You must log in or # to comment.
Keep your eye on the ball, people. If the dems literally never lose another election they should take the court back by 2050 and then start reversing all the terrible rulings that will happen in the next 25 years. I mean they won’t actually do that last part because they’ll treat those rulings as precedent, bricks in the great edifice of the american project we are all working together to build etc., but anyway I lost my train of thought
I mean they won’t actually do that last part because they’ll treat those rulings as precedent, bricks in the great edifice of the american project we are all working together to build
there has never been a more true statement
Uh, oh. What was the vote? Do I want to know?
-–
Edit
While the decision was unanimous, the liberal justices wrote a sharp concurrence that accused the conservative majority of going further than needed
Oh! A sharp concurrence!
It was unanimous to put him on the ballots
While the decision was unanimous, the liberal justices wrote a sharp concurrence that accused the conservative majority of going further than needed
Oh, my. Hohoohohooooooyhooasfoohooasfoi;jmsdkl;fmn iwaek ln sdaf oh shit.as.d fasdf’ojka;sdmkaf kjasdfiiidiiiiiiiiiiii oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooasd
I have never read a harder cope sentence than “sharp concurrence”. Like we make fun of these people for fetishizing losing and dissent, now they fetishize agreeing? What the actual fuck lmao?
I like etymology and looking things up. But I don’t think I even did a quickie google of the judge/justice use of “concurrence” because legal shit can be so tedious.
-–
Nina edit
TIL - there’s something even more lib than a “withering dissent”. A “sharp concurrence” is the most lib thing possible. I thought a concurring opinion might be complicated. Nope. It’s very simple.
In law, a concurring opinion is in certain legal systems a written opinion by one or more judges of a court which agrees with the decision made by the majority of the court, but states different (or additional) reasons as the basis for their decision.
“A sternly unpleasant glare”
Sotomayor Raised an Eyebrow after EVERY Ruling by Supercilious plays.
-–
supercilious [] Etymology: early 1500s from Latin superciliosus “haughty”, from supercilium “eyebrow”.
But they agreed dissidently!
RIP in peace old friend
I better become a malevolent ghost so I can haunt Israel or there will be hell to pay!
Anyone know any good necromantic rituals?
how do we not have any juche necromancy emojis with all the fucking memeing we do about itSometimes we must be the change we want to see in the world
I was honestly gonna guess 7-2 or something like that, with the dissenters arguing about how being impeached should impact legal ability to run again or something similar and technical, but without real standing
Liberals continue to be more pathetic than expected
ain’t that the dems in a nutshell. “you’re doing exactly what we would do, but too much and too loud!”
The rollin’ coal Trump Train leads to fascism.
The Trump Train with the lib caboose also leads to fascism. But it’s important to recognize that it’s a diesel and it goes slower. Also the libs want Americans to know they are working as hard as they are able are to get permission to paint a rainbow flag on their train car.
I’m pretty sure diesel trains are faster than coal trains. After all, Hitler didn’t actually win any elections; he was appointed by Paul von Hindenburg.
“Sharp concurrence” lol
Cannot write a more succinct and damning summary of democrats and libs in general
I didn’t know “scathing dissent” had an even worse sibling.
I entirely forgot about concurrences. I have a TIL comment lower in this thread - https://hexbear.net/comment/4663388
Democrats learned their lesson with FDR. Can’t risk having too much power or you might be expected to use it.
“We, democrats, have learned our lesson with FDR. We can’t risk having too much power or we might be expected to use it.” The narrator says: “Biden/Harris 2024.” Tired Old Joe comes back and says: “I’m Joe Biden and I approve this message.”
Damn, that’s crazy. Sounds like the US supreme court is some kind of fascist institution that the Joe Biden administration will surely destroy in their efforts to prevent American Fascism, Right?
court dem judges are like living civility bits
NOTHING WILL FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE
WE NEED TO PRESERVE FAITH IN THE INSTITUTIONS
lmao awesome country tbh. i hope they do it again the exact same but bitcoin is involved somehow.
This is the most important election…
Impotent*
Would liberals have even wanted this to pass? Indiana or Florida or any of the other states where Republicans do wacky shit would have instantly kicked Biden off the ballot.
Yeah, but they also wanted the Supreme Court to be like “Yeah, Trump did a sedition”
Not even realizing that it was never going to happen because of
civilityThey don’t need to drop that particular mask yet because they’ve already made it hellish to vote outside the suburbs
and a vast majority of blue maga will be happy for this. Balance, or some horse shit like that.
The Lathe strikes again
Bit idea
It is a time of miracles! In the first miracle - the dems take the house, get more seats in the senate, and Biden wins. In the second miracle - Biden says “We will pack the court.” Note that he goes whole hog and doesn’t even say “expand”. The third miracle is he actually he says they have the votes and they will pass the law in Biden’s first 100 days even though Fetterman is suddenly squishy and hints he might “jump ship” but he doesn’t elaborate.
In the meantime all six GOP justices do something extremely unusual. They give interviews to very friendly right-wing media outlets. They say they have discovered a legal concept which means they can find court expansion unconstitutional. In the fourth miracle - the dems create a filibuster carveout and pass their court expansion law and threaten to “do something drastic” if the GOP justices find it unconstitutional. Lib experts all say “The conservative justices are bluffing. They cannot do this!”
The court rules 9-0 that it’s unconstitutional. The 3 lib justices again issue a sharp concurrence. A few days later Justice Kagan is caught on a hot mic saying “I would have voted with the conservative judges anyway. A 6-3 ruling would cause the public to lose faith in the court as an institution. Even worse it would damage the all-important comity that exists between the justices.”
god gives his strongest challenges to his most powerful warriors
Every liberal a fascist.
Lawrence Tribe (a super lib legal guy) and Michael Luttig (a super right-wing legal guy) were key in pushing the concept that Trump was disqualified by the 14th Amendment section 3 and that it was “self-executing”. Whatever the fuck that was supposed to mean.
Here’s Luttig’s copium tweet thread. I had to edit it because the it was a mess and the run on sentences turned it into gibberish. It’s still very hard to understand because he’s making a huge effort to obfuscate.
My thoughts about the Supreme Court’s decision today, with CNN’s Jake Tapper just now. The ruling is astonishing and unprecedented. Not for its decision of the exceedingly narrow — and only — question presented though, significantly, four of the Justices agreed only with the “result” of that decision, and not with its reasoning.
But rather, for the five-Justice majority’s decision to reach out gratuitously and decide essentially all of the equally, if not more momentous, constitutional questions that would need to be decided in order for the former president or any other person in the future to be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment.
And in the course of unnecessarily deciding all of these questions when they were not even presented by the case, the five-Justice majority effectively decided not only that the former president will never be subject to disqualification, but that no person who ever engages in an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States in the future will be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Disqualification Clause.
The concurrence of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson witheringly explains this.
The concurrence of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson witheringly explains this.
