The Supreme Court is broken. Here’s how to fix it.

[@user-mb2nm3jn6s]

Supreme Court needs to be held to the same standards of every other federal and state judge!

[@julietataylor8629]

💯 agree 👍

[@aprilwine132]

@@user-mb2nm3jn6s What standard ARE they held too??

[@user-mb2nm3jn6s]

The Supreme Court is held to no standards or rules or ethics like all federal and state judges are ruled by.

[@user-qt4uu8gi9r]

As the democrat appointed judges are doing! So far the democrat appointed judges play the political game. Supreme Court justices are supposed to be Constitutionalists.

[@cennon]

And king Biden can do that with an executive order now, but he's to weak to save America.

[@robertbretzman7238]

I worked for US Dept of Labor, I could not accept a gift of more than 20 dollars, I would not accept a cup of coffee. The Supreme Court should have to follow the same ethics as other government workers. If I did not follow the rules I would of been fired immediately. The Supreme Court should have accountability. Everyone has to be accountable to someone.

[@garufia]

The Supreme court is actually putting itself in a position to getting it's own power undercut with it's latest ruling. Biden could pick up the phone, in an official move/call, and tell his AG or whomever, to arrest the 6 Supreme court judges that made this ruling.

[@marytomlinson4270]

not if they dont want to..

[@williamanderson1091]

They are the US SENATE. The Democrats don't have enough votes to impeach.

[@77space-vt8wi]

I worked at Boeing and could not accept a gift of two cents. No free drinks, meals or transportation. Nada

[@solstice3410]

Keep in mind the six Federalist Supreme Court judges took an oath and lied before Congress on video stating that “No one was above the law, not even the President”. All six of Justices lied. They should be impeached.

[@kahanasam]

How can 6 people vote against millions of Americans?! I’m Canadian and didn’t sleep last night because of the Supreme Court’s biased ruling. Democracy is at stake here. For God’s sake vote blue!💙🇨🇦💙

[@martylesnick2032]

Thank you for your kindness, it is frightening to us to think drumpf back in the Whitehouse. This is a CULT a deadly CULT that is truly against women freedoms.

[@kathyo5971]

We need to plan and get used to it.

[@lloydsingline340]

That was fair decision and I am HAPPY.Surprised three voted against - obviously Biden appointees.

[@enigmaticparadox354]

@@lloydsingline340 only fascists think that is fair.

[@lindabalent2755]

I did sleep last night. Knew I needed to deal with the threat to our citizens happening now and that being afraid or ill or is how to fight!

[@marycochran8303]

I'm an American citizen and I'm pissed at the Supreme Court and I was born in this country.

[@kathywilson9257]

So just because they made a ruling you don´t like, you´re having a temper tantrum. Typical victim of TDS if I ever saw one.

[@MadAudi]

No job should be a lifetime appointment in the US. Term limits are 💯 needed.

[@DonaldCook-bv9xc]

I disagree. The drafters wanted to assure that judges would not be subject to "popularity contests" later in their careers by dissatisfied citizens. They are kept above politics. Your proposal would remove that protection , because a few judges did not do what you wanted them to. You prove that the rafters were correct.

[@leidaoneill3225]

​@@DonaldCook-bv9xc "Acquiescences" is what life time appointments become as years roll by. Look at your justice Thomas!

[@ShawnGitahi]

Acting as if the US is the only country in the world🤣🤣🤣most countries have retirement ages and it works,,,the supreme court should be changing from time to time,,,,what,s a 75 or 80yr old doing in an apex court,,,and they aren't above it all based on their rulings

[@michaeljohnangel6359]

@@DonaldCook-bv9xc Why do you think that these drafters were as gods??? They were perfectly capaple of making mistakes (the current Supreme Court exemplifies this).

[@pearliewise]

TRUE so TRUE

[@margueritecampese5939]

The Supreme Court of the U.S. needs to have term limits. It's way overdue to have this changed.

[@DAVIDMAINORD]

WAAAA

[@murrismiller2312]

hell no... old folks keep society down to earth

[@nortiusmaximus1789]

@@DAVIDMAINORD Wait for it; the worm will turn!

[@RogierYou]

Yes but independent from the political cycles.

[@Stoney47]

Fine make it for all congress then.

[@rolandmousaa3110]

THEY ARE NOT ABOVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! WE NEED CHANGE NOW! THANKS FOR THE INFO.

[@user-zd6ue4lq3l]

I’m actually sick to my stomach. What the hell is happening. What is happening to the US.

[@kathywilson9257]

So do you go through life throwing a huge fit every time you don´t get your way? Wow, life with you must be fun.

[@Sarah-yj6lf]

@kathywilson9257 dishonesty and illegal activity in the workplace=termination and legal trouble. If they did nothing wrong, they don't have anything to worry about. That's why Joe doesn't care if the MAGAS want to impeach him, but Trump panics and cries when he gets in trouble.

[@cheyennehunter3087]

The people need to sue the court.

[@DownhillAllTheWay]

Are you one of "the people?" Do it then! Make moves!

[@grplaylist4119]

Yes....yes Listen it's time to stop talking and come up with a plan of action. Lets call for a million man justice match. Let's sign petitions. Let's do a class action lawsuit against the Federal Supreme Court cooked judges. Let's find out what businesses these people own and boycott it. Let's take it to the streets and demand justice. Or they don't get another dime of our money. Let's stand behind President Biden to save our freedom. I mean if we wait until the election and the republicans pull some kind of underhand crap to really still the election. Guess what we want have a leg to stand on. Wake up people.... Wake up.

[@grplaylist4119]

Listen it's time to stop talking and come up with a plan of action. Lets call for a million man justice match. Let's sign petitions. Let's do a class action lawsuit against the Federal Supreme Court cooked judges. Let's find out what businesses these people own and boycott it. Let's take it to the streets and demand justice. Or they don't get another dime of our money. Let's stand behind President Biden to save our freedom. I mean if we wait until the election and the republicans pull some kind of underhand crap to really still the election. Guess what we want have a leg to stand on. Wake up people.... Wake up.

[@sgtfrank2590]

YES, The People vs The Supreme Court . The judges to hear the case SHALL be pick by the current King am sorry the current President Joe Biden. " so let be written so let it be done ".

[@shakere101]

Good fucking luck with that asshole idea

[@BillyCairns-hm3xx]

No 1. problem is total corruption...

[@steventison8353]

supreme court is a supreme shame. DISGRACEFULL

[@markbadham3360]

Impeach Thomas and Alito. Only problem is you will need a majority in both houses to do that.

[@kathywilson9257]

Never going to happen. Waaa.

[@veronicastewart1112]

That's why we must VOTE BLUE in November.

[@tracimerwin2354]

We will make it happen.

[@nancygibson604]

And roberts

[@kathywilson9257]

Apparently, TDS has damaged your brain so much you´ve lost your ability to foresee consequences. So we start impeaching SCOTUS justices every time they make a ruling we disagree with. So what are you going to do when somebody wants to impeach over a ruling that you think is great? Howl about the injustice of it all, that´s what.

[@DonaldCowling-fw5vg]

Eight years is enough and then thank you for your time

[@TheLuscious]

That's too short

[@susan9450]

I think it is too long. 4 years.

[@CapricornDayz]

1 yr is enough

[@tacobreather]

It’s time for ACCOUNTABILITY for all justices.

[@mamatino3125]

“WHY” are they “STILL” there 🤷🏼‍♀️- “they” CLEARLY “DON’T”support/uphold Democracy???!🤦🏼‍♀️ “WHY/WHAT” do “We The People” pay them for - when “they” are LITERALLY “making out like BANDITS???!”🤬

[@simmonsgalloway8466]

Those that are crooked

[@mrschnider6521]

the supreme court is not broken, if democrats do not like a ruling they can pass a law. for example when the democrats knew for like 30 years they would overturn roe v wade. when they held every branch of government they could have passed a law makign it legal, but they did not because they would no longer be able to scare people into voting democrat. the only reason they are attacking the supreme court now is because they cannot rig the 20/20 election unless they have actiivist judges on the court. democrats policies are very unpopular, its why they wont debate, its why they want to corrupt the courts and implement their policy that way. they are evil people who pay cuomo to tote this garbage, he is a guy who will push any propaganda regardless of how damaging it is to the country.

[@patriciajones9987]

Well said and True.

[@robertpearce4316]

​@simmonsgalloway8466 lol how says there crooked. Your mistaking not voting your way as crooked.

[@markwideman339]

WE THE PEOPLE, should pick the Supreme Court.

[@jp6234]

Selection should be based on "the best candidate for the job" non-partisan approved by qualified committee.

[@markwideman339]

@jp6234 there shouldn't be any parties, it should just be candidates for all offices.

[@xxX-bp9lc]

now we have this consequence of scotus judge being pointed ,not elected.

[@thelakeman5207]

WE are just as divided as our politicians.

[@kathywilson9257]

What mess that would be. Listen genius, the Supreme Court was set u´p the way it is so that it would be able to follow the rule of law and the Constitution, not to please every unhappy citizen who thinks they know how to run this country when they really have no clue.

[@danielkassa9802]

You are absolutely right 100%. I agree with you.‼️📌

[@paulmaccarone6157]

LOBBYING IS AGAINST THE LAW BUT WHY ISN’T Clarence Thomas being held accountable for That???!!!

[@julietataylor8629]

They just want to blame Biden for all what they have done so they can raise up Trump they wanted to show how weak Biden is that Biden cannot do anything no matter what they have done and whatever else they can do that how sad it is

[@neldajfry3036]

Well he got by with sex charges brought up an he got in the courts but he was guilty . He said it was like a lynching so he was voted in. He ready to retire so he will get by with being crooked he not worried got a big check coming in monthly. Of sex an he was guilty by saying that

[@user-kr3je5yf4w]

Exactly!

[@BryanPToler]

Lobbying is against the law 😂😂😂😂😂 no. It's not . Shows how ignorant you are . look it up before you open your small mind thew your gapping hole of a mouth . Bribing a judge is against the law . I'm sure a collage grad too ...

[@TheUmp123]

Why aren’t every member of Congress being held accountable for it ?

[@ebttt]

The supreme Court supposed to be the wise one. The bunch of crook

[@theresaharrell9043]

👏👏👏👏👏

[@thelakeman5207]

They were nominated by a crook and confirmed by a bunch of crooks. I'm not surprised the high court would have a bunch of crooks.

[@teecee9854]

😂

[@chelo2626ify]

Trump changed everything 😢

[@kathywilson9257]

You sound just like Biden---can´t make a coherent sentence. I certainly don´t think YOU are the "wise one". LOL

[@timkoerber869]

Term limits should be imposed on every major appointment - Senate - Congress - "Supreme" Judges!

[@mtyndall7725]

Accountability for all Representatives and Senators. No insider trading allowed. Why do they get away with it?

[@equine2020]

Hillary, & Pelosi were the inside traders. So dems go free.

[@user-ey6xv3gz1w]

SUPREME COURT CAN'T BE REPARED; JUSTICE IN THIS COUNTRY NEEDS TO BE REFORMED .

[@jesusrivera743]

Term limits …. The justices Trump appointed are there for life. They made a deal with the devil and now they must deliver to him for life . It is very clear they fear his wrath . FUBAR …..

[@williamalbert8759]

Starting with the DOJ.

[@cyndimayer4909]

@@user-ey6xv3gz1w SCOTUS needs sweeping and swift reform beginning with term limits.

[@kathywilson9257]

Oh, waaa. The court made a ruling you don´t like so you think you are entitled to have it changed to suit you. Can you say "delusional"?

[@user-ey6xv3gz1w]

@@kathywilson9257 BUT THE SUPREME COURT HAS NEVER RULE SOMETHING, IT HAS NEVER ENVOLVED.

[@JaredMerlin]

I am so glad you are no longer with CNN. You are just too good for them. A friend of mine told me you had your own spot and here I am. Good to see you Chris.

[@csbrudy]

Let's just add four more justices. Pack the Court!

[@aprilwine132]

@@csbrudy Thats a great idea! Trump should take your advice when he is reelected.

[@csbrudy]

@@aprilwine132 Really? Wow.

[@aprilwine132]

@@csbrudy Why not??! You have already said you think it is appropriate

[@denisehorner8448]

​@@aprilwine132csbrudy, don't pay attention to her, she's a troll. 😮

[@adrianabernea4989]

The Supreme Court shouldn’t be SUPREME.

[@user-dp8re7gn2r]

If they break the law why, don't someone arrest them ,and indict , them, and prosecute. Bribery is against the law.

[@shannonbarber6161]

Laws for thee not for me. SCOTUS is following the Democrat playback. Tit for tat.

[@penniecurrie2424]

Especially clearance tjlmad he been crooked since the Amita case way back in DC for other charges go on home clearance Thomas so many bribes

[@sandrahumes-benton3087]

@@shannonbarber6161Grow up. No Democrat anywhere ever said or thought bribery is okay. No court in history has made it okay to be bribed as long as the payment is after you make a law or policy in an individuals favor then it’s a gift. This has never happened ever and your response is not this is wrong instead your response is but Democrats. No one with any ounce of integrity would be okay with this. But somehow your response is but the Democrats?

[@rozalinapiano]

Thank you for covering this subject !

[@brendawilliams750]

From Canada, glad to see you again Chris

[@sagittariusa7662]

I will judge if you actually fix the problem or simply delay and ignore it. Problem using assumption. Yep, we shouldn't assume anything. The purpose of the constitution in limiting the government is check the blind regard of assumptions in favor of effective checks and permissions. Efficiency is more about doing things right and doing things right is based on what is right, what is regarded as right through wisdom and examples. Do we have any of that to say who is right for the job of the Supreme Court? Nowadays you could say there are good examples of the right man or woman for the job. But is that stipulated as an effective policy that shapes and defines the behavior of the presidency? No. And that has got to change. Here is your stance: The Senate should question candidates for their politics or they won't be confirmed. Now here are problems with that. Berrett could still be approved of as a Justice, hell Cannon could confirm her stance as a devout Trump follower and if the Republicans hold a majority in the Senate, they will still pass that person to the bench. So that doesn't fix anything. It is a position a common person who wants easy fixes would support, but a smart person, a person who understands consequences and proper procedure which all Americans should strive towards even if they aren't the sharpest tool in the shed because that is what it means to be an American, something we have discarded and now feel ashamed about, would see as still problematic and not a real solution just one that politically convenient. Here is my solution: A) Justices are elected from existing federal judges and serve term limits in their capacity on the Supreme Court and then resume their prior job unless Congress says otherwise concerning the individual as a Federal District or Appellate Circuit Judge, the latter required the appointment by the President to be confirmed in the Senate. To make sure the elections are absent of political bias we often see in ordinary elections, you need these elections be grades, scores on the performance of a Justice in their prior capacity as a Judge and you need a minimum of five examples prior case work that us the people can grade to determine if they are worth that job in the Supreme Court. Five of these cases can be those the Judge wishes to highlight and two have to be those either they don't want to highlight or any opposition would want to highlight. We review these even, make a grade for each and the person with the highest grade wins. If there is a tie, a subsequent preferential vote will be utilized in the same vote, which is easy to construct and that will make the case or it will be decide by the President should the tie continue to linger unresolved. You could also say you need at least seven prior cases as a Federal Judge before being a valid contender in filling a position on the Supreme Court. B) You also have to realize is that all of these Justices were previously approved of as a Federal District Judge. Berrett was a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit before becoming a Supreme Court Justice. You need to resolve the situation earlier than when they are approved for the Supreme Court. I suggest we look at their philosophy, the means in which we decide a case and we use a court case example, which could be Roe v. Wade to avoid hypotheticals and remain substantive with critical decisions that are still important to us today. The legislative chamber responsible for reviewing appointments can then access these candidates as a genuine interview should be done with the candidate being concretely honest under penalty of perjury and recall/removal (which should just happened through the same legislative chamber that affirmed them) as they provide their best honest answer and narration of their capacity to decide on a matter based on a prior example that should be critical for today's political environment. Again Roe v. Wade. The legislators decide what to ask, but it will be disadvantageous or should be for their own career if they choose the wrong examples or the wrong questions to follow up or provide better concrete information from the candidate in question. I do believe they should hold a certain value of experience in regards to their capacity in the courtroom either as a prior federal prosecutor or attorney or as a prior state appointed judicial official. C) The number of justices should reflect the number of accepted interpretational theories when it concerns the law. Originalism isn't really that bad. Any room for alternative argumentation is valid and there were people less known about who were alive and apart of the construction of this country during the Founder Era. Some of these arguments back then are very similar to what we have today. You just to confirm which faction or group or individual you value from the Founder Era to be a valid Originalist and you must provide the same extent of effort they use in their argumentation to validate your own. You cannot just say, "Alexander Hamilton was against this" and that is all there needs to be. You must be as valid or devout in your capacity to argument as you are with the arguments you provide. Your work must possess nearly identical dedication as the people you agree with or argue from. The only style of interpretation that should hold no bearing or validity in a courtroom is textualism. The only reason to bring in a textualist is to understand a word or a phrase in a complete broad scope to make a firm interpretation based on a different point of view. It is for the realm of historians and linguists, not judges or people of the court in their full capacity of that office or field of expertise. I still consider originalism to be valid as you have that freedom to diverge and argue amongst similar individuals with divergent points of view. You don't have that with textualism. It is what the word is and that is it and without that room to disagree, you don't have valid argumentation. You don't have valid science if a hypothesis formed without room for it to be proven false. The same is true when it comes to arguments in a courtroom. Besides *originalism* we should also have *reconstructionism* (viewing the law as interpreted during the days of reconstruction in which the civil rights amendments were ratified along with others of similar scope or mentality such as the 19th amendment, as well as seeing the law as experimental with the 18th and 21st amendments). You should have *structuralism.* You should have *pragmatism,* You should have *consequentialism.* You should have *moralism.* And you should have *Historical Precedent Traditionalism,* which is a blend of historical view in the broad basis of the United States itself (not like Originalism and Reconstructionism which focus on a certain period), following precedents and traditions of customs and laws that were shaped as a result constitutional amendments. This creates a broad scope that allows every valid interpretational theory to be present on the Supreme Court and it is the job of Federal Judges to prove during their time in said office to show through their work they are valid in one of these seven interpretations of the law to be present on the bench in the capacity to serve as part of the team the Supreme Court ultimately is. The Supreme Court needs to function as a team so their finalized interpretation hits all seven areas guaranteeing the court is doing is damn job in keeping America together and keeping other bodies of the government held true to the greatest prospect of stability that is needed to keep country existing. And in terms of politics, it is pretty much down the middle which is where the court should be as much nonbinding to any specific faction/party in the United States as possible. D) Lastly, the Chief Justice. I believe the Chief Justice should be a rotating position of every two years based on the seniority of the person in their capacity on the court. Whoever has been there the longest is the chief justice until those two years are over, then it goes to the next longest serving individual on that specific court. If there is a tie, then it goes to who has served longer as a federal judge and if there is a tie there, then it is decided by the President. Term limits should be either 10 or 12 years, I'll let you guys argue and decide which of those numbers are better.

[@franvarga709]

I think there should be a constitutional amendment for term limits for ALL federal offices; Senate, House, judges. We already had an amendment for term limits for the presidency.

[@hb31416]

Ten years maximum. Conflict of interest rules also. Remember Biden when he headed the judiciary committee. Clarence Thomas made a fool out of himself and was approved anyway. There was a credible claim that he engaged in sexual misconduct with an employee,

[@jp6234]

We might need "age limits" as well for all Federal Offices.

[@winluben2909]

Yes 100%!

[@marywhite8468]

YES! These people get in, stay in until they're so old they cannot make real decisions.

[@marywhite8468]

​@@jp6234I agree 💯

[@gobindanand5914]

I agree It is time for Accountability for all Justices. Judges should not be selected by Presidents and their duration should be limited. Supreme court should protect constitution. Should not be involved in Politics.

[@jcp9673]

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻❤❤❤

[@mikeduffey4014]

Not really selected by the President, on the Republicans side the Federalist society selects them, not sure how the Dems do it.

[@shannonbarber6161]

Let's start with Hillary and Biden then we can talk about the court.

[@DownhillAllTheWay]

@@mikeduffey4014 "Not really selected by the President" - but nominated by the president, and confirmation by the senate depends on that nomination. It's selection by the president in all but name. John G. Roberts nominated by George Bush Clarence Thomas nominated by George Bush Samuel A. Alito nominated by George Bush Sonia Sotomayor nominated by George Bush Elena Kagan nominated by Barak Obama Ketanji Brown Jackson nominated by Barak Obama Neil M. Gorsuch nominatewd by Donald Trump Brett M. Kavanaugh nominated by Donald Trump Amy Coney Barrett nominated by Donald Trump Can you spot the imbalance?

[@007lillyable]

í just love the way you said. Is super wrong for them to free the Criminal. To hurt people or do whatever tHe want that is super wrong. í dont know whatever they thinked.....

[@derekmccarthy1129]

Chris.....really glad to see you back. Miss the truth your family speak. Honestly is the only way to live. Thank you.

[@carterobrien2958]

I cancelled CNN when they fired you! Good to hear from you again. As of last week I cancelled MSNBC because they are sounding more like they are leaning toward the right. It is subtle but I can discern it. (I am 95 yrs. old-female).

[@Margie-i1d]

I missed you too ❤

[@noreenhachey8538]

Miss you on CNN. You were the guy I liked listening to the most. You make sense. Glad I found you here. Keep up the great work.

[@victorfarvet2931]

As a person that tries to follow the news of people that can be trusted I pick you as one of them. You made a mistake which every family member might make for their family to try to help and I’m proud of you for that but some people try to ruin you, because they’re jealous or because they can’t control the truth through you. My opinion.

[@SisterPain]

wait there is still a CNN without Chris? well how about that would wonders never cease. =D i left when he did

[@mikeduffey4014]

I agree

[@nedhill1242]

lol he is a corrupt lying clown as is everyone on CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and most in corporate news.

[@lamplighter5545]

Generally, I think Chris is spot on with most of what he's saying about the Supreme Court and reform, but I do have a nit to pick. It's not just with Chris, but with most of the media. Everyone keeps pushing better financial disclosure, but that misses the point. Supreme Court Justices make $285,000 per year, plus full benefits. Through speaking engagements and books, they can earn even more. That isn't peanuts. There's no reason that they should allowed to accept any gifts at all. It's called government service for a reason. You're not supposed to get rich doing it.

[@kiroolioneaver8532]

@@saviormoney. But you can limit it. Look at how Canada's Supreme Court runs for example lol

[@chafrajayfra32]

You’re right. I work for a government agency and we can’t even take a tip because of improprieties or the perception of how it looks.

[@marcyfan-tz4wj]

i don't expect chris to solve in 15 minutes the full blown corruption everyone of us sees everywhere we look and i don't mind supreme court justices becoming millionaires by writing or by speaking but obviously their receiving cash and prizes going unchecked should endanger their jobs just like espn analysts.

[@lolestowers6263]

In our banana republic our judges retire at 65yrs of age . Now thats democracy dont you think 🤔...

[@Geezerelli]

Tell that toBernie and Obuana😂

[@KathyJo.]

I’ve been a registered Independent since I registered to vote at 18. I took it seriously, and wanted to know what the parties platform included and found I agreed and disagreed with both parties and being my father’s daughter I wanted to make up my own mind about any issues and not be a sheep and just follow other people. For the most part, if I must define my voting record I would have to call my political views as Moderate, leaning left on some issues and leaning right on some issues 🤷🏼‍♀️……I never could stand being a follower.

[@lizwalsh901]

Ditto,

[@SuspiciousDragon13]

I really enjoyed CC and Don Lemon on CNN. This channel is great. Thanks for doing this, Chris.

[@user-iw9wg2bh1r]

I think we should have term limits for supreme court

[@beachlover7268]

EXACTLY!!

[@speakeasy911]

Diane Feinstein is doing the same thing that Ginsburg did. Term limits are needed for all office holders.

[@RemainWoke]

Facts!

[@ricklichau9176]

Age limits

[@dionnegreenwood957]

Don’t forget all them because I know Grassley every bit of 90 or close to it

[@josteincarlsen2905]

@@dionnegreenwood957agreed. But he is not senile like Joe

[@dionnegreenwood957]

@@josteincarlsen2905 he’s worse

[@tony-xy3dn]

Chris , you're a good man and you doing a good job , best of luck

[@beachlover7268]

Our country is so screwed up! I’m losing faith in our country!! 😖

[@pete9971]

WE NEED TERM LIMITS FOR THE SUPREME COURT..😮

[@burtonlee8642]

Be careful what you ask for.

[@Nicole-gb3vl]

right!!

[@user-td1fi6vu2t]

Constitution has no term limits, it has been around for over two centuries .

[@rhondajones4007]

Don’t worry because if Trump gets in there, he’ll do away with the Supreme Court. Sad but true.💙💙💙

[@user-td1fi6vu2t]

@@rhondajones4007 gee you get to make up your own truth. Read the constitution and not make up your own. If you want me to read the big words I can do that for you

[@edwinromero16]

People in power and politics understand and treat us like the stupid individuals we’ve become, loyalty to party above all else, yes they know how stupid we really are

[@davidsassoon2607]

Great finding u chris. We miss u in CNN for long time

[@user-wt1jd4rc9n]

The supreme court of justice should not be a position for life.

[@shirleythomas2154]

Right on we need the change they should have term limits too much power in there hands ✋️

[@burtonlee8642]

get out your quill and pen and start amending the constitution.

[@faiththrower7951]

They're not suppose to bring their political bias into decisions.

[@dionnegreenwood957]

We need three more judges on the Supreme Court expand it

[@Williamb612]

Larry, Curly, and Moe

[@michellebobier-groves7821]

We need four more justices to keep an odd number in the Supreme Court. Otherwise, there would be too many ties

[@SamuelNowe2002]

Nope can’t do that it’s against the constitution

[@SamuelNowe2002]

@@michellebobier-groves7821can’t do it though constitutional law says no

[@dionnegreenwood957]

@@Williamb612 you already have Larry, Curly and Moe on there and on the conservative side

[@catherinebenefield3416]

Impeachment now

[@sharonkaysnowton]

We have a definite problem with the Supreme Court. They need a term limitation.

[@gregorygoeppner1621]

Impeach all of them!

[@LanceyKersti]

only six need to be impeached

[@jackbrock9597]

The three liberals definitely need to be impeach. It should’ve been 9-0 and the lower courts need to be reformed. This is absolutely pathetic and shameful.

[@user-kl6md2ob1i]

Good to hear and see you again Chris.

[@RobiOne313]

The DOJ should just ignore the Supreme Court rulings . Force their hand

[@kathywilson9257]

Yeah just what we need---more lawlessness and total disregard for the Constitution. Just because some folks didn´t like the way the court did their job. I have news for you, Skippy. The court was not formed to please you or anyone else. It was formed as the 3rd leg of our government in order to prevent people like you from taking over. So stop pouting, grow up and accept their judgement because you are NOT entitled to special consideration just because you disagree.

[@CharlesFanatiste]

If the president nominates them why is it the president cannot fire them?

[@antonioeshragh-ch3fs]

I have been screaming from the bottom of my lungs for many years to ascertain why a president should choose or appoint a judge ? That is a job for a group of judges who know who is the right person or not!!! A president or a person can be corrupt or biased, and he or she is not the appropriate body for the job!!!

[@michaelrowsell1160]

The EU ban any member country from political appointments of the judiciary.

[@DonaldCook-bv9xc]

You should read the Constitution. They do not do that. They can only nominate a judge, the Senate appoints them.

[@ShawnGitahi]

U really are naive🤣🤣🤣

[@aprilwine132]

@@antonioeshragh-ch3fs No The judges could and would form a judicial dictatorship No more need for the representatives of the people. The president is the only government official that ALL of the people have a say on. That is where the authority belongs.

[@ramonitamartinez5272]

We do have a big problem with the Supreme Court.

[@charleswallace2967]

Joe Biden need to stack the Supreme Court ASAP six of Donald Trump Republican chose him over democracy shameful traitor

[@johnjenkins5762]

To much of a set up when u setting u to do wrong

[@debbiestclair4182]

Not supreme any more !!

[@mikeneill6813]

@@johnjenkins5762 Felon Trump thought ahead. with the Supreme Court and Judge Cannon. He had it in mind from his first term to really give the proverbial can a kick down the road. He liked the "fit" of the Oval Office.

[@truth6600]

Only a person with no common sense would make your statement, the court is supposed to rule going on constitutional policy, not your liberal views.

[@badejooyediran2920]

I would add that there should be a bipartisan ethics committee comprising of senators, representatives and the Vice president tasked with reviewing any legal or unethical breaches by supreme court members.

[@cindyhodges4766]

Thank you for your education. Totally not happy with the Supreme Court!!! We are losing our freedom.

[@bsmith5304]

Definitely 💯

[@burtonlee8642]

quite the contrary...SCOTUS protects your freedom.

[@user-je8go1gp5g]

That is what most of us are worried about. These judges and justices need to stop kissing Trump’s ass and just do what is right!

[@user-je8go1gp5g]

You mean maybe they did until Trump came into the picture!!!

[@falconquest2068]

@@burtonlee8642Please elucidate on how that has happened.

[@1m2rich]

Arrest them for fraud. They recently made a case for a hypotheoretical harmed person. Bar should remove their law licenses. Supreme Court or not.

[@alanking6240]

Doesn't work.

[@johnhboden48]

Three term limit for congress and 18 year terms for the Supreme

[@geraldinemiddleton3281]

When two of the justices did not report their gifts. The decisions to report the gifts is the law. Tired of this eye for an eye governing. Thank you Chris for putting this out there!

[@user-is5vw4jt6w]

SCOTUS are not politians. They only have to win one election. That is an election of Senators of the US Senate. And they won that election.

[@c45-nr4pk3gu7f]

Can you define what a woman is?

[@user-is5vw4jt6w]

@@c45-nr4pk3gu7f And all the Justices lie during confirmation to get elected, like all the Senators lied to get elected to the Senate.

[@lifeisagift.cherisheverymoment]

A woman is a human being. A woman is capable of defining herself.

[@geraldinemiddleton3281]

A woman can be defined as a wife, mother, and grandmother. Women have the ability to be defined in many different ways and is dependent on the life she has chosen!

[@CaptBill69]

Thanks for this Commentary. YES to Fixing The Supreme Court. The Conflicts of Interest from Big Money being spent on Supreme Court Justices deserve our attention, and a fix.

[@atilathesonofdanubius4277]

There is nothing to fix, you can't fix that. The president does now have the liberty to dispose of the Supreme Court as he sees fit. We just need a president with the guts to do it. It is that simple.

[@AmusedMackerel-um3vf]

Thank you Chris for your insight into the Supreme Court.

[@marchandtpinkney5085]

Time to change laws concerning Supreme Court.

[@Giornalisti]

Good to see you doing what you do best thoroughly analyzing an issue and helping us understand the underlying factors of a complex issue.

[@thekiwiguyusa]

As a dual citizen of the US who's been living here for over 20 years, I have to say, that July 4th, the birthday of our Nation is a somber day. Nearly 250 years ago, America was founded in defiance of a King. Now in 2024, the US Supreme courts recent decision to give the Orange Turd amunity essentially gives any future President King status. For the first time in our history, the President is literally above the law. The excerpt from Judge Sotomayors dissent speaks volumes to the significance of this decision. These are the final words in her dissent "Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop"

[@user-sm1jy3bw6w]

The Supreme Court need to be on the ballot box

[@Dea-gw4mp]

With the stupid voters we have???

[@bobbrink3635]

I see our congress folks a lot like the Supreme Court, both need term limits. When you can go into either location at the age of 20 and come out in a body bag, you have been there too long. You no longer know what the country wants, you have been out of touch for too long. I think 6 or 8 years is a good choice in order to keep these minds and ideas fresh. Thank you, and your brother for all you guys have done

[@joesmith3075]

Tell that to Nadler, Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, Romney and McConnell. Not one of them ever had this country's best interests at heart. They never did because they never knew what it was. And many of them are only in power because enough dead people voted them in and the ones that are still alive are systematically enslaved by them in fear they would lose their welfare "benefits"

[@ericlevinson4042]

Don't forget - congress is elected - Supreme court is not - they are appointed. I believe this is what needs to be changed. The Supreme court needs to be elected, not appointed.

[@jameskelley2357]

Abso-freakin'-lutely!!!!👍

[@22lyric]

Yeah, cuz we certainly have some "fresh ideas" going on in our society now! "Transgenderism, high crime, an open border where no one is vetted...

[@martinwhalley3286]

I didn't respect Ginsburg's selfish decision to push forward and not retire at a time when it serves the best purpose.

[@GrenvilleFordham]

“If you want to be a public servant, then serve the public.” YES!!!

[@ItongJunyor]

There has to be a way for these SC justices to be held accountable for their decisions.

[@yvonnealexander3486]

I believe in term limits for the justices on the Supreme Court. Society changes, ideas change and realities change. We need justices who can adapt to and with new things and I do not believe our current Court can do so. Given these people are not elected and have no oversight some kind of limit needs to be in place. Absolute power still corrupts absolutely; as we all saw even though vetted judges said precedent was set they still took away the rights of millions of people who did not elect them.

[@burtonlee8642]

Not even...ideology of the country and the vision of James Madison never changes. You are enjoying those ideologies at this very moment as you type.

[@garyloar3114]

How about people that were convicted of a crime getting into office like Rick Scott should not be aloud to run for any office

[@dalejimison7986]

Glad to see you Chris. 100% Agree.

[@BluePhoenixFireandIce]

Alito and Clarence Thomas should be in federal prison already. Period 💯 Impeach them! Period 💯

[@RobyRoberts]

Writing to William Charles Jarvis in September of 1820, the sage of Monticello said, "to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps."

[@priscillamyricks8554]

Thank you Chris I always look forward to your show

[@michellebobier-groves7821]

If the criteria to stay on the Supreme Court is "good behavior", Thomas and Alito would be off the bench already!

[@johnny.d.1930]

Because you disagree with them? Or because the propaganda media covers them and covers up for the liberal justices. Ginsberg and the rest have done the same.

[@davidwright7193]

So would “I like beer” and Aunt Amy.

[@jp6234]

Some of them should be in jail.

[@alanking6240]

NO not at all

[@greggweber9967]

Different definitions of good and bad.

[@trwesq1]

I 500% agree with the comment about RBG! Pres Obama asked her to step down and she said no. Great Justice, but that was the worst decision for our country.

[@user-zr9uy9ml5o]

Yes, we have a great problem in the superior court.

[@pch1147]

Just wanted thank you for the educational presentation. I am an Aussie and America is a really strange place when it comes to politics and power. It seems like the people have a hell of a battle for them to confront to bring about change.

[@kathyander4920]

Clearance Thomas needs to GO!!! They should have a time limit!!

[@user-ck8yo8kg4c]

Hahahahahaha! Do you need some tissue to dry those eyes?!?

[@patriciajones9987]

Clarence Thomas' fraud committing butt should never have been allowed on the Supreme Court. He is the most anti-black, pull yourself up by your boots hypocrite whose mission was to strike down Affirmative Action after he thoroughly benefitted from it. He has enriched himself for decades, including his nephew's paid college education, million dollar vacations, sale of both of his homes, one which his mother is being allowed to remain in during her life time. His mission is to reverse all of the settled law cases such as Roe vs Wade. He stated his intent to end the Obergefell v. Hodges which allows gay people to marry same sex. Clarence Thomas' wife Jenny is a big mess. She was involved in trying to over turn President Biden's election win. Clarence Thomas blatantly refuses to recuse himself from cases which involve Donald Trump.

[@waynelapage6328]

Why does everybody have to pick on Clarence Thomas every time that man rules on a case it is in line with the Constitution which tells me if there's a lot of people in this country that have a problem with the Constitution which makes you sound like a Democrat because Democrats don't care about the Constitution unless it favors them

[@bobbybob3865]

How corrupted can two people be: Clarence and Ginni Thomas? Something should be done to get Clarence Thomas off the Supreme Court.

[@user-ck8yo8kg4c]

@@bobbybob3865 Bill and Hillary come to mind. How many poorly explained deaths associated with those two? Corruption, sexual assault, Epstein Island, etc. Dick and Elizabeth Cheney. War mongers and ALWAYS willing to lie for $$$$.

[@anniekapplermalatesta2080]

We have a MAJOR problem with the highest court in the nation The Supreme Court.

[@CharlesThornton-js7zt]

Chris I recall the last nominee to answer all questions asked of him was Judge Robert Bork. His candor doomed him in a Senate where Democrates were in the majority. Since then all nominees have ducked sharing their personal opinions, no matter which president forwarded their name. Secondly what start with the Supreme Court for term limits? I think Mark Twain said it best..." diapers and politicians should be changed often and for the same reasons". What should anyone serve in either house for thirty or more years? As house Representative Barney Frank said we expect politicians to show absolute ingratitude toward those who support them. Hard job for the best of us. Thirdly the Constitution makes no provision for a 2 party system to have a stranglehold on all levels of government. We should not require elected men and women to suddenly behave as angels. That is why term limits are so very needed. Fourthly the Supreme Court got it right in their decision on Chevron Deference. The Executive branch ought not be allow to interpret laws/statutes beyond the language of said laws/statutes. Not the President by Executive order nor any other department of the executive branch. It is not the court that needs to be fixed but our political culture.

[@PierreBonin-vi7en]

Very good commentaries! I hope that some serious people take them seriously in order to establish a decent SCOTUS!

[@ianstein7603]

These are valid problems that Chris addreeses about the supreme court, but these changes that he presents have a possibility of being taken advantage of by certain people and erode America's founding values and democracy. I see more and more that changes to our government eroding our democracy. We need to think about possible future dangers like our founding fathers. I think supreme court appointees should be voted on by citizens to have the possibility of being vetoed. I think this idea should be heavily revised and the possibilities of stability and dangers should be addressed. Conversation is important. Identifying problems is only the first step. Checks and balances are what makes America's democracy function.

[@joycerodgers8829]

The People of America should get to VOTE the Judges in.

[@jaymakormik6779]

HERE HERE!! WELL SAID!!!😁👍

[@shadrach6299]

No then it would REALLY be political

[@joeblow3990]

@@shadrach6299 News Flash: The Supreme Court Judges ARE a bunch of politicians.

[@SurprisedBuffalo-ug3rf]

Agree!!!

[@SurprisedBuffalo-ug3rf]

The SCOTUS makes decisions that affect us!!! We need to vote fir all judges!!!!

[@marianohernandez2685]

Thank you for being in the air again.I really miss you

[@adrianflemming1898]

Term limits on congress,Senate & supreme court

[@yvonnemercury5443]

Wow we need you in the court

[@user-dd9nz4we1g]

The United States of America has the finest Supreme Court Judges that money can buy.

[@infinie.end.2992]

Haha. Yep!!

[@rosestewart8879]

Yeah…The finest crooks that money can buy 😄

[@nancygibson604]

True

[@SassySimian]

Here's what needs to happen for SCOTUS to catch up with times: 1) 13 justices for the 13 circuits; 2) submitted to same ethics rules as all federal judges; 3) elected by all members of the bar, based on legal competence, not politics. Expanding SCOTUS to match the number of circuits is not "packing the court". For most of American history, there were at least one _or more_ justices per circuit. In 1789, there were 6 justices for 3 circuits, then 9 justices for 7 circuits in 1807, then 9 for 9 in 1869. This was still the case in 1937 when FDR attempted to "pack the court", hence the resistance. Since 1982, the number of circuits was expanded to 13, but we still have 9 justices covering 10x the population of 1869. It's obvious what needs to happen, and that's why Republicans have been blocking it and crying foul anytime you lean that way, because the current system favors their beloved minority rule.

[@RBUDD16]

Impeach them

[@johnross3204]

Love this guy right here!!! He hit the nail on the head

[@johnnyderosalia75]

Dude, I finally found you again. Keep that good shit coming brother... Now you answer to No One. So keep it real with us man. We need about as much truth as we can get man

[@joannegrieco8523]

I believe there should be term limits for the Supreme Court , we should vote on who we want on the Supreme Court and they shouldn't be allowed to go backwards!!!

[@lydiaortiz7717]

Supreme Court, what a shame for this country.

[@clintoncummings5290]

Chris, you always come up with what is important for our country. I so wish you were on daily like you were before you backed up your brother too much. So for now, please keep us informed and I hope you get back on full time in reporting the news and commentary. Keep your courage up and follow the skunks into their holes.

[@easternsuneasternsun171]

The only skunk is Chris and his brother.

[@johnny.d.1930]

It's hilarious that he chooses Roe v Wade to make his argument. And then praises Ginsberg. Even she said the Roe decision was weak and would be over turned.

[@johnjenkins5762]

My guy u always spot on miss u brother on cnn that is but keep it going 😊

[@pdquestions7673]

The military doesn't rely on interviews / candidate-testimony when deciding whether to grant security clearances. Instead, they do extensive background checks. The Senate judiciary committee can do harder work & instead of just interviewing people (which is easy) they can do the harder work of conducting serious background checks, and the decision can be made by discussing the materials discovered in the background checks (in a hearing format) and offering candidates the opportunity to explain any aspects of the background check that are problematic.

[@Laura-bi5dc]

100% agree

[@SmartHomeHASHTAGS]

Take away government control when choosing the judges. We don't do that crap in Australia.

[@suhassengupta3221]

No job should be a lifetime appointment in the US. Term limits are needed.

[@christopherleslie1323]

So glad to hear from you Chris. Keep up the good work.

[@barbd.1628]

Yes, I believe we need political & ideology transparency from our leaders in general but especially from SC Justices. And no one should serve indefinitely in any profession; they should be voted or elected in and/or re-evaluated at reasonable intervals. Thanks for your educated thoughts and opinions, Chris!