Well if the court didn't engage in clearly partisan politics, maybe the liberal justices wouldn't have anything to criticize.
Does he realize how bad it looks when he voices that his problem is criticism and not like, I don't know, taking money from political interests? Or refusing to recuse in cases where there's a relative directly involved?
It is really incredible how far down the drain the SCOTUS has gone in such a short period of time. Not saying it was great before Justice Kennedy retired either, but at least back then it was generally respected.
On the other hand, it's our job to pick the best president and we majorly blew it. I can easily imagine RBG thinking "if they are dumb enough to elect this chode, they deserve what they get".
Why do you think they would've filled her spot when they didn't fill the other one with Merrick Garland? She protected her spot or they would've held it up until Trump.
She could have retired at any time, including right after Obama was elected. The Republicans couldn't have held the spot open for years. It would have become a major election issue.
I'd bet good money McConnell would have tried to find a way/reason to keep it open, look at all the rules making/breaking they did to fill/keep a seat empty close to elections, I'm sure they'd just come up with some other bullshit
I'm sure he would have tried, but we're dealing with massive hypotheticals at this point. Under your argument, we should not have a justice at any point ever step down because McConnell would try to block a nomination. Yes, he would try. Doesn't change the fact that the best move was for her to step down at the beginning of the term.
We should honestly be pushing for justices getting on in years and having health issues to step down at the beginning of presidential terms regardless.
"Why won't they just let us make wildly unpopular decisions that jeopardize the livelihoods of Americans without having to make us feel bad about it?!"
As the article states, the inclusion of the nudes in the newsletter allows a very clear path for criminal charges in D.C. and Georgia under their respective revenge porn legislation. She should receive charges for both.
In any sane world, a member of congress would be immediately expelled for presenting literal nudes, without permission and in bad faith, of a sitting POTUS’ family member, who is not, nor has ever been a member of the administration or government employee.
Congratulations to Vladimir Putin and the CCP, as your work to dismantle the U.S. through propaganda and mainstreaming batshit tinfoil-hat insanity through promoting these ridiculous, unserious elected officials like Greene, Paul, Jordan, Comer, Gaetz, Santos, et al, has been incredibly effective.
Wouldn’t it be neat if she faced consequences for her actions, instead of the US working overtime to make sure potheads do as much time as they possibly can before they’re finally forced to admit they lied about pot
We didn’t go far enough. Only supplied non lethal aid the roos and the ostriches after the wild camel cull. The drop bears were trained but I fear we’ll pay when they turn against us all.
Oi nah get fucked mate, you guys took him in yonks ago.
But to be fair i believe he isnt considered ‘Australian’ or ‘American’ but more of a ‘cunt to all humankind’.
It was a joke because that’s the only definition I could find for “Tankish,” but I didn’t think that was what you actually meant. Never heard of it at all nor could I find any reference to it describing friendliness with the 2nd world. Any idea of the etymology and/or where you picked up the term?
This is just speculation because it hasn’t been explained definitively to me, but my assumption is that it refers to the Tiananmen square video where it was one dude vs a column of tanks and tankies are people supporting the column of tanks side of that conflict.
And from there it evolved to mean anyone supporting the Chinese or Russian authoritarian regimes. It might apply more broadly to anyone supporting a regime that uses brutal dissent breaking tactics, though in the west it might apply to situations specifically involving that brutality (France, Britain, and USA have all recently used some brutal tactics, though none of them have deployed tanks to settle a protest/riot that I’m aware of).
And just to repeat, that’s my current best guess as to the specific meaning of the term, I could be entirely wrong.
Tankie is a term British communists used against other British communists who didn’t oppose the USSR invading Hungary in 1956. These days its pretty much any Marxist-Leninist.
One of the candidates wants to imitate the US when it comes to the 2A, so I think if it comes to that, I’ll arm myself.
Careful, you’re falling for American propaganda yourself.
The safest thing you can do by far is to leave, but obviously that’s not an option for everybody.
If you do arm yourself and you take that gun with you everywhere you go, you’re more likely to just give a far-right scumbag an excuse to kill you than you are to defend yourself.
Extremely permissive gun laws benefit assholes, criminals and extremists far more than they benefit genuinely good people.
So have all the armed minorities in America fixed the problem?
Has racism been solved or does the state still execute people in the street and claim “He might have had a gun”?
Are authoritarians scared to enter politics because of all the overweight, heavily armed people waddling around sharing fantasies about killing for “freedom”?
Are domestic terrorists hunting gay people gunned down in a hail of Good Guy Bullets before they can threaten, trumatise, maim and kill anybody?
Or do cashiers and children and beaten wives just get shot in the face because their lives weren’t deem as important as profiting off people who can’t secure their guns or control their emorions.
Morality has nothing to do with it, it simply doesn’t work.
A talking point pushed by right-wing, pro-gun reactionaries who just want to manipulate people into feeling racist.
The open carry laws they used while policing the police stated that it was legal to carry a loaded rifle or shotgun as long as it was publicly displayed and not pointed at anyone.
The pro-gun community pushes gun laws that are far more permissive and far more likely to result in an overweight Fox News viewer losing control of his emotions and executing a cashier.
yep while we havnt gotten quite as far as the extreme right in the US, the nutbags here in aus love to focus on similar oddly specific things, like trans people and sex education which is going through a bit of a renaissance of ignorant idiots trying to make it an issue.
its even funnier because we don’t have a large religious base to even justify it and most of the lunatics pushing it would probably identify as atheist or agnostic
Or, alternatively, his rich and powerful father used his connections to pressure anyone who could testify to rethink the consequences of their actions. Because rape is okay if you’re rich and white.
There’s been plenty of evidence that Hunter is creep with minors, just like his daddy creepy Joe. According to this sub, you have to prove innocence, so where is the proof that Hunter didn’t?
Having the prosecution recommend not pressing charges isn’t exactly the same thing as the crime literally not happening. That’s a bit of an assumption.
If I can make at least 3 assumptions, based on what you’ve said here, do you think OJ was a murderer?
Your link does not support your claim that it never happened. It does not even address the question of whether or not it happened, the quality of the evidence available, or the reasons why charges were not recommended. You are clearly reading into this article. Why? Bet you don’t even know.
According to the article the supposed witnesses were garbage. Even the prosecution thought their testimony wouldn’t hold up in court.
Somehow I have to prove a negative, to prove innocence, and yet somehow the parent commenter can make unfounded accusations without proof and be considered legit, worthy of updoinks? You people are in a delusional echo chamber. What a joke of a forum this is.
In any sane world, a member of congress would be immediately expelled for presenting literal nudes, without permission and in bad faith, of a sitting POTUS’ family member, who is not, nor has ever been a member of the administration or government employee. of anyone.
Try browsing Reddit on this issue. Holy hell are bots gone all insane justifying that “Hamas needs to be crushed” on any civilian death. It’s a fascinating case study on how perceptions and narratives can be morphed and controlled.
Don’t have to go to reddit - you can just head on over to c/worldnews here on Lemmy to see the pro-Israeli hasbara narratives being allowed by the mods there.
Appeal to consensus is a fallacy. One that especially doesn’t work well on the internet, because platforms are generally quite able to be influenced by bots or by removal by moderation staff or platform owners.
If you exclude exclusively political lemmy instances like lemmygrad, lemmy is at most slightly more politically liberal than reddit, but without astroturfing racists being able to declare what makes it to the front page.
I don’t think it even breaks down to “liberal” or “conservative”. There’s an objective way of looking at what’s going on, the pro-Israel narrative is basically dependent on ignoring anything that happened before or after Oct. 7, omitting all other facts.
They did try. It was that there might be terrorist infrastructure there. They know there’s civilians there, but there might be infrastructure. They’re still looking into it, but they dropped that bomb, anyway.
Yeah this one is almost scarier than any other for the precedent it sets. While most of the actual decisions this term were bad but par for the course of a conservative majority court (with a few pleasant surprises like rejecting racial gerrymandering, dismissing independent legislature theory, and reaffirming Native adoptions) this case was uniquely dangerous for being just conjured from thin air. The idea that you can take an issue to court over something that was proven to be entirely hypothetical prepares the way for more ready-made cases designed to create a particular legal outcome.
To borrow a phrase from Roberts, the best way to stop criticism that the court is “going beyond the proper role of the judiciary” is for the court to stop going beyond the proper role of the judiciary.
This, right here, is my favorite line of the article.
He brought increased scrutiny on himself, resulting in multiple damaging revelations. Despite promising in 2020 to donate “every dime” he makes in Washington to veterans’ causes, Tuberville has yet to actually do so. He appears to have completely fabricated his father’s military record, and he has lived in Florida, not Alabama, for nearly two decades.
Military leaders called him out by name, accusing him of “aiding and abetting Communist and other autocratic regimes”—a devastating insult for any Republican but especially a far-right one.
I’m not convinced from that comment that the user they’re referring to is a tankie, but simply put, I’d describe a tankie as the alt-left equivalent of the alt-right.
They’re not quite as violent in my opinion, but they push pro-china/russia propoganda and misinformation, and are just as self-deluded and delusional as the alt-right. I’ve also seen tankies justify Hamas’ attack against Isreal, which I find inexcusable and morally reprehensible. The same can be said of the IDF’s genocide against innocent Palestinians.
Tankies are on the fringe and are just on the other end of the bell curve of the alt-right.
You forgot to mention IRGC propaganda and misinformation. The current Gaza conflict is, without a doubt, the biggest propaganda victory the IRGC has ever had. They’ve got the US left absolutely fractured. People were worried about 2024 elections? HAHAHAH just wait. We’re so fucked.
Sure, my point was that they didn't know. That they were just out here throwing out words they had no clue about and (in my and others opinion) doing it as an attempt to drive wedges in the community. That's literally the joke up the thread that the guy baited the moron in with. I've met some of these people in real life. They weren't violent. They absolutely we're deluded apologists, but outside of talking revolution in the streets (which I don't think is to imply violence either, Iceland for example) they we're very much passive folk that just got pulled into a lame MLM.
To your later point, personally I agree, that the attack Hamas carried out on people in Israel is inexcusable. I don't think that is ubiquitous on the left, nor should it be. It parallels quite clearly in the discussions we're all having as to the validity of attacks on civilian populations but to some it is also a question of self defense under the massively imbalanced power dynamic between the two countries. Not only are we talking about apartheid here, but what is clearly becoming erasure. The longer this madness goes on the more people are going to question the validity of that Oct 7 attack and as I see the atrocities carried out daily I wonder if that point will come for me as well.
That's the significance of this story. Wolf fucking Blitzer, is starting to question this shit. If you ever needed a warning that you are taking the lead in the "bad guy" race, this is a skull and bones in the tea leaves.
Not sure what tankies have to do with it, but I think everyone understands mocking text, and yes, there is a lot of pro-IDF astroturfing on all social media platforms currently.
I downvote that type of meme humor because I don’t find it adds to discussion. Even if I agree with the person, I downvote them every time.
Up/downvotes are meant for promoting relevant discussion and suppressing off-topic content, spam, trolls, and hate. They are not and were never intended to be dis/agreement buttons. People just misuse them.
Yes and no. I can’t speak to the particulars of this situation but differences in means matter even if they currently produce the same outcome. A toothless dog and a dog in a muzzle are different in important ways.
I don’t really disagree in present circumstances.
But I feel it’s necessary to characterize it correctly. Characterizing the FEC as a whole to be deficient when it’s a few bad actors temporarily at the head of the FEC could be used as justification by other bad actors or well-intentioned but misled people to undermine the FEC - which would make it deficient should the leadership issues be corrected.
Sort of the game that conservatives play with government services. Cut the funding until the service is flagging, then use that as justification to either further cut the budget or reduce the scope of the service until the service is no longer a real government service.
Can’t let ourselves buy into that.
Any deadweight who shrugs all of this off as bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe LoL aMiRiTe WhY bOtHeR VoTiNg is just as much of a social parasite as the goddamned mouthbreathers who vote for this type of creature.
If they ever bother to pause from fondling their purity and superiority then lovingly sniffing their fingers, if they would stop to actually look, they would find that there is a lot of blood on those hands.
I don't know, I like Sotomayor. And Brown-Jackson seems alright. And I really don't have much opinion on Kagan aside from the fact that I usually agree with her rulings. As for Conservatives, I disagree with all of them almost always, but Gorsuch at least seems to care about consistency, and I think his views on Native affairs is admirable.
If it's not clear, I mean all the conservatives that clearly were put there for nefarious reasons. And none of them deserves a life time position on the supreme court regardless, and by them here I mean everyone, not just conservatives.
newrepublic.com
Hot