• SpaceBishop@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

    Cool story, bro (or sis, or comrade, or whatever, idk you). Was it the Democrats 40 years ago that discarded ages-old decorum, stared down stare decicis, and said “nah, that ain’t for me,” to then threw out established case law, casting doubt on the legitimacy of 1/3 of the co-equal branches of government? Oh, no? It wasn’t? It was a group of far-right so-called “Christians” put on the SCOTUS by Republicans?

    Yeah, that’s certainly how I remember it happening, and, you know, objectively true, so thanks anyway.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Was it the Democrats 40 years ago that discarded ages-old decorum, stared down stare decicis, and said “nah, that ain’t for me,”

      The Republican nominees said the magic words and the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee rubber stamped every GOP nominee since Clarence Thomas. If Dems were hoodwinked time after time after time by candidates who mouthed “stare decisis” to the Senate and proceeded to piss on it as soon as the confirm vote cleared, perhaps they bare some of the blame for being so fucking gullible.

      It was a group of far-right so-called “Christians” put on the SCOTUS by Republicans?

      By Joe Biden’s Democrats. By Dianne Feinstein’s Democrats. By committee after committee that cowered when Bill Frist or Lindsey Graham whispered “the nuclear option” to a DC journalist. Every nominee since Bork has been worst than the last, and yet Dems refuse to hold up nominations on the grounds of polite decorum.

      Well, fuck my man. The J6ers are at the gates. Democracy is finally on the table. We’ve got 6 judges who will just as soon wipe their asses with the rulebooks as read them. Can we get a 10th and 11th appointment to the courts to balance things out, President Biden? No? Oh well, I guess its game over.

      • SpaceBishop@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s a weird strategy to show up and explain how one team operates without rules and lies about everything, but it’s the other guy that’s the problem. I can see that you’re one good faith fella.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          These two teams set the rules for the game. When one team cheats and the other team steps in to defend them while they break the rules, the problem is two-fold.

          In the case of the SCOTUS, you’ve got a Dem Party that refuses to investigate and prosecute flagrantly corrupt judges, refuses to seat additional judges through the Senate (a thing they have the power to do but will not employ), and will not order their bureaucracies to ignore rulings that endanger the life and property of American residents. Instead, you’ve got a willing accomplice to the willful neglect of women in need of emergency medicine, the persecution of LGBT children and young adults, and the execution of innocent men.

          When the DOJ is not merely docile, we have an FBI engaged in illegal surveillance and detention of peaceful dissidents, a DHS that actively facilitates humanitarian crimes against lawful migrants and refugees, and a Pentagon that perpetuates war crimes abroad. All of these agencies are operating under a Democratic Administration.

          And to top it all off, you’ve got a candidate running on the promise of appointing Republicans to her cabinet. This, while coordinating donations and campaign support with the fucking Cheneys. This goes beyond “cheating and lying”. It amounts to stepping out into the stands and killing spectators as part of the event. “Well, the other team just told us who to kill, what were we supposed to do? Not kill them?! We’d have fewer fans!” is a fucked way to run your franchise.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            If they won’t expand the court, they could do what the House and Senate did to Johnson and that’s shrink the court.

            Unfortunately, the only fair way to do it would also remove Brown-Jackson.

            “Five, five is a good number. Remove the four most recently added.”

            You’d get rid of the Trump court, but also Jackson, and it would still be 3-2 right wing court. Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              If they won’t expand the court, they could do what the House and Senate did to Johnson and that’s shrink the court.

              They won’t do that either.

              You’d get rid of the Trump court, but also Jackson, and it would still be 3-2 right wing court.

              Why would you remove the most recent judges and not the most elderly judges?

    • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      There is zero reason to argue with these trolls. They are here to disrupt an election and they will do whatever they can do to achieve that.