• eestileib@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Everything you say would also be the case if she hadn’t come up with the bullshit about not applying to the presidency. That was simply about keeping the maga crosshairs off of her.

      Clarence Thomas seems to like Trump just fine; he and his wife were being very shady after the 2020 election.

      The idea that this court is “not partisan” is frankly one of the most naïve things I’ve heard in a long time.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Now SCOTUS cannot disregard the fact that Trump engaged in insurrection.

      They gonna tho.

      • YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        2 years ago

        Literally, this scotus makes up its own facts all the time to get to the outcome they want. Go look into the quiet prayer that football coach was doing (it wasn’t quiet).

        They literally don’t give a shit anymore about any rule. Standing doesn’t matter, facts, anything. If they just think they need to stick their stupid fucking faces into something they just go with their major questions bullshit now.

        Down with the god kings of the Supreme Court!

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 years ago

      what has confused me about people saying this is, well, what exactly stops the supreme court from overriding him being declared factually guilty of that? Im guessing theres some sort of law to the effect that decisions like that arent what higher courts are trying to answer, but the supreme court also has no higher court to appeal a ruling to, so if they just decided to declare that this finding was incorrect anyway, what would happen?

      • scottywh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        There’s nothing stopping them but they are expected to consider precedent which that decision sets.

        • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          That’s not how precedent works. Higher courts set precedent that lower courts must follow, not vice versa. For instance, the SC could introduce a very narrow definition of (participating in) an insurrection. If they want to rule in Trump’s favor, they will find an excuse (and mangle the law in the process).

    • ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      This is not a smart take. It’s basically conspiracy thinking.

      Otherwise, the Supreme Court is clearly partisan, because Alito and Thomas unashamedly contort into any position needed to face the MAGA base, and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett will typically tend to do so in any issue involving civil rights or business interests.

      The GOP is the body that executes the will of whatever conservatism is at any moment; they are inseparable at the executional level. The doctrinal vehicle the GOP uses to get where it’s going is originalism, but the great thing about justices playing professional-amateur historians is that they can cherry-pick history to suit party-doctrinal needs.