• retrospectology@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Protest voting would be aimed at reforming a democratic party that’s unfit to confront fascism. It’s a legitimate strategy whether you agree with it or not.

        Another Biden term will not do anything to mitigate Democratic complicity with fascism. Establishment dems are quite literally worse than useless.

        • retrospectology@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          That’s why you vote uncommitted. There’s no way to ignore that message or use any of their usual excuses.

          But the Democrats understand what they need to do in order to win election, they’re just so latched to the corporate tit that they won’t do it. Think they can get a few more gulps of that sweet lobby money before things get “serious”. The pigs are too busy feeding to give a fuck about our democracy collapsing.

  • rsuri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Pressed on whether the court has an obligation to put the country on a more “moral path,” Roberts turns the tables on his questioner: “Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” He argues instead: “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.” Presented with the claim that America is a “Christian nation” and that the Supreme Court should be “guiding us in that path,” Roberts again disagrees, citing the perspectives of “Jewish and Muslim friends,” before asserting, “It’s not our job to do that. It’s our job to decide the cases the best we can.”

    I know John Roberts has made some terrible rulings, but he deserves credit where it’s due in that he won’t literally tear up the Constitution. Unfortunately he’s the exact kind of Justice the Trump-era GOP tries to avoid choosing, because he puts the Constitution above Trump.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      he deserves credit where it’s due in that he won’t literally tear up the Constitution

      Guy pealing big ribbons off the edge of the document for the last 19 years still hasn’t shoved it wholesale through a shredder. And for that we should be grateful, maybe, unless oops he’s in a 5-4 decision were the other justices decide to go at constitutional law with a blowtorch.

      he puts the Constitution above Trump

      Excited for him to put on RGB’s “I Dissent!” necklace in the SCOTUS decision that hands Trump Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia in 2024.

  • affiliate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Anyone can pay $150 to become a dues-paying member and rub elbows with the court’s nine justices at events like the dinner where Windsor spoke with Alito. (Tickets for the dinner were an extra $500.)

    this is all it took for him to admit this stuff? anybody with 650$ could have walked in and asked him a couple prodding questions? these guys really arent even trying to hide it anymore

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      anybody with 650$ could have walked in and asked him a couple prodding questions?

      Alito has a long history of running his mouth. I doubt you’d even need to pay the $650, assuming he thought you were from a conservative media outlet.

  • nifty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    By law, religious people should not be allowed in government or policy making. Delusional people cannot be trusted with such work.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Who would pass such a law? Hell, who would even vote for such a law? Churches have enormous influence at the ballot box.

      Even at the peak of its power, the Soviets couldn’t simply abolish religious leadership. And they were in a country with Atheists in the highest tiers of government, with actual money and military power to toss around. What’s the plan to outlaw religious demagogues in a state founded by religious demagogues?

  • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The guy can say anything he wants. It’s not like if he does something illegal that the supreme court is going to convict him. He doesn’t need to ever win an election, he’s there for life.

    This will just upset the people who already know the guy is a problem and are already upset with him.

    I wish justices had term limits.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The folks mad enough to off a SC justice are more likely to point their guns at Jackson or Sotomayer.

        Liberals will just frown and send polite letters to their Senators to maybe consider having a hearing or something.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Wow, that’s pretty fucking blatant.

    But so were the last dozen things we’ve discovered about the Tribunal of Six.

    Unfortunately, I expect nobody will do anything about this in an official capacity, due to obstructionism by the right, and because politicians on the left would probably think iT’s toO diViSiVE

  • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    He’s surprisingly right, even if he is part of the problem.

    The current political climate in this country can’t last into the long-term future. I dislike the idea of conflict but many of the current right’s ideals simply cannot coexist with those outside of their cult. The right has also been more aggressive about dismantling the country in several areas as a means of takeover. They really do see this as a battle or a war.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      They accomplished the majority of it by simply showing up. They didn’t need their guns or elaborate criminal conspiracies, they just applied for positions of power (however minor) and used that power to push their agenda and support their dogshit friends doing the same.

      Meanwhile, progressivism on the internet has been taken over nihilistic neckbeards that just sit back and watch it all happen, making worthless promises about how if it gets too bad, their for-profit firearms will bail them out.

      We used to get arrested.

      • retrospectology@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I’ve got news, it’s not progressives standing in the way of fighting this. It’s the morons who cling to “bipartisanship” because they still think this is about protecting the corporate money hose with their GOP pals across the aisle.

        Meanwhile every Republican will vote like an ideolouge whether they are ir not. Neoliberalism has failed, utterly and completely, to confront fascism. Instead they bury their heads in the sand, ignore their growing base of Millenials and GenZ, and think they can protect a status quo that’s dissolving beneath their feet.

        People like you need to wake up. You’re not going to get “slow progress” out of the lesser of two evils, you’re going to get a negligbly slower slide into fascism. There is no protecting your comfortable bubble at this point.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Ever wish you’d stumble onto a Death Note? To hell with that psycho manually scrawling the names of whoever pops into his head. Strategically study and pick off corrupt and fashy leaders with a variety of cardiovascular illnesses and aggressive cancers. Maybe the occasional shanking of a child molester, accidental head trauma for an ultra greedy megachurch pastor, or quiet suicide for life- & planet-wrecking ceos and tycoons. All randomly spread out and just enough to keep their organization stagnant or sliding backwards. I mean if you have the power of a deity at your disposal it’s not that hard to use it strategically for the benefit of humanity.

    • fukurthumz420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      find the part of the fantasy that doesn’t require supernatural powers and manifest it into reality.

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    ITT: children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren of settlers in America realizing that the separation between church and state was just a power grab between white people.

    The state sucks, so does the church. Which is just the state with more rituals.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    The second flag is the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, a Revolutionary War-era banner. The “Appeal to Heaven” language references philosopher John Locke, who argued that, when earthly political appeals are exhausted, men have the right to take up arms and let God sort out the justness of the cause. While the The Appeal to Heaven flag was not always controversial, it has been revived by militant Christian nationalists and was also a potent symbol on Jan. 6. This flag was flown at the Alitos’ vacation home in New Jersey in 2023.

    I didn’t know the flag was literally “kill everyone and let God sort them out”…

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    It would be one thing if there was no mechanism for accountability within the Supreme Court. Its a fundamental flaw in our constitution.

    However: https://www.fastcompany.com/90243523/can-a-supreme-court-justice-be-removed-yes-and-heres-how

    The way the Biden campaign is running to the right this election, Democrats will almost assuredly be losing the house and the senate, so removing any of these justices is a bit of a fantasy. If anything, we’ll probably lose a liberal justice for a conservative one.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Who cares what Samuel Alito said? It’s not like he’s REWRITING Laws that our Elected Representatives already passed so it aligns more with HIS Bias instead of the text of the Constitution!