• SpaceBishop
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      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
          arrow-down
          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.

          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?