• itappearsthat
    ·
    9 months ago

    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

      • NephewAlphaBravo [he/him]
        ·
        9 months ago

        this ruling is a travesty, it should have been 9 liberal justices unanimously voting le evil dorito mussolini back onto the ballot

        if we vote hard enough we can accomplish this

    • blakeus12 [they/them, he/him]
      ·
      9 months ago

      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

  • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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!

      • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
        ·
        9 months ago

        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

        • itappearsthat
          ·
          9 months ago

          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?

          • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            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.

            Concurring opinion

            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.

            • D61 [any]
              ·
              9 months ago

              "A sternly unpleasant glare" dennis-stare

              • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Sotomayor Raised an Eyebrow after EVERY Ruling by Supercilious plays.

                ---

                supercilious [] Etymology: early 1500s from Latin superciliosus "haughty", from supercilium "eyebrow".

      • SacredExcrement [any, comrade/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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

      • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • wopazoo [he/him]
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

    • CliffordBigRedDog [he/him]
      ·
      9 months ago

      "Sharp concurrence" lol

      Cannot write a more succinct and damning summary of democrats and libs in general

      • edge [he/him]
        ·
        9 months ago

        I didn't know "scathing dissent" had an even worse sibling.

      • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
        ·
        9 months ago

        I entirely forgot about concurrences. I have a TIL comment lower in this thread - https://hexbear.net/comment/4663388

  • zifnab25 [he/him, any]
    ·
    9 months ago

    Democrats learned their lesson with FDR. Can't risk having too much power or you might be expected to use it.

    • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
      ·
      9 months ago

      "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."

  • Leon_Grotsky [comrade/them]
    ·
    9 months ago

    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?

  • plinky [he/him]
    ·
    9 months ago

    court dem judges are like living civility bits

    • NewLeaf
      ·
      9 months ago

      Impotent*

  • HumanBehaviorByBjork [any, undecided]
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

  • axont [she/her, comrade/them]
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • FlakesBongler [they/them]
      ·
      9 months ago

      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 civility

    • NephewAlphaBravo [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      They don't need to drop that particular mask yet because they've already made it hellish to vote outside the suburbs

  • Feinsteins_Ghost [he/him]
    ·
    9 months ago

    and a vast majority of blue maga will be happy for this. Balance, or some horse shit like that.

  • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
    ·
    9 months ago

    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."

  • bestmiaou@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    9 months ago

    the coolest part of the ruling is that congress gets to decide what "insurrection" means re: the 14th amendment. get ready for a whole lot of red baiting targeting the most centrist of dems so that they can be "credibly accused" of insurrection.

  • emizeko [they/them]
    ·
    9 months ago

    god gives his strongest challenges to his most powerful warriors