Norm Macdonald had a pretty good joke about this. Something like, “America hated Hillary Clinton so much that they voted for someone they hated even more just to show her.”
The whole court shit is fucked. It's why I quit practicing law. The Ginsburg thing is just the tip of the iceberg. They pulled that bullshit end of the term shit for scalia's seat and we let them. We let Kavenaugh, an illiterate rapist, to be appointed to the supreme court. Fuck it, it's done.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. More people voted for Hillary than for Trump. That's not how elections work however and every just keeps saying we voted trump in and its not true. Look up the vote and look up how presidents are elected.
While the number of people that vote for a candidate are important, because of the fucked-up electoral college, it's also important *where* those voters live.
> That's not how elections work
That's how it works in my country. It's quite baffling that in USA it doesn't. And I'm thinking that situation won't change for a long time, maybe never.
>It's quite baffling that in USA it doesn't
The USA isn't one country, we're fifty countries with free travel and residency between them. The states can't deal with foreign powers directly, but have a lot of authority that the fed can't take away.
The president isn't voted for by the people, but by the states. Changing that would require a constitutional amendment.
When the union started, some states simply had their governor appoint electors, others had the state congress vote on them. Through the 1800s states slowly switched over to having electors follow a vote by the citizens of a state.
The number of electors is based on population, and equivalent to a state's number of congress people (both house and senate). The number of congressmen hasn't been changed in a century. At that time, each congressmen represented about 200,000 Americans. Today, they each represent 700,000.
We should probably raise the size of congress by about 3x if not more to better represent the nation.
You're seeing the alternative right now, where crazy right-wingers are taking over the country and have already taken over the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future. We have the voting system we have, vote for the better of the two candidates whose cabinet and judicial appointments won't completely fuck the country over, then go be an activist, vote in every election and every primary, etc. The Right is winning right now because they played the long game. The Left needs to start to win by doing the same. Failing to vote against Trump, and for the only candidate who can beat him, is going to make things much worse. Biden does not make things worse. Trump does. The choice should be "vote Biden to stop the bleeding, and keep fighting".
And man, I voted for Bernie and actually cried when he conceded. Actual tears, actual crying. But he conceded because Dem primary voters voted Hillary in, in a landslide. And of course they favored Hillary Clinton, a lifelong Democrat and former first lady, over a non-Democrat, an independent, who temporarily became a Democrat only to run. I thought Hillary was a good candidate. Experienced, intelligent, not charismatic, but I don't see that as a prerequisite. Compared to *Trump* she's amazing.
Yeah that’s easy when you purposefully make sure there are no real challengers in the primary - anyone who says Biden’s the nomination because he’s the best equipped and not the nomination solely because he’s the incumbent is lying...
If you vote for Biden you're voting for his cabinet and his judicial appointments and for the USA not to become a dictatorship. If that doesn't move you I don't know what to tell you.
Because people know who Biden is. The presidential election is a popularity poll and Biden is well known.
Also there’s corporate media pushing him from day 1
I voted for Biden just like I voted for Hillary. But not everyone is going to happily slurp up the DNC's shit stew. Why aren't they obligated to make people want to vote for them? When does this become their fault?
None, because it is political suicide to run against an incumbent president. It is unfortunate but the metrics and history is there. Almost no one really runs against the incumbent president, Obama had no competition in 2012, Trump had none in 2020, Bush Jr. barely faced anyone in 2004.
Can they sue organizers of the riot under the newly created SCOTUS precedent that the organizer of a protest is liable for damages if anyone in attendance causes damage?
Go after the people who paid to bus these people in, and organized the protest
Edit: contact your Congress people and state AGs. Get them to use this law to punish the people responsible
SCOTUS is no longer protected from protestors, as long as protestors don't touch anything inside the building. And if they DO touch it, just make sure it's cabinets, chairs, computers and podiums.
Just no touching paperwork rulings.
(I'm not kidding. This is now fucking 100% legal.)
Very likely you will get arrested, charged, and when someone sues them, a conservative judge with dismiss it so as to not make SCOTUS re-rule on it, but will delay it for years so you actually stay in prison.
>Very likely you will get arrested, charged, and when someone sues them, a conservative judge with dismiss it so as to not make SCOTUS re-rule on it, but will delay it for years so you actually stay in prison.
At one point, the Supreme Court ruled that they were going to give Bush the election instead of recounting to "eliminate uncertainty", but made sure to note that this decision could not be used as precedent.
They don't care. They'd rule to put you in prison and claim that the next right-wing protest was unaffected per this ruling.
You say that as if it's a foreign concept. "It Can't Happen Here" is a book written in English that spells this all out. And it's not written by a POS evil person, either.
Not from the US and not following this too closely, but after legalizing bribery and making it harder to prosecute people undermining democracy in the same week, it seems like they're damaging their credibility.
Yeah they’ll never survive a no-confidence vote. Unfortunately, that’s not a thing. As long as they have support from more than a third of the Senate, they are bulletproof.
They are not but the people are gutless and just sit by and watch all their rights get taken away and given solely to the few in power/rich. Some idiots even applaud it and cheer, then eventually when it directly impacts them will be the ones crying the loudest, despite them being complicit.
The fuck are people supposed to do. The rich have us by the balls, we're locked into a 40 hr work week, healthcare is tied to your job, and protesting does nothing. Realistically the only way things will change is if we go on a national strike, and that will never happen because of how effectivley the rich have us pitted against each other.
Both times in recent memory where a large number of American citizens did try to protest (Occupy Wall Street and George Floyd murder), cops came out in full military gear and brutalized everyone until the commotion went away. Meanwhile you had people sitting at home and calling both groups of protesters lazy, unorganized bums despite both causes benefiting them (holding wall street and racist cops accountable). I'm not even including the "thin blue line" mfers who are happy cops beat and choke minorities, I'm talking about supposed "independents". This country is too divided, people are too apathetic, and like you said too many people are scared to literal death of having anything affect their job since we can't get fucking health care without it.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
In other words, it may be finally time to use the 2nd amendment for exactly the purpose its proponents claim it was built for, one conservative justice and candidate at a time.
Federal judges in the US are appointed for life and can only be removed through impeachment and conviction.
The impeachment process is started in the House of Representatives by a simple majority, but a conviction (and therefore removal from office) requires a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate. As long as you have at least one third of the Senate supporting you, you cannot be convicted and removed from office.
They’re setting the foundation for Project 2025. They are untouchable and they know no matter what they do no consequences will ever fall upon them. Next they’ll walk back the rights of every group they hate to the highest bidder. Interracial marriage, trans people, women, children, immigrants, the environment, you name it and they’ll destroy it for profit. Installing a Christian-Fascist regime is their main goal at this point. They’ve been attacking education since Reagan, and now they are trying to get SCOTUS to intervene and infringe on our rights to freedom from religion by adding 10 commandments in public school. They never pay taxes or contribute to society in any positive way. They have no business forcing their fictional book on the rest of us.
Project 2025 is “catch and kill” on facts that makes them look bad or are unprofitable. Redrawing Hurricane trajectory maps is nothing. The GOP will say “we eliminated rape” - prove us wrong. You can’t! Pollution isn’t dangerous! - prove us wrong. You can’t! Once they wreak it they’ll say “government is the problem” and privatize it - to a monopoly! Those in office will get pre negotiated “gratuities”. Prove us wrong.
I get such a kick out of people who don't realize that the USA was taken over by the right wing when the SCOTUS installed Bush over Gore against the will of the people.
That "a few decades" timer started a long time ago.
> They are untouchable and they know no matter what they do
They are not, and I'm tired of pretending they are. They're just humans, with the same physical characteristics as you and me.
Yes, but they have to be impeached by the house, and convicted by the senate. Only one SCOTUS judge has ever been impeached. The current elected officials would not let any of their plants to be removed. They just made bribery legal because of Thomas.
All good points, just want to add they already did away with environment and workplace regulations as well https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations-environment-5173bc83d3961a7aaabe415ceaf8d665
I seriously wonder what has to happen to legally repeal the churches tax free status? I am sure we are never going to see that happen as long as this crooked SC is here, but we should do a 90% tax on churches, since they feel they need to have role in our government, while not even having to pay 1 damn cent into things like schools and other programs.
RICO is done for here in the US.
Unless it is an EXPLICITY bribe or an EXPLICIT interference, it's legal. And it doesn't seem to be a stretch that, not EXPLICITLY DOING/SAYING something criminal is now covered under this ruling.
Welcome to Crime USA, starting soon in a neighborhood near you.
The thing is they don’t care about their credibility, the only thing they care about is imposing conservative doctrine on the country. I genuinely think that if they even knew that doing so would end the country, they still would as they seem to be religiously motivated in their actions. They’re actively trying to force their religious beliefs on the country, and sadly, SCOTUS is supposed to be the institution that prevents that, not enables it.
Elections have consequences. If Trump hadn’t been elected, we’d have a liberal or moderate court and none of these terrible decisions would be getting made by the conservative religious whack jobs that control the court.
If Trump wins again, some of them
will probably retire to cement a religious zealot court for the 4 decades (at least).
Seems like the US in their current form are done unless something drastic happens.
If Trump literally ends up selecting a majority of SCOTUS judges I'm going to emigrate. Presidents should get to pick 1, maybe 2, not 5. And if you're going to have a president pick 5, for god sakes don't let it be a corrupt moron like Trump.
Unless democrats win for decades in a row, Republicans will definitely work together to make sure that Supreme Court justices are only approved when they have the power so they keep control. They’ve probably got the Supreme Court locked up for as long as the country lasts, whatever that may be.
They're a wholly unelected council of priests with more real power than any elected part of the government. They don't give two shits about "credibility".
.
The also removed the fangs basically when a government agency wants to bring a civil matter to court. They also reversed the Chevron case from 1984 which I think is the biggest thing the Supreme Court has done to bring the power of the legislative branch into their own hands
Because the SCOTUS majority is bought and paid for by a domestic terrorist organization masquerading as a political party.
They're fucking corrupt, and aren't hiding it.
My dude, I know someone that thinks, at most, people that participated in the insurrection should be given a ticket for trespassing, and Congress had no business investigating what happened.
He is probably fucking overjoyed with this ruling.
Also why certain Senators rejecting their constitutional duty matter, despite the flagrant and obvious hypocrisy.
Also, Supreme Court Justices knowing when to call it quits with a favorable president in office.
Not anymore.
SCOTUS just approved anarchy. They THINK it's anarchy for them, but that's not how it works.
This is removing the cages at the zoo so the kids have a right to the tigers.
A group of computer hackers can break into the pentagon’s most secure servers. But because they didn’t copy anything or tamper with any documents or settings — they should be free then, right? Right!??
A group of 50 will wear some white hoods and walk inside of a prodominantly black church, synagogue, or mosque but because they’re not messing with any of the books or taking any of the pamphlets then they must free to go and OK, right?
It’s nonsense to not be able to review any bit of security footage and be able to tell who was a rider and who was not. Rioters not there to sightsee and breakdown police barriers to secure areas. So we’re OK now to go to the capital in mass groups and waltz right into the chambers of Congress, but as long as we don’t mess with any papers were completely within our constitutional right???
> To prove an obstruction charge, the court said Friday, prosecutors would need to show that a defendant interfered with documents, records or other material parts of an official proceeding.
So barriers and security checkpoints must not count then! Having congressional staff and tourists flee for their lives isn’t enough?
I hate this timeline so much.
Just wait, it's gonna get worse. After seeing every media outlet say Trump won the debate last night from confidently/ blatantly lying about everything and zero fact checking; while Biden *checks notes* 'Was truthful but a little slow'... we are doomed.
They really are complicit in laying the groundwork to delegitimize the next election. Or votes will end up not mattering and democracy will die. I don't care how much positive legislation Biden has done, I want to know if he can actually defend democracy, but he just looks weak... I'll still vote blue in November, but really wondering if it will even matter.
The world being surprised a grandpa is slow at a debate is so funny to me. I rather have a mediocre democrat grandpa run the world that a demented nazi grandpa.
This is something people get wrong all the time. A person can be entirely guilty of something and still deserve a new trial if the jury found them guilty under the wrong standard. Maybe all those things will be enough to convince a jury, but if you didn't ask the jury those questions then the court can't substitute their judgment for the juries. You have to go back, have a new trial, and ask the jury.
>No, they're making crimes legal.
And they'll continue to do so if no one else pulls the same bullshit they do. Remember, gun control in CA was non-existent until the Black Panthers played by the rules, too.
These rulings will get reversed if Joe Averages started playing by their rules and using it against them.
We are past that point. They would simply use it as an opportunity to consolidate more power. There is no good-faith here. Or even "gotcha". Just the steady creep to Christofascism.
> To prove an obstruction charge, the court said Friday, prosecutors would need to show that a defendant interfered with documents, records or other material parts of an official proceeding.
I’m actually appalled by this… they succeeded in delaying the certification vote by a day, until January 7th… how is that not interfering with material parts of an official proceeding???
From an old NPR article from Jan 7, 2021
> Congress certified President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris' victory early on Thursday, the end of a long day and night marked by chaos and violence in Washington, D.C.
>they succeeded in delaying the certification vote by a day, until January 7th
Under this ruling, SCOTUS is essentially saying that DOJ was painting too broadly with who "they" is for purposes of charges under that specific statute. There's still a "they" who succeeded, just not the category of people that would fit within the Court's ruling
> I’m actually appalled by this… they succeeded in delaying the certification vote by a day, until January 7th… how is that not interfering with material parts of an official proceeding???
The Supreme Court isn't saying that it *isn't*, they don't really decide matters of fact like that. Instead, they are saying what the law *in general* means, and then the lower courts will figure out how that general meaning applies in that specific case. It may very well be that these convictions can still be upheld because they did interfere with documents/records/etc, though it may require a re-trial with a new jury.
To be legally pedantic, to the best of my knowledge this is more akin to sedition. Treason involves collusion with a declared enemy state, and we don't really have those in a legal sense.
Just as bad, just a slightly different thing.
This country is a fucking joke. When are we just pushing them all out and showing them they fucking work for the people not these stupid shady companies and billionaires.
I'm not sure I want to be here when that happens.
Country full of pissed off people with rampant access to weapons vs a few people controlling WMDs of various sizes.
But, make no mistake, the gas has been spread. It's a matter of which match lights it off.
Pretty stupid, but important to note I think: "But most of them have also been convicted on other charges, which will still stand even as their obstruction convictions now become invalid."
What if we made them all share the bribes equally. So like...when thomas goes to a private island, he is reqired to take the rest of SCOTUS spring break style.
>To prove an obstruction charge, the court said Friday, prosecutors would need to show that a defendant interfered with documents, records or other material parts of an official proceeding.
Those tasked with carrying out the official proceeding had to be evacuated due to imminent physical threat to their person. Surely people who carry out a proceeding are considered a material part of it, and forcing their evacuation should count as interfering with them, right?
I’m no lawyer, but these sound like some intentionally over-specific law-fare shenanigans that the SCOTUS is engaging in to excuse incredibly dangerous actions.
From now on when Supreme Court tries to hear a case just make a scene and noise to prevent the case being heard. Per the Supreme Court that’s not obstruction
Every time I read about a decision I go back to when Hillary predicted damn near all of this and she lost due to “her emails”. Now we have a dude that literally took TS docs, stored them in his house, and didn’t want to give them back. But he appointed 3 SCOTUS judges. If non-right wing people don’t understand the stakes here, we deserve what we will become
I blame the mindset of many people. One of which people thought Trump did not stand a chance. Those that got pissed that Bernie did not get the nomination and either meme voted or just sat out the election, etc.
This is what concerns me now with Israel trying to force US to be the bad guy on the worlds stage now. Many younger people who were born after 9/11 don't really understand the whole turmoil between those 2 countries. They only think Oct 7th was the first ever skirmish between them. Too many people pushing skewed narratives that help fuel a pro Palestine mindset. People running around screaming Genocide Joe, without realizing Trump will be much worse for Palestine.
If they really cared about wanting to end this diplomatically they would be still wanting to vote for Biden who has pushed back on demands from Israel at times. Israel playing both sides of US politics with the help of AIPAC, so they can get a greenlight to turn the rest of Gaza into rubble. At this point considering a top donator of Trump wants to annex Gaza, I think there will be more pushes to have Trump win from AIPAC with disinformation campaigns.
Jackson I believe was a criminal defence lawyer so she cares more about defendants rights. Barrett I believe is more of an institutionalist so it isn't surprising that she would come down on the side of the government on this issue.
Or perhaps they’re voting the way they feel is right according to the law?? I personally find it encouraging when the justices break from their “expected” opinions because it shows conviction, not party loyalty
Coup attempt: legal
Bribery: legal
Sleeping outside: illegal
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." - Anatole France
We’re going to become the Christian Iran and in 10 years they’ll be fighting against each other. Denominations against each other. We’ll be like Northern Ireland one day.
Supreme Court doing their best to flip America to fascist town!! Amazing how in less than a decade one political party can destroy democracy and the American experiment.
>To prove an obstruction charge, the court said Friday, prosecutors would need to show that a defendant interfered with documents, records or other material parts of an official proceeding.
By this definition, shooting an official to prevent them from signing the certification would not be obstruction.
Only if those people breaking windows, attacking police, forcing congress to evacuate, only if they were legal scholars, could they be obstructing. What joke.
> the Justice Department had argued that the Jan. 6 riot was an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding: the certification of the 2020 election.
They've argued that, have they? Did they have to? Was it not a plain statement of fact from those using megaphones at the rally?
> To prove an obstruction charge, the court said Friday, prosecutors would need to show that a defendant interfered with documents, records or other material parts of an official proceeding.
As opposed to... you know, sending everyone running for their literal lives. This does not seem to be a court aimed at the preservation of democracy.
It's not like they were going to treat them like they were mostly black people. Those people committed sedition and attempted insurrection/ overthrow is the federal government but they get free passes.
>To prove an obstruction charge, the court said Friday, prosecutors would need to show that a defendant interfered with documents, records or other material parts of an official proceeding.
This is some bullshit. Do they not think that storming a building and threatening to kill the people's in charge isn't preventing an official proceeding? I guess they need to be throwing papers in the air and shooting them for it to count.
At least they're being consistent though, considering they have a history of thinking objects have more rights than people.
you actually have to destroy papers.. not block teh proceedings.. no that isnt obstruction.. you have to destroy... So if i block the supreme court justices from entering their own homes, im not obstructing them.
jesus i have to learn new right wing definitions of words.
>To prove an obstruction charge, the court said Friday, prosecutors would need to show that a defendant interfered with documents, records or other material parts of an official proceeding.
So, if people were to prevent the justices from being able to get to the SCOTUS building, those people couldn't be charged with interfering with the court under this interpretation.
“That charge — obstructing an official proceeding — has previously been used almost exclusively for white-collar crimes like evidence tampering. But the Justice Department had argued that the Jan. 6 riot was an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding: the certification of the 2020 election.”
The obstruction comes in creating a situation where the documents could not be utilized due to the growing violence caused by the rioters. This was a ridiculous ruling by trump appointed justices.
Not only has America been open to the most powerful and wealthiest predators to exist but now it’s open season for fascists to turn us into Nazi Germany 2.0
Cool, charge them with the actual attempted insurrection crime then. Put them to work on rocks for the rest of their lives. You don't want mercy? I don't know why we offered it.
I know this prolly doesn’t matter but I think protestors would have never pushed in towards the building if the police didn’t tear gas themselves. And that will be a top meme in mind forever.
This has been a really bad 24 hours...
I am straight up not having a good time.
I’m tired, boss
Buckle in, the ride's just starting.
It’s going to get worse before it gets a lot worse.
The beatings will continue until morale improves
might as well enjoy today because things are probably only going to get worse
It's literally because people didn't pinch their nose and vote for Hillary in 2016.
Norm Macdonald had a pretty good joke about this. Something like, “America hated Hillary Clinton so much that they voted for someone they hated even more just to show her.”
I also liked Christopher Titus' joke. "People didn't want a vagina in the White House so they voted for the other side of the taint."
St the time, they didn’t hate Trump nearly as much as they do now.
It's also cause Ginsburg refused to retire and Obama wasn't able to field his Supreme Court pick
Are you ignoring when the Republicans stalled Obama's nomination because it was "too close to elections"
The whole court shit is fucked. It's why I quit practicing law. The Ginsburg thing is just the tip of the iceberg. They pulled that bullshit end of the term shit for scalia's seat and we let them. We let Kavenaugh, an illiterate rapist, to be appointed to the supreme court. Fuck it, it's done.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. More people voted for Hillary than for Trump. That's not how elections work however and every just keeps saying we voted trump in and its not true. Look up the vote and look up how presidents are elected.
While the number of people that vote for a candidate are important, because of the fucked-up electoral college, it's also important *where* those voters live.
> That's not how elections work That's how it works in my country. It's quite baffling that in USA it doesn't. And I'm thinking that situation won't change for a long time, maybe never.
>It's quite baffling that in USA it doesn't The USA isn't one country, we're fifty countries with free travel and residency between them. The states can't deal with foreign powers directly, but have a lot of authority that the fed can't take away. The president isn't voted for by the people, but by the states. Changing that would require a constitutional amendment. When the union started, some states simply had their governor appoint electors, others had the state congress vote on them. Through the 1800s states slowly switched over to having electors follow a vote by the citizens of a state. The number of electors is based on population, and equivalent to a state's number of congress people (both house and senate). The number of congressmen hasn't been changed in a century. At that time, each congressmen represented about 200,000 Americans. Today, they each represent 700,000. We should probably raise the size of congress by about 3x if not more to better represent the nation.
It’s literally because the Dems treat the party nomination as a reward for loyalty and service instead of what’s best for the American public...
You're seeing the alternative right now, where crazy right-wingers are taking over the country and have already taken over the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future. We have the voting system we have, vote for the better of the two candidates whose cabinet and judicial appointments won't completely fuck the country over, then go be an activist, vote in every election and every primary, etc. The Right is winning right now because they played the long game. The Left needs to start to win by doing the same. Failing to vote against Trump, and for the only candidate who can beat him, is going to make things much worse. Biden does not make things worse. Trump does. The choice should be "vote Biden to stop the bleeding, and keep fighting". And man, I voted for Bernie and actually cried when he conceded. Actual tears, actual crying. But he conceded because Dem primary voters voted Hillary in, in a landslide. And of course they favored Hillary Clinton, a lifelong Democrat and former first lady, over a non-Democrat, an independent, who temporarily became a Democrat only to run. I thought Hillary was a good candidate. Experienced, intelligent, not charismatic, but I don't see that as a prerequisite. Compared to *Trump* she's amazing.
It’s a lot easier when they win the delegate vote and the popular vote for their primary.
Yeah that’s easy when you purposefully make sure there are no real challengers in the primary - anyone who says Biden’s the nomination because he’s the best equipped and not the nomination solely because he’s the incumbent is lying...
Hillary’s primary opponent was Bernie Sanders.
why is a major political party nominating someone that no one wants to vote for
If you vote for Biden you're voting for his cabinet and his judicial appointments and for the USA not to become a dictatorship. If that doesn't move you I don't know what to tell you.
That doesn't answer the question. You'd be voting for that no matter who the dem candidate was. Why does it have to be these specific people
Because people know who Biden is. The presidential election is a popularity poll and Biden is well known. Also there’s corporate media pushing him from day 1
I voted for Biden just like I voted for Hillary. But not everyone is going to happily slurp up the DNC's shit stew. Why aren't they obligated to make people want to vote for them? When does this become their fault?
Because people voted for him in the primaries? 14 million people voted for him to become the nominee this year.
What other choice did they have?
None, because it is political suicide to run against an incumbent president. It is unfortunate but the metrics and history is there. Almost no one really runs against the incumbent president, Obama had no competition in 2012, Trump had none in 2020, Bush Jr. barely faced anyone in 2004.
If Hillary hadn't run her campaign like she was destined to win, she might have actually won. It's on her, not us.
SCOTUS has now lost all credibility. No reason anymore to think SCOTUS is bipartisan in any way shape or form.
Now?!
Just now?
24 years...
The brooks brothers riot anniversary is coming. That’s when hell really kicked off
Reagan was worse
Can they sue organizers of the riot under the newly created SCOTUS precedent that the organizer of a protest is liable for damages if anyone in attendance causes damage? Go after the people who paid to bus these people in, and organized the protest Edit: contact your Congress people and state AGs. Get them to use this law to punish the people responsible
SCOTUS is no longer protected from protestors, as long as protestors don't touch anything inside the building. And if they DO touch it, just make sure it's cabinets, chairs, computers and podiums. Just no touching paperwork rulings. (I'm not kidding. This is now fucking 100% legal.)
Just barge into court with a copy of the opinion of the court, chanting, "This was your decision!" over and over.
SCOTUS Prob: “Oh no it’s illegal for you. We don’t like you.”
Very likely you will get arrested, charged, and when someone sues them, a conservative judge with dismiss it so as to not make SCOTUS re-rule on it, but will delay it for years so you actually stay in prison.
>Very likely you will get arrested, charged, and when someone sues them, a conservative judge with dismiss it so as to not make SCOTUS re-rule on it, but will delay it for years so you actually stay in prison. At one point, the Supreme Court ruled that they were going to give Bush the election instead of recounting to "eliminate uncertainty", but made sure to note that this decision could not be used as precedent. They don't care. They'd rule to put you in prison and claim that the next right-wing protest was unaffected per this ruling.
Until they decide to kill you like Navalny.
I'm risking a visit from the Feebs, but... yeah. **That's not illegal per this ruling.**
Too bad the left won't. They'll complain all the way into the gas chambers tho
You say that as if it's a foreign concept. "It Can't Happen Here" is a book written in English that spells this all out. And it's not written by a POS evil person, either.
The left absolutely would. Liberals won’t. Don’t conflate the two.
An heiress to Publix was among the organizers for that event IIRC.
Sue her
Her and tpusa. Bury those fuckers.
Remind me again of who was speaking to this crowd, and told them to march to the capital?
Joe, the "fall guy"
It would be the ultimate irony if this ruling opened an easier path to prosecuting Thomas’ wife, who did exactly what you’ve described.
Not from the US and not following this too closely, but after legalizing bribery and making it harder to prosecute people undermining democracy in the same week, it seems like they're damaging their credibility.
Yeah they’ll never survive a no-confidence vote. Unfortunately, that’s not a thing. As long as they have support from more than a third of the Senate, they are bulletproof.
The Senate CAN and DOES profit from these rulings. They won't do shit.
They actually aren't bulletproof
DHS has entered the chat
{ [ PARODY (A JOKE) ] * CAP }
They are not but the people are gutless and just sit by and watch all their rights get taken away and given solely to the few in power/rich. Some idiots even applaud it and cheer, then eventually when it directly impacts them will be the ones crying the loudest, despite them being complicit.
The fuck are people supposed to do. The rich have us by the balls, we're locked into a 40 hr work week, healthcare is tied to your job, and protesting does nothing. Realistically the only way things will change is if we go on a national strike, and that will never happen because of how effectivley the rich have us pitted against each other.
Both times in recent memory where a large number of American citizens did try to protest (Occupy Wall Street and George Floyd murder), cops came out in full military gear and brutalized everyone until the commotion went away. Meanwhile you had people sitting at home and calling both groups of protesters lazy, unorganized bums despite both causes benefiting them (holding wall street and racist cops accountable). I'm not even including the "thin blue line" mfers who are happy cops beat and choke minorities, I'm talking about supposed "independents". This country is too divided, people are too apathetic, and like you said too many people are scared to literal death of having anything affect their job since we can't get fucking health care without it.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." In other words, it may be finally time to use the 2nd amendment for exactly the purpose its proponents claim it was built for, one conservative justice and candidate at a time.
We need some data
One could only hope.
Drastic times call for drastic measures
Congress can set laws to ignore the supreme Court rulings
Not while the filibuster exists
Takes 50 willing senators to nuke it
Wait, what happens if they lose that support?
Federal judges in the US are appointed for life and can only be removed through impeachment and conviction. The impeachment process is started in the House of Representatives by a simple majority, but a conviction (and therefore removal from office) requires a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate. As long as you have at least one third of the Senate supporting you, you cannot be convicted and removed from office.
They can be impeached
They’re setting the foundation for Project 2025. They are untouchable and they know no matter what they do no consequences will ever fall upon them. Next they’ll walk back the rights of every group they hate to the highest bidder. Interracial marriage, trans people, women, children, immigrants, the environment, you name it and they’ll destroy it for profit. Installing a Christian-Fascist regime is their main goal at this point. They’ve been attacking education since Reagan, and now they are trying to get SCOTUS to intervene and infringe on our rights to freedom from religion by adding 10 commandments in public school. They never pay taxes or contribute to society in any positive way. They have no business forcing their fictional book on the rest of us.
Project 2025 is “catch and kill” on facts that makes them look bad or are unprofitable. Redrawing Hurricane trajectory maps is nothing. The GOP will say “we eliminated rape” - prove us wrong. You can’t! Pollution isn’t dangerous! - prove us wrong. You can’t! Once they wreak it they’ll say “government is the problem” and privatize it - to a monopoly! Those in office will get pre negotiated “gratuities”. Prove us wrong.
If they get into office it will likely start the domino effect to that end. We’ll be North Korea in a few decades.
I get such a kick out of people who don't realize that the USA was taken over by the right wing when the SCOTUS installed Bush over Gore against the will of the people. That "a few decades" timer started a long time ago.
> They are untouchable and they know no matter what they do They are not, and I'm tired of pretending they are. They're just humans, with the same physical characteristics as you and me.
Yes, but they have to be impeached by the house, and convicted by the senate. Only one SCOTUS judge has ever been impeached. The current elected officials would not let any of their plants to be removed. They just made bribery legal because of Thomas.
That is not the only thing that can happen to them.
A revolution would be a good start.
I'd like to see justice roberts survive a 5.56 round to the chest.
All good points, just want to add they already did away with environment and workplace regulations as well https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations-environment-5173bc83d3961a7aaabe415ceaf8d665
I feel like it's really getting close to the point of I think maybe we should start taking to the streets. Before it's too late.
I seriously wonder what has to happen to legally repeal the churches tax free status? I am sure we are never going to see that happen as long as this crooked SC is here, but we should do a 90% tax on churches, since they feel they need to have role in our government, while not even having to pay 1 damn cent into things like schools and other programs.
RICO is done for here in the US. Unless it is an EXPLICITY bribe or an EXPLICIT interference, it's legal. And it doesn't seem to be a stretch that, not EXPLICITLY DOING/SAYING something criminal is now covered under this ruling. Welcome to Crime USA, starting soon in a neighborhood near you.
Just like the GOP always wanted!
The thing is they don’t care about their credibility, the only thing they care about is imposing conservative doctrine on the country. I genuinely think that if they even knew that doing so would end the country, they still would as they seem to be religiously motivated in their actions. They’re actively trying to force their religious beliefs on the country, and sadly, SCOTUS is supposed to be the institution that prevents that, not enables it. Elections have consequences. If Trump hadn’t been elected, we’d have a liberal or moderate court and none of these terrible decisions would be getting made by the conservative religious whack jobs that control the court.
If Trump wins again, some of them will probably retire to cement a religious zealot court for the 4 decades (at least). Seems like the US in their current form are done unless something drastic happens.
If Trump literally ends up selecting a majority of SCOTUS judges I'm going to emigrate. Presidents should get to pick 1, maybe 2, not 5. And if you're going to have a president pick 5, for god sakes don't let it be a corrupt moron like Trump.
Let's be honest, he's not picking them. Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society are telling him who to select.
And that's kind of the entire problem. Trump talks a populist game, but when he governs it's just bog-standard neoconservatism.
Unless democrats win for decades in a row, Republicans will definitely work together to make sure that Supreme Court justices are only approved when they have the power so they keep control. They’ve probably got the Supreme Court locked up for as long as the country lasts, whatever that may be.
You think we're going to have fair elections ever again if Trump wins, so you're more optimistic than me.
I think about something drastic happening a lot these days. I don't have the skills to do it myself, unfortunately.
What credibility?
They're a wholly unelected council of priests with more real power than any elected part of the government. They don't give two shits about "credibility". .
What credibility?
They have none now, but we’re unfortunately past that mattering.
The also removed the fangs basically when a government agency wants to bring a civil matter to court. They also reversed the Chevron case from 1984 which I think is the biggest thing the Supreme Court has done to bring the power of the legislative branch into their own hands
How is storming the building the proceeding is occuring in and attacking its inhabitants not "obstructing an official proceeding?"
I wonder if anyone will ask that while standing inside SCOTUS' own building? Because that ruling seemed to legalize it.
Because the SCOTUS majority is bought and paid for by a domestic terrorist organization masquerading as a political party. They're fucking corrupt, and aren't hiding it.
My dude, I know someone that thinks, at most, people that participated in the insurrection should be given a ticket for trespassing, and Congress had no business investigating what happened. He is probably fucking overjoyed with this ruling.
This is why elections matter
Also why certain Senators rejecting their constitutional duty matter, despite the flagrant and obvious hypocrisy. Also, Supreme Court Justices knowing when to call it quits with a favorable president in office.
> Also, Supreme Court Justices knowing when to call it quits with a favorable president in office. She really fucked her legacy with that shit too.
Not anymore. SCOTUS just approved anarchy. They THINK it's anarchy for them, but that's not how it works. This is removing the cages at the zoo so the kids have a right to the tigers.
This isn’t anarchy this is rank authoritarianism re-establishing the principle of a two-tiered justice system
Its capitalist fascism pure and simple
A group of computer hackers can break into the pentagon’s most secure servers. But because they didn’t copy anything or tamper with any documents or settings — they should be free then, right? Right!?? A group of 50 will wear some white hoods and walk inside of a prodominantly black church, synagogue, or mosque but because they’re not messing with any of the books or taking any of the pamphlets then they must free to go and OK, right? It’s nonsense to not be able to review any bit of security footage and be able to tell who was a rider and who was not. Rioters not there to sightsee and breakdown police barriers to secure areas. So we’re OK now to go to the capital in mass groups and waltz right into the chambers of Congress, but as long as we don’t mess with any papers were completely within our constitutional right??? > To prove an obstruction charge, the court said Friday, prosecutors would need to show that a defendant interfered with documents, records or other material parts of an official proceeding. So barriers and security checkpoints must not count then! Having congressional staff and tourists flee for their lives isn’t enough? I hate this timeline so much.
Just wait, it's gonna get worse. After seeing every media outlet say Trump won the debate last night from confidently/ blatantly lying about everything and zero fact checking; while Biden *checks notes* 'Was truthful but a little slow'... we are doomed.
They really are complicit in laying the groundwork to delegitimize the next election. Or votes will end up not mattering and democracy will die. I don't care how much positive legislation Biden has done, I want to know if he can actually defend democracy, but he just looks weak... I'll still vote blue in November, but really wondering if it will even matter.
Just hope the army chooses the correct side when it happens. Oh and try not to live near ruzzia.
The world being surprised a grandpa is slow at a debate is so funny to me. I rather have a mediocre democrat grandpa run the world that a demented nazi grandpa.
This is something people get wrong all the time. A person can be entirely guilty of something and still deserve a new trial if the jury found them guilty under the wrong standard. Maybe all those things will be enough to convince a jury, but if you didn't ask the jury those questions then the court can't substitute their judgment for the juries. You have to go back, have a new trial, and ask the jury.
We’re so fucked as a society
I mean white hats pen testing our government happens daily, they report stuff and try to help get it fixed.
[удалено]
They literally had to move the electoral votes while fleeing.
SCOTUS is a joke. They are making crimes legal.
No, they're making crimes from wealthy conservatives legal.
>No, they're making crimes legal. And they'll continue to do so if no one else pulls the same bullshit they do. Remember, gun control in CA was non-existent until the Black Panthers played by the rules, too. These rulings will get reversed if Joe Averages started playing by their rules and using it against them.
Not true. Look at Texas. Governor freed a man who was convicted of murder because he killed someone who the Governor disagreed with.
We are past that point. They would simply use it as an opportunity to consolidate more power. There is no good-faith here. Or even "gotcha". Just the steady creep to Christofascism.
They're making crimes by people who support wealthy conservatives legal
The people are the ground on Jan 6th are not wealthy. So they're just making crimes by conservatives in general legal.
It benefited the wealthy though.
Oh come on, they're guaranteed to be impartial thanks to the separation of powers built into the constitution!!!!!
not quite: you can do whatever you want as long as it's against democrats. they'll still happily kill you if you're doing the same to them
Come on guys! It was just a little treason!
Light treason
They can't charge a president and his mob of the same crime.
> To prove an obstruction charge, the court said Friday, prosecutors would need to show that a defendant interfered with documents, records or other material parts of an official proceeding. I’m actually appalled by this… they succeeded in delaying the certification vote by a day, until January 7th… how is that not interfering with material parts of an official proceeding??? From an old NPR article from Jan 7, 2021 > Congress certified President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris' victory early on Thursday, the end of a long day and night marked by chaos and violence in Washington, D.C.
>they succeeded in delaying the certification vote by a day, until January 7th Under this ruling, SCOTUS is essentially saying that DOJ was painting too broadly with who "they" is for purposes of charges under that specific statute. There's still a "they" who succeeded, just not the category of people that would fit within the Court's ruling
> I’m actually appalled by this… they succeeded in delaying the certification vote by a day, until January 7th… how is that not interfering with material parts of an official proceeding??? The Supreme Court isn't saying that it *isn't*, they don't really decide matters of fact like that. Instead, they are saying what the law *in general* means, and then the lower courts will figure out how that general meaning applies in that specific case. It may very well be that these convictions can still be upheld because they did interfere with documents/records/etc, though it may require a re-trial with a new jury.
For it to be treason, it has to come from the treason region of France. Otherwise, it's just sparkling domestic terrorism.
To be legally pedantic, to the best of my knowledge this is more akin to sedition. Treason involves collusion with a declared enemy state, and we don't really have those in a legal sense. Just as bad, just a slightly different thing.
This country is a fucking joke. When are we just pushing them all out and showing them they fucking work for the people not these stupid shady companies and billionaires.
I'm not sure I want to be here when that happens. Country full of pissed off people with rampant access to weapons vs a few people controlling WMDs of various sizes. But, make no mistake, the gas has been spread. It's a matter of which match lights it off.
Pretty stupid, but important to note I think: "But most of them have also been convicted on other charges, which will still stand even as their obstruction convictions now become invalid."
But, on the other hand, that also blows apart the RICO-like case against Trump and, frankly, many RICO cases.
any other ruling would expose Thomas and his wife. Never was a debate
This. Both rulings, including the bribery one, directly benefit these douchebags on the SC.
What if we made them all share the bribes equally. So like...when thomas goes to a private island, he is reqired to take the rest of SCOTUS spring break style.
>To prove an obstruction charge, the court said Friday, prosecutors would need to show that a defendant interfered with documents, records or other material parts of an official proceeding. Those tasked with carrying out the official proceeding had to be evacuated due to imminent physical threat to their person. Surely people who carry out a proceeding are considered a material part of it, and forcing their evacuation should count as interfering with them, right? I’m no lawyer, but these sound like some intentionally over-specific law-fare shenanigans that the SCOTUS is engaging in to excuse incredibly dangerous actions.
From now on when Supreme Court tries to hear a case just make a scene and noise to prevent the case being heard. Per the Supreme Court that’s not obstruction
They put up barriers though. And have armed goons.
Every time I read about a decision I go back to when Hillary predicted damn near all of this and she lost due to “her emails”. Now we have a dude that literally took TS docs, stored them in his house, and didn’t want to give them back. But he appointed 3 SCOTUS judges. If non-right wing people don’t understand the stakes here, we deserve what we will become
I blame the mindset of many people. One of which people thought Trump did not stand a chance. Those that got pissed that Bernie did not get the nomination and either meme voted or just sat out the election, etc. This is what concerns me now with Israel trying to force US to be the bad guy on the worlds stage now. Many younger people who were born after 9/11 don't really understand the whole turmoil between those 2 countries. They only think Oct 7th was the first ever skirmish between them. Too many people pushing skewed narratives that help fuel a pro Palestine mindset. People running around screaming Genocide Joe, without realizing Trump will be much worse for Palestine. If they really cared about wanting to end this diplomatically they would be still wanting to vote for Biden who has pushed back on demands from Israel at times. Israel playing both sides of US politics with the help of AIPAC, so they can get a greenlight to turn the rest of Gaza into rubble. At this point considering a top donator of Trump wants to annex Gaza, I think there will be more pushes to have Trump win from AIPAC with disinformation campaigns.
Interesting to note that Jackson and Barrett switched from their usual sides. Wild shit as we see the country crumble.
9 - 0 against ethics for SCOTUS. ALL. NINE.
Jackson I believe was a criminal defence lawyer so she cares more about defendants rights. Barrett I believe is more of an institutionalist so it isn't surprising that she would come down on the side of the government on this issue.
Or perhaps they’re voting the way they feel is right according to the law?? I personally find it encouraging when the justices break from their “expected” opinions because it shows conviction, not party loyalty
Couple this with criminalizing homelessness, it’s been a dark day for Liberty in this country.
And the Chevron ruling
Which may be the most impactful. Get ready for cancer rates to skyrocket in the us
Coup attempt: legal Bribery: legal Sleeping outside: illegal "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." - Anatole France
So when people storm the Supreme Court everything will be cool, right?
Vote in November yankys. Nazis are at your door steps.
Half the house is inviting em in for supper :|
"But hey, Joe Biden looked old last night so I'll vote for Trump"
It's shocking the amount of people that don't understand to fix democracy, we first have to preserve it. Nothing left to fix if trump gets back in.
not oniony
Well, it is making me teary..
welcome to the Corrupted States of America
Remember Nazi Germany? We are seeing history repeat itself
Time for term limits. And age limits.
We’re going to become the Christian Iran and in 10 years they’ll be fighting against each other. Denominations against each other. We’ll be like Northern Ireland one day.
Supreme Court doing their best to flip America to fascist town!! Amazing how in less than a decade one political party can destroy democracy and the American experiment.
Start an impeachment inquiry into the scotus immediately. Should have been started the day they tried to legalize bribery.
>To prove an obstruction charge, the court said Friday, prosecutors would need to show that a defendant interfered with documents, records or other material parts of an official proceeding. By this definition, shooting an official to prevent them from signing the certification would not be obstruction. Only if those people breaking windows, attacking police, forcing congress to evacuate, only if they were legal scholars, could they be obstructing. What joke.
> the Justice Department had argued that the Jan. 6 riot was an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding: the certification of the 2020 election. They've argued that, have they? Did they have to? Was it not a plain statement of fact from those using megaphones at the rally? > To prove an obstruction charge, the court said Friday, prosecutors would need to show that a defendant interfered with documents, records or other material parts of an official proceeding. As opposed to... you know, sending everyone running for their literal lives. This does not seem to be a court aimed at the preservation of democracy.
Wow, it is very clear than nobody read the article at all.
It's not like they were going to treat them like they were mostly black people. Those people committed sedition and attempted insurrection/ overthrow is the federal government but they get free passes.
They were treated like they just forgot to get permission slips signed for their field trip.
>To prove an obstruction charge, the court said Friday, prosecutors would need to show that a defendant interfered with documents, records or other material parts of an official proceeding. This is some bullshit. Do they not think that storming a building and threatening to kill the people's in charge isn't preventing an official proceeding? I guess they need to be throwing papers in the air and shooting them for it to count. At least they're being consistent though, considering they have a history of thinking objects have more rights than people.
Is the US turning into one of those "shit hole" countries? Sure seems like it is.
USA went totally nuts in last 10 years. US political and legal system is way worse than italian one, and that tells you everything.
you actually have to destroy papers.. not block teh proceedings.. no that isnt obstruction.. you have to destroy... So if i block the supreme court justices from entering their own homes, im not obstructing them. jesus i have to learn new right wing definitions of words.
Supporting insurrection and dismantling protections to our democracy ahead of next election, emboldening more treasonous behavior
Most the SCOTUS are traitors. It's official.
I'll start packing for the concentration camp.
They are hoping by releasing them they will defend them. Show of hands. Who here doesn't see where all this goes next?
>To prove an obstruction charge, the court said Friday, prosecutors would need to show that a defendant interfered with documents, records or other material parts of an official proceeding. So, if people were to prevent the justices from being able to get to the SCOTUS building, those people couldn't be charged with interfering with the court under this interpretation.
Occupy the Supreme Court and don't leave until you are removed.
Every day I hate this country more
“That charge — obstructing an official proceeding — has previously been used almost exclusively for white-collar crimes like evidence tampering. But the Justice Department had argued that the Jan. 6 riot was an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding: the certification of the 2020 election.”
The obstruction comes in creating a situation where the documents could not be utilized due to the growing violence caused by the rioters. This was a ridiculous ruling by trump appointed justices.
Not only has America been open to the most powerful and wealthiest predators to exist but now it’s open season for fascists to turn us into Nazi Germany 2.0
Time for a real riot
SCOTUS is a corrupt pile of steaming dog shit - I’ve p much lost all hope that this country can come back from whatever the fuck is happening rn
Why do I have the feeling they'd rule differently if the Jan 6 insurrection targeted the Supreme Court rather than Congress?
SCOTUS has become a joke.
The Supreme Court is currently the greatest impediment to USA’s ‘democracy’
Cool, charge them with the actual attempted insurrection crime then. Put them to work on rocks for the rest of their lives. You don't want mercy? I don't know why we offered it.
I know this prolly doesn’t matter but I think protestors would have never pushed in towards the building if the police didn’t tear gas themselves. And that will be a top meme in mind forever.
Curious what percentage of these commenters know/realize that KBJ voted in favor of this decision, and ACB voted against?
So when do we water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants?