85
submitted 7 months ago by FenrirIII@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 75 points 7 months ago

Reading the quotes from the conservative justices makes me so angry. It just makes it so painfully obvious how much of an illegitimate court they truly are. Trying to equate storming the capital to prevent Congress from certifying an election, resulting in the death of several people - with heckling during the State of the Union is such a fucking joke.

[-] jaspersgroove@lemm.ee 36 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I just imagine what they’d be saying if the J6 people had stormed the Supreme Court while they were in session instead of storming Congress. Wonder if they would still feel the same lol.

Let Clarence Thomas hide in a fucking closet fearing for his life for a few hours, come out to shit-smeared walls, broken windows and a stolen laptop and then let’s see what he thinks about it.

[-] psvrh@lemmy.ca 39 points 7 months ago

There are Republican representatives who were hiding and cowering on that day and are trying to rewrite history now.

So it's not a stretch to say that he'd certainly suffer any indignity and still excuse his team's malfeasance.

[-] solidgrue@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Who says that's not your average Thursday night at the Clarence residence?

Why no, I don't have a point. Why do you ask?

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 9 points 7 months ago

How ironic would it be if word got out they were going rule that people couldn't be charged with obstruction of justice, then people stormed the Supreme Court to prevent them from issuing the ruling?

Is that ironic? I might have gotten my definition from Alanis Morisette. Either way it would be hilarious.

[-] Coach@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Let's fucking go.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 14 points 7 months ago

They’re liable to get physically reminded of the true intent of the second amendment if they keep this shit up too much longer.

[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

Something something troublesome justice.

[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 11 points 7 months ago

But it IS Obstruction if you were to do the EXACT SAME THING but at the Supreme Court instead!

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world -3 points 7 months ago

Won't get any of those shitheads off the hook though, so there's that.

this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
85 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19148 readers
2042 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS