The Trump-appointed justice has shifted the court to the right, but she has angered some in MAGA world by voting against some of President Donald Trump's priorities.

Summary

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

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

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

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

  • SilverCode@lemm.ee
    157·
    2 days ago

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

    • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
      47·
      2 days ago

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

    • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.socialEnglish
      27·
      2 days ago

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

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

      • BigFig@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        2 days ago

        They are supposed to be the interpreters of the law

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

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

        • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
          8·
          2 days ago

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

    • Infynis@midwest.socialEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

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

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