and used to be taught to children in middle school as part of civics class which was discontinued in many places because the GOP likes to keep people stupid! There are also ways to expand the court and ways to impeach judges. Those are facts as well. And all the crap that The journalist that created this piece I have identified are also facts that show the imperfection and ability to corrupt this court. We literally saw film of three judges lying on television and then going back behind closed doors and doing the exact opposite of what they said they would do. How about those facts? Or are we supposed to not believe what we see and hear happening in front of us as we’ve always been asked to do by conservatives?

[@skankhunt3624]

​@@elephantgrass631 funny, cuz I thought you conservatives are the ones who hated facts and logic.

[@johnbroussard3666]

Killing a baby is not and has never been a Right. That is especially true in 2022 when women have easy access to effective birth control. Roe assigns a Right that does not exist. There is no constitutional amendment stating a Right to Abortion. In fact, at the time of the signing of the US Constitution it was a crime to have an abortion in all 13 States. The current Administration treats Roe as a Right when it clearly is not, and treats other Rights as subject to constant revision and ratification when clearly that's an infringement of those Rights.

[@chrisbentley71]

The process works perfectly as is - for both parties. No change is needed.

[@ashishranjan887]

Didn't you hear what the black lady said.... The court needs DIVERSITY... 😂

[@vincentgiasullo]

Maybe the judges should have limits, or they should be electable.

[@carlfriedrichgau9360]

@@vincentgiasullo The constitution is a protection of the minority against the majority opinion. Making the SCOTUS electable would make no sense

[@12345676571]

@@vincentgiasullo Election?!?!? Oh god no

[@vincentgiasullo]

@@carlfriedrichgau9360 the problem is here is lifetime appointments. We need a solution to change that.

[@VelleyIndustrial]

This video brought to you by the same 'folks' who wish to abolish the electoral college.

[@dannylam5470]

You know congress members also trade stock options based on their votes and voting results to make billions, right?

[@grumpypumpkin1]

Example: Pelosi.

[@kendalldelair6821]

Say it with me: The United States is a republic.

[@Tinjinladakh]

CNBC: Supreme Court Got So Powerful. CIA: Hold my beer.

[@theagemaway]

Typical American journalism. The video content has absolutely nothing to do with the title. At no point in this video did they talk about SCOTUS being "too powerful" and instead went on about proposed reforms. So unless "disagrees with my political views" = "too powerful" this video just needs to be renamed.

[@slice1208]

LOL Cries when they don't get their way , but when they system is broken and they take advantage of it it's fine .

[@SCIXFI]

Don’t you dare blame the Supreme Court for not agreeing with you

[@penny4thought168]

I blame the supreme court for not putting the American people first. It doesn't feel fair or just the opinion of 5 people out rules thousands.

[@Misaka-gt5yj]

@@penny4thought168 Dems offloaded their decision making process to SCOTUS when it was convenient to them, but now that conservatives are in control all the sudden there should be “reforms." The chicken comes home to roost. Your Democrats initially brought this issue and it came back to bite them.

[@alejohernandez75]

Im confused, people being able to vote on a thing is less democracy or more?

[@Hypnotically_Caucasian]

"tHiS mAy ThReAtEn oUr dEmOcRaCy!" Good. Gadaffi will have his vengeance.

[@murdelabop]

With respect to Dobbs, what it means is that now we need action from Congress to codify a legislated solution. As Roe, and many other rulings, were based on the implied right to privacy, and Clarence Thomas has written in his opinion that the right to privacy does not exist because it is not enumerated, then we need a constitutional amendment to enumerate a right to privacy. Since several opinions stated that there is no enumerated constitutional right to abortion then we need a constitutional amendment codifying the right of The People to control their reproductive process. In the current environment, I don't expect either to get any traction.

[@kellharris2491]

There is an amendment in the process. The equal rights amendment. This would codify women's equality to men and body autonomy. about 30 some states have already ratified it. What we need is a majority in the Senate and then we can do it. November matters.

[@murdelabop]

@@kellharris2491 We also need an amendment to enumerate a right to privacy.

[@grumpypumpkin1]

Right to privacy?!?! I’m laughing in “Snowden”. That right went out the window when the Patriot Act was enacted under Bush and Obama solidified it.

[@murdelabop]

@@grumpypumpkin1 Indeed. John Ashcroft himself said "privacy is over", and seemed to be proud of it.

[@joeking433]

There is a way to control your "reproductive process", don't be a ho.

[@gemlifemoments]

Why ask this question now. Because the court passed a law we don't like? A strong court is essential for a healthy democracy. Beware of what you are asking.

[@adrianbuck8772]

If the court (and the way it is constructed) is drastically changing the life of the population of the country against the majority will and nobody can do anything against it is that what democracy is about? Are there any limits to what they can do aslong as they get the majority of 9 lifelong appointed people to vote for it?

[@skapunkoialternativeliving6522]

The Supreme Court basically all they do is interpret the law and give it back to the States that's what they do.. that is the sole purpose..

[@ashishranjan887]

The moment she said DIVERSITY in court.... I was done....

[@ARyan-yk9qh]

@@ashishranjan887 - Amen. If I am watching anything, and hear any current buzzwords being uttered, I immediately turn it off and tune out.

[@skapunkoialternativeliving6522]

@@ashishranjan887 exactly

[@linusmlgtips2123]

@@ARyan-yk9qh because you have a child's understanding of law?

[@linusmlgtips2123]

You don't need to comment things you don't understand

[@BlackDogOriginal]

They gave the “power” to the people of each state. This is corporate media for you.

[@lynnmckenney1987]

There was no vote for citizens on the trigger laws that are in place...

[@americanexpat8792]

What you don't realize is that the US Supreme Court is VASTLY more powerful than Supreme Courts in other countries. We should take a hard look at what has worked for other countries and adapt many of those measures. In the US, what the Supreme Court decides can easily be dependent on what month a particular justice dies. If Ginsberg had died a mere 4 months later, Roe wouldn't have been overturned. The very fact that major parts of our society can be dictated by the whims of when a judge dies is total insanity and indicates that legal principles matter little. In the scientific world in which I work, we pride ourselves that our principles are 'people independent'. If legal principles mattered, then it wouldn't matter who was on the court, we'd get the same results none-the-less. As we all know that's not even remotely the case, though that's what we should be striving for. That's how the scientific world works and why our credibility isn't questioned.

[@SF-dy6hn]

How about go back to your country where you think they're doing everything better? CHANG

[@SF-dy6hn]

@@mikko3 I'd like to think ginsberg would have qwelled the violent democrat mob by holding up a photo of a baby in the womb and saying science has evolved since the decision was made we now know how early a heart beat is formed. etc etc

[@jeffdishong7095]

Fauci’s science is definitely questionable, and absolutely not credible!!

[@lakota9293]

Good thing the US was never set up to be a Democracy then. Long live the Republic!

[@seana806]

The Supreme Court isn’t only broken, but the news media as well. If we all stopped watching the news and stopped spazzing out whenever something pops up on the news, we would be in much better shape but of course people tend to have infinite wisdom and don’t really think much anymore.

[@rmfinance1781]

No, the supreme court isn't broken. The job of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution. And that's exactly what they did. Just because critics don't like a decision made doesn't mean the supreme court is broken.

[@byronwatkins2565]

Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution says "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..." If our senate would enforce the "during good Behavior" part of that with impeachments for questionable behavior, then the supreme court would be entirely adequate for our needs.

[@miketech79]

No supreme court judge has been impeached yet and only 1 came close. I cannot imagine that all of them were angels and suddenly we have questionable judges. No one is sinless.

[@bernardfurst9133]

what behavior are you talking about? If you don't like the way some justices voted, then they should be removed ??

[@byronwatkins2565]

@@bernardfurst9133 "Good" behavior is honoring their oath to defend the Constitution of the USA. "Good" behavior is refusing to hear cases wherein they are probably biased. "Good" behavior is letting Congress be the legislators as Article I demands. "Good" behavior is refusing to enforce laws that contradict the constitution (including all of its amendments). What "I want" is for them to do exactly the job they swore to do without exception or for the senate to impeach them for their bad behavior.

[@thomassenbart]

What questionable behavior are you referring to?

[@byronwatkins2565]

@@thomassenbart All of it.

[@monymony68]

Following the Constitution is not a threat to Democracy. The Constitution is Democracy.

[@stevepetty7009]

Democracy is actioning the view of the majority of citizens. Not the view of 9 people who through luck of timing of retirements/ deaths get the lifelong right to dictate their opinions. The US supreme court structure is flawed.

[@mongtkb]

when ideologies or policies aren't solved in Congress and the Courts makes the decision then the Courts can unmake those decisions Democrats has multiple of times since Roe to codify the ruling into law, but they refused even when they have a super majority in both houses of Congress and the Presidency

[@richardsimms251]

Is that true with the Democrats that they could have codified that law in the past ( Roe ) ?

[@miketackabery7521]

@@richardsimms251 duh!

[@darkgalaxy5548]

Ideologies & policies are never supposed to be decided in the courts. The courts are there to rule on law only.

[@erikrhodes1361]

We have lost the vision of our founding fathers. Blinded by this ancient squabble between two houses. God, bless America. We need it

[@dh5380]

The midterms proved that Trump’s loaded Supreme Court has become the enemy of the majority of Americans. The court’s conservative majority “tried to stack the deck for their party through a series of decisions weakening our democracy.” The court helped pave the way to a potential Republican majority in the House by “greenlighting voter suppression and gerrymandering,” a majority of Americans no longer believe the Supreme Court is not political and is beneficial to working Americans!

[@BryceJohnson88]

You don't get called the SUPREME Court by being powerless....

[@mra.prasetio]

Yes! They are also institutions that accept the separation of powers, namely judicial power. It is the nature of the Supreme Court to have great power.

[@thesilver6147]

When it does not go your way it is BROKEN. lol MSNBC

[@MrDPMan3000]

The question I have is why TF don't we expand the court? Back in 1869 we had like 1/9 of the population we have today. Why are we sticking to this arbitrary number of 9 justices and letting only these 9 people decide the fate of hundreds of millions of Americans?

[@Jose_Jimenez]

Wow, just because it doesn't go your way, you whine and cry.

[@vinchenzomarchiavafa962]

More isn’t always better. Simple concept

[@grumpypumpkin1]

How many do you want? 21, 55 - or keep going til you get your way?

[@johnreyn19]

If you read the decision you will learn that the court correctly assigned the responsibility of legislating abortion back to the legislature. The legislature is as democratic as it gets! The argument of abuse of power is incredibly dishonest.

[@jamesnichols270]

Thanks for watching and commenting...... ☎️ Hit me up on my helpline 👆👆.

[@franciscodanconia4324]

I'll sum up the arguments in this video: We're not getting our way now after getting our way for 60 years, so now we need to change the rules to get our way again. Essentially they are toddlers flipping over the Chutes and Ladders board.

[@lynnmckenney1987]

The toddlers are the ones who storm the capitol when their presidental candidate loses the election 😅🥱

[@derekh1593]

@@lynnmckenney1987 I guess you forgot the toddler's rioted when their presidential candidate lost in the 2016 election LOL!!

[@franciscodanconia4324]

@@lynnmckenney1987 One could say the same about people that show up at SCOTUS justices houses to intimidate them in violation of federal law. Or attempt to murder one. Glass houses dear.

[@1956curtis]

If you don't like a decision of the court, then amend the constitution.

[@karlstrauss2330]

It’s finally functioning correctly for the first time in nearly a century with Originalist Judges on the Court

[@marshabonforte6963]

It’s not broken. It’s back to working as originally intended after a 50 year hiatus.

[@fr2ncm9]

I can't wait for the court to overturn Brown V Board of Education

[@BadgerMushroom2]

Would we truly be having this conversation if the Democratic Party chose the last six?

[@silverancient7840]

should have the convo no matter who the justices are

[@BadgerMushroom2]

@@silverancient7840 negative. Our voices are but a drop of water in the bucket. Where we can make a difference is our local elections.

[@danyto]

IS THIS A JOKE? THIS IS PURELY POLITICAL CRITICISM

[@saulgoodman2018]

Nothing is wrong with the supreme court. They rule based on laws and constitution. Not feelings and opinions.

[@loathsomebear4655]

truth

[@lordbread2083]

The courts have been weaponized by the right to take away the rights of the people

[@bcnicholas123]

Except they don’t. They come into power with their own political agendas and then bend their interpretations of the law to fit them. Just like any other politician.

[@Painfulwhale360]

Yup. Very VERY few liberals understand this. Just because Roe was passed 50 years ago doesn’t mean it was correct. It should never have been left up to the Supreme Court in the first place. Today the Supreme Court simply is handing it back to the states.

[@LordVader5738]

Not true. Otherwise, why are they changing their mind on cases that were decided years ago? That to me sounds like a change on opinion.

[@arthurdrake3274]

Death penalty for abortion.

[@jimmyjones416]

activist judges is how it got to be so powerful...so powerful they created qualified immunity all on its own

[@mra.prasetio]

They are also institutions that accept the separation of powers, namely judicial power. It is the nature of the Supreme Court to have great power.

[@grumpypumpkin1]

SCOTUS makes a decision you don’t agree with and suddenly they are “activists”? Settle down - nothing is in danger. Turn off CNN.

[@DalariusPVP]

This video is going to age really well I can already tell

[@Saxxin1]

Now comes the 'The supreme court is evil" propaganda lol.

[@joeking433]

Don't worry about the Supreme Court, worry about the Democrats.

[@xtctrader1467]

Hillary losing in 2016 is the gift that keeps on giving.

[@lordbread2083]

She Won the popular vote

[@marietta1335]

@@lordbread2083 So what?

[@derekh1593]

@@lordbread2083 LMAO!!!

[@ruthsaunders9507]

The Supreme Court upheld the Constitution. If you want new laws you have to do it correctly.