Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On June 02 2024 08:55 KwarK wrote: He’s been found civilly liable in a rape case and openly m attempted a violent overthrow of democracy. One thing that they’re right about is that in the grand scheme of things the fraudulent bookkeeping is relatively minor. Anyone who changes their mind based on the bookkeeping has no sense of proportion.
One guy arrested during Jan 6th supported Trump because he was going to take down the rent seeking property owners in Congress. People, especially undecided voters, are not bright.
What makes undecided voters less bright than decided ones? Especially as your example was obviously a very very decided "voter".
At this point there's not much to be undecided on if you're reasonably bright. Like Kwark said, if Trump being found guilty changed anything then you have zero perspective, living in a different reality, and/or are just making excuses because you don't want to judged based on your answer.
For that guy, the police interview made it clear that he was one of those undecided voters with zero perspective. Its actually tragic because the guy obviously wasn't bad, its just that he just got caught up in everything and actually seemed to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
He just saw Trump as the one guy who was exposing a contradiction in American life - life is probably getting worse for low income America despite what government and media tells you about economic metrics and stock market figures. He wasn't talking about MAGA or the Supreme Court, he was specifically concerned about rental prices and the price of essentials. In his mind only one candidate was willing to admit that something had to be done about the current system that was just not working for low income America.
The only problem with his reasoning was that he chosen to put his support a candidate that not only was milking that contradiction for support but also one of the very politicians who is actually a rent seeking property baron.
Which is actually the major problem with Biden's campaign right now because talking about stock market performance and unemployment figures is actually probably detrimental when wage growth hasn't exactly beaten inflation on essentials/rent and so low income earners are still subsistence living. People don't want subsistence living, they want to get ahead and only one candidate is openly admitting that things are really not good right now.
Trump supporters are threatening violence against the judge and jury, and trying to dox them. This should come as no surprise, given how Trump and Congressional Republicans had behaved throughout the entire trial.
On June 02 2024 08:55 KwarK wrote: He’s been found civilly liable in a rape case and openly m attempted a violent overthrow of democracy. One thing that they’re right about is that in the grand scheme of things the fraudulent bookkeeping is relatively minor. Anyone who changes their mind based on the bookkeeping has no sense of proportion.
One guy arrested during Jan 6th supported Trump because he was going to take down the rent seeking property owners in Congress. People, especially undecided voters, are not bright.
What makes undecided voters less bright than decided ones? Especially as your example was obviously a very very decided "voter".
At this point there's not much to be undecided on if you're reasonably bright. Like Kwark said, if Trump being found guilty changed anything then you have zero perspective, living in a different reality, and/or are just making excuses because you don't want to judged based on your answer.
For that guy, the police interview made it clear that he was one of those undecided voters with zero perspective. Its actually tragic because the guy obviously wasn't bad, its just that he just got caught up in everything and actually seemed to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
He just saw Trump as the one guy who was exposing a contradiction in American life - life is probably getting worse for low income America despite what government and media tells you about economic metrics and stock market figures. He wasn't talking about MAGA or the Supreme Court, he was specifically concerned about rental prices and the price of essentials. In his mind only one candidate was willing to admit that something had to be done about the current system that was just not working for low income America.
The only problem with his reasoning was that he chosen to put his support a candidate that not only was milking that contradiction for support but also one of the very politicians who is actually a rent seeking property baron.
Which is actually the major problem with Biden's campaign right now because talking about stock market performance and unemployment figures is actually probably detrimental when wage growth hasn't exactly beaten inflation on essentials/rent and so low income earners are still subsistence living. People don't want subsistence living, they want to get ahead and only one candidate is openly admitting that things are really not good right now.
Trump is only saying that because he's not in power currently. If he was, he'd be bragging about the stock market and unemployment rate. It's just standard political fluff.
If Trump were to regain the White House and then go full dictator, would he be able to forcefully leak the FEC database of contributors, which I think includes names, addresses, etc, and subtly imply with his words that his supporters should go harass and/or eliminate all the people who made large donations to Biden and allies in the months/years leading up to the 2024 election? Whether or not you think Trump would actually do that, what's to physically prevent it?
On June 02 2024 23:57 micronesia wrote: If Trump were to regain the White House and then go full dictator, would he be able to forcefully leak the FEC database of contributors, which I think includes names, addresses, etc, and subtly imply with his words that his supporters should go harass and/or eliminate all the people who made large donations to Biden and allies in the months/years leading up to the 2024 election? Whether or not you think Trump would actually do that, what's to physically prevent it?
Does he have a history of this kind of retrospective vengeance? Asking honestly - most of his rhetoric and aggression seems focused on 'current' problems. He stopped talking about Obama (as much) when Obama wasn't a problem, same for Clinton et al. I'd think he'll have his hands full dealing with current problems too much so to go after a then-unimportant Biden or his donors.
On June 02 2024 23:57 micronesia wrote: If Trump were to regain the White House and then go full dictator, would he be able to forcefully leak the FEC database of contributors, which I think includes names, addresses, etc, and subtly imply with his words that his supporters should go harass and/or eliminate all the people who made large donations to Biden and allies in the months/years leading up to the 2024 election? Whether or not you think Trump would actually do that, what's to physically prevent it?
Does he have a history of this kind of retrospective vengeance? Asking honestly - most of his rhetoric and aggression seems focused on 'current' problems. He stopped talking about Obama (as much) when Obama wasn't a problem, same for Clinton et al. I'd think he'll have his hands full dealing with current problems too much so to go after a then-unimportant Biden or his donors.
Pretty safe bet, that the despotic autocrat will use any and all available measures to suppress and intimidate his opposition. Maybe not for the purpose of petty revenge, but to suite any other need.
So since a few people in here seem to be confused about the Trump verdict, I thought I'd leave this video here explaining the case and how the laws in New York that are relevant to the case work. I'll explain the issue of contention I've seen most online: Why did Trump get convicted of 34 felony counts under New York law 175.10 rather than a misdemeanor or an acquittal:
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
The prosecution does not need to prove another crime took place. All they have to do is prove intent. And to further this point, because of how the law works in New York, the prosecution does not need the jury to be unanimous on what additional crime they think the defense committed or intended to commit and Trump's own legal team acknowledged this when negotiating the jury instructions:
The Court: Do you are agree, that [unanimity] not ordinarily required?
Mr. Bove: Certainly. We think it's important under the circumstances of this case and think it's in your Honor's discretion to make clear the record here.
The Court: What you're asking me to do is change the law, and I'm not going to do that.
But the jury couldn't just decide trump committed or intended to commit any crime. The judge limited it in scope to 3: violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the falsification of other business records, or the violation of tax laws.
So there you have it. The prosecution did not need to prove which of the 3 other crimes Trump committed to get a conviction for the falsification of business records in the first degree, and his own legal team admitted during jury instructions negotiations that they were asking for an exception to be made for Trump by requesting the jury must be unanimous in deciding what additional crime Trump committed or intended to commit. If you're a right winger who believed the rhetoric the talking heads have been spewing about the trial, please consider why they're lying to you. Please think about why they want you angry and ill-informed.
StasisField, thank you for posting that video! I appreciate how they revealed the transcript, so that we know that the defense attorney asked for the judge to make a special exception for Trump, which would contradict the law. One or two people in this thread had asserted that the judge was making special exceptions for the prosecution, when in reality, the judge just wasn't making special exceptions for the defense. Those aren't the same thing, and the judge was simply following the law. It reminds me of a popular quote: "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
On June 04 2024 05:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: StasisField, thank you for posting that video! I appreciate how they revealed the transcript, so that we know that the defense attorney asked for the judge to make a special exception for Trump, which would contradict the law. One or two people in this thread had asserted that the judge was making special exceptions for the prosecution, when in reality, the judge just wasn't making special exceptions for the defense. Those aren't the same thing, and the judge was simply following the law. It reminds me of a popular quote: "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
Yeah no problem. I find legal eagle to be pretty reliable when it comes to not only explaining the law but also backing up their statements with facts and transcripts, so when I saw this video I thought it'd be a good idea to share. They're also not too biased or inflammatory that their credibility is shot imo. They obviously do not like Trump but they aren't anywhere near as harsh as some of the other lawyers on youtube, so I hope they're palatable enough for the right-wing members of the thread to give the video an honest, open-minded viewing.
On June 04 2024 05:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: StasisField, thank you for posting that video! I appreciate how they revealed the transcript, so that we know that the defense attorney asked for the judge to make a special exception for Trump, which would contradict the law. One or two people in this thread had asserted that the judge was making special exceptions for the prosecution, when in reality, the judge just wasn't making special exceptions for the defense. Those aren't the same thing, and the judge was simply following the law. It reminds me of a popular quote: "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
Yeah no problem. I find legal eagle to be pretty reliable when it comes to not only explaining the law but also backing up their statements with facts and transcripts, so when I saw this video I thought it'd be a good idea to share. They're also not too biased or inflammatory that their credibility is shot imo. They obviously do not like Trump but they aren't anywhere near as harsh as some of the other lawyers on youtube, so I hope they're palatable enough for the right-wing members of the thread to give the video an honest, open-minded viewing.
Yeah I'm a fan of Legal Eagle as well. I think he's accurate, witty, and entertaining.
On June 04 2024 03:37 StasisField wrote: So since a few people in here seem to be confused about the Trump verdict, I thought I'd leave this video here explaining the case and how the laws in New York that are relevant to the case work. I'll explain the issue of contention I've seen most online: Why did Trump get convicted of 34 felony counts under New York law 175.10 rather than a misdemeanor or an acquittal:
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
The prosecution does not need to prove another crime took place. All they have to do is prove intent. And to further this point, because of how the law works in New York, the prosecution does not need the jury to be unanimous on what additional crime they think the defense committed or intended to commit and Trump's own legal team acknowledged this when negotiating the jury instructions:
The Court: Do you are agree, that [unanimity] not ordinarily required?
Mr. Bove: Certainly. We think it's important under the circumstances of this case and think it's in your Honor's discretion to make clear the record here.
The Court: What you're asking me to do is change the law, and I'm not going to do that.
But the jury couldn't just decide trump committed or intended to commit any crime. The judge limited it in scope to 3: violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the falsification of other business records, or the violation of tax laws.
So there you have it. The prosecution did not need to prove which of the 3 other crimes Trump committed to get a conviction for the falsification of business records in the first degree, and his own legal team admitted during jury instructions negotiations that they were asking for an exception to be made for Trump by requesting the jury must be unanimous in deciding what additional crime Trump committed or intended to commit. If you're a right winger who believed the rhetoric the talking heads have been spewing about the trial, please consider why they're lying to you. Please think about why they want you angry and ill-informed.
Pretty good rundown of the trial and key points there. One thing to note is appeals will run well into 2025 so, the election still matters, and it's unlikely Trump will see any penalties until appeals are reviewed. It would be nice if they could speed up the process, just for Trump though.
It looks like Trump's Supreme Court is reversing decisions that protected against racial gerrymandering. In other words, they're perpetuating racial gerrymandering, and the racism and unfair elections that go along with it.
There are only 9 Supreme Court Justices, and Trump's 3 picks created a 6-3 Republican majority. First, Trump's Supreme Court attacked women's right to bodily autonomy; now it's perpetuating racism and racial gerrymandering. If Trump wins in November, where he might be able to appoint 1-4 additional SCJs (4 of them will be in their 70s... 2 are Democrats and 2 are Republicans), we could be seeing a 6-3, 7-2, or even 8-1 Republican majority that would last *for decades*. Say goodbye to gay marriage and fair elections. Say hello to more sexist and racist laws, and a *national* ban on abortions (the moment Republicans gain any control in Congress and the Presidency). If you want a balanced court (or a left-leaning / liberal / progressive one), then please vote for Biden and future Democratic candidates.
Donald Trump is now insisting that he never said he wanted to lock Hillary Clinton up, which is obviously false. The only two lies he hasn't made yet are "I never said Mexico would pay for a southern border wall" and "I never said I wanted to Make America Great Again".
On June 05 2024 08:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It looks like Trump's Supreme Court is reversing decisions that protected against racial gerrymandering. In other words, they're perpetuating racial gerrymandering, and the racism and unfair elections that go along with it.
There are only 9 Supreme Court Justices, and Trump's 3 picks created a 6-3 Republican majority. First, Trump's Supreme Court attacked women's right to bodily autonomy; now it's perpetuating racism and racial gerrymandering. If Trump wins in November, where he might be able to appoint 1-4 additional SCJs (4 of them will be in their 70s... 2 are Democrats and 2 are Republicans), we could be seeing a 6-3, 7-2, or even 8-1 Republican majority that would last *for decades*. Say goodbye to gay marriage and fair elections. Say hello to more sexist and racist laws, and a *national* ban on abortions (the moment Republicans gain any control in Congress and the Presidency). If you want a balanced court (or a left-leaning / liberal / progressive one), then please vote for Biden and future Democratic candidates.
I believe you mean well and are sincere, but I have to call these veiled threats out for the drivel they are.
The Supreme Court is like the ICJ or ICC in that it doesn't actually have the capacity to enforce its rulings and can thus be ignored.
If the Supreme Court bans gay marriage/abortion or reinvigorates slavery with some interpretation of debt being a crime, or whatever else, New Jersey, Washington, California, New York, and any other Democrat state doesn't have to just strip their residents of their rights in order to accommodate Trump's Supreme Court.
Beyond the obvious threat of "Vote for Biden or else" is the implicit admission/acknowledgment that the speaker and their ilk are going to be "more devoted to order than to justice" should Trump entrench such a farce of a Supreme Court and that court decides to interpret away even more of people's rights. Moreover that they'll throw whomever they "have" to onto the tracks ahead of the trolly to make sure it isn't themselves. Today it's women's bodily autonomy, Palestinians, immigrants (+ Show Spoiler +
President Biden on Tuesday unveiled new executive action authorizing U.S. immigration officials to deport large numbers of migrants without processing their asylum claims, announcing what is arguably the most restrictive border policy by a Democratic president in recent history...
To the dismay of migrant advocates, the seismic policy change attempts to upend U.S. asylum law...
The American Civil Liberties Union said it will challenge Mr. Biden's actions in court. "We intend to sue. A ban on asylum is illegal just as it was when Trump unsuccessfully tried it,"
On June 05 2024 08:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It looks like Trump's Supreme Court is reversing decisions that protected against racial gerrymandering. In other words, they're perpetuating racial gerrymandering, and the racism and unfair elections that go along with it.
There are only 9 Supreme Court Justices, and Trump's 3 picks created a 6-3 Republican majority. First, Trump's Supreme Court attacked women's right to bodily autonomy; now it's perpetuating racism and racial gerrymandering. If Trump wins in November, where he might be able to appoint 1-4 additional SCJs (4 of them will be in their 70s... 2 are Democrats and 2 are Republicans), we could be seeing a 6-3, 7-2, or even 8-1 Republican majority that would last *for decades*. Say goodbye to gay marriage and fair elections. Say hello to more sexist and racist laws, and a *national* ban on abortions (the moment Republicans gain any control in Congress and the Presidency). If you want a balanced court (or a left-leaning / liberal / progressive one), then please vote for Biden and future Democratic candidates.
I believe you mean well and are sincere, but I have to call these veiled threats out for the drivel they are.
The Supreme Court is like the ICJ or ICC in that it doesn't actually have the capacity to enforce its rulings and can thus be ignored.
If the Supreme Court bans gay marriage/abortion or reinvigorates slavery with some interpretation of debt being a crime, or whatever else, New Jersey, Washington, California, New York, and any other Democrat state doesn't have to just strip their residents of their rights in order to accommodate Trump's Supreme Court.
Beyond the obvious threat of "Vote for Biden or else" is the implicit admission/acknowledgment that the speaker and their ilk are going to be "more devoted to order than to justice" should Trump entrench such a farce of a Supreme Court and that court decides to interpret away even more of people's rights. Moreover that they'll throw whomever they "have" to onto the tracks ahead of the trolly to make sure it isn't themselves. Today it's women's bodily autonomy, Palestinians, immigrants (+ Show Spoiler +
President Biden on Tuesday unveiled new executive action authorizing U.S. immigration officials to deport large numbers of migrants without processing their asylum claims, announcing what is arguably the most restrictive border policy by a Democratic president in recent history...
To the dismay of migrant advocates, the seismic policy change attempts to upend U.S. asylum law...
The American Civil Liberties Union said it will challenge Mr. Biden's actions in court. "We intend to sue. A ban on asylum is illegal just as it was when Trump unsuccessfully tried it,"
), etc. Tomorrow some other groups, and eventually anyone espousing this sort of dead-ender lesser evilism.
I feel like the mindset of "We can just ignore Supreme Court rulings that we don't like, so who cares if the Supreme Court stays super-conservative for the next 20+ years" is a very cavalier attitude.
On June 05 2024 08:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It looks like Trump's Supreme Court is reversing decisions that protected against racial gerrymandering. In other words, they're perpetuating racial gerrymandering, and the racism and unfair elections that go along with it.
There are only 9 Supreme Court Justices, and Trump's 3 picks created a 6-3 Republican majority. First, Trump's Supreme Court attacked women's right to bodily autonomy; now it's perpetuating racism and racial gerrymandering. If Trump wins in November, where he might be able to appoint 1-4 additional SCJs (4 of them will be in their 70s... 2 are Democrats and 2 are Republicans), we could be seeing a 6-3, 7-2, or even 8-1 Republican majority that would last *for decades*. Say goodbye to gay marriage and fair elections. Say hello to more sexist and racist laws, and a *national* ban on abortions (the moment Republicans gain any control in Congress and the Presidency). If you want a balanced court (or a left-leaning / liberal / progressive one), then please vote for Biden and future Democratic candidates.
I believe you mean well and are sincere, but I have to call these veiled threats out for the drivel they are.
The Supreme Court is like the ICJ or ICC in that it doesn't actually have the capacity to enforce its rulings and can thus be ignored.
If the Supreme Court bans gay marriage/abortion or reinvigorates slavery with some interpretation of debt being a crime, or whatever else, New Jersey, Washington, California, New York, and any other Democrat state doesn't have to just strip their residents of their rights in order to accommodate Trump's Supreme Court.
Beyond the obvious threat of "Vote for Biden or else" is the implicit admission/acknowledgment that the speaker and their ilk are going to be "more devoted to order than to justice" should Trump entrench such a farce of a Supreme Court and that court decides to interpret away even more of people's rights. Moreover that they'll throw whomever they "have" to onto the tracks ahead of the trolly to make sure it isn't themselves. Today it's women's bodily autonomy, Palestinians, immigrants (+ Show Spoiler +
President Biden on Tuesday unveiled new executive action authorizing U.S. immigration officials to deport large numbers of migrants without processing their asylum claims, announcing what is arguably the most restrictive border policy by a Democratic president in recent history...
To the dismay of migrant advocates, the seismic policy change attempts to upend U.S. asylum law...
The American Civil Liberties Union said it will challenge Mr. Biden's actions in court. "We intend to sue. A ban on asylum is illegal just as it was when Trump unsuccessfully tried it,"
), etc. Tomorrow some other groups, and eventually anyone espousing this sort of dead-ender lesser evilism.
I feel like the mindset of "We can just ignore Supreme Court rulings that we don't like, so who cares if the Supreme Court stays super-conservative for the next 20+ years" is a very cavalier attitude.
It makes perfect sense if you don't care about democracy, separation of power, any rules and mainly want to see the world burn.
On June 05 2024 08:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It looks like Trump's Supreme Court is reversing decisions that protected against racial gerrymandering. In other words, they're perpetuating racial gerrymandering, and the racism and unfair elections that go along with it.
There are only 9 Supreme Court Justices, and Trump's 3 picks created a 6-3 Republican majority. First, Trump's Supreme Court attacked women's right to bodily autonomy; now it's perpetuating racism and racial gerrymandering. If Trump wins in November, where he might be able to appoint 1-4 additional SCJs (4 of them will be in their 70s... 2 are Democrats and 2 are Republicans), we could be seeing a 6-3, 7-2, or even 8-1 Republican majority that would last *for decades*. Say goodbye to gay marriage and fair elections. Say hello to more sexist and racist laws, and a *national* ban on abortions (the moment Republicans gain any control in Congress and the Presidency). If you want a balanced court (or a left-leaning / liberal / progressive one), then please vote for Biden and future Democratic candidates.
I believe you mean well and are sincere, but I have to call these veiled threats out for the drivel they are.
The Supreme Court is like the ICJ or ICC in that it doesn't actually have the capacity to enforce its rulings and can thus be ignored.
If the Supreme Court bans gay marriage/abortion or reinvigorates slavery with some interpretation of debt being a crime, or whatever else, New Jersey, Washington, California, New York, and any other Democrat state doesn't have to just strip their residents of their rights in order to accommodate Trump's Supreme Court.
Beyond the obvious threat of "Vote for Biden or else" is the implicit admission/acknowledgment that the speaker and their ilk are going to be "more devoted to order than to justice" should Trump entrench such a farce of a Supreme Court and that court decides to interpret away even more of people's rights. Moreover that they'll throw whomever they "have" to onto the tracks ahead of the trolly to make sure it isn't themselves. Today it's women's bodily autonomy, Palestinians, immigrants (+ Show Spoiler +
President Biden on Tuesday unveiled new executive action authorizing U.S. immigration officials to deport large numbers of migrants without processing their asylum claims, announcing what is arguably the most restrictive border policy by a Democratic president in recent history...
To the dismay of migrant advocates, the seismic policy change attempts to upend U.S. asylum law...
The American Civil Liberties Union said it will challenge Mr. Biden's actions in court. "We intend to sue. A ban on asylum is illegal just as it was when Trump unsuccessfully tried it,"
), etc. Tomorrow some other groups, and eventually anyone espousing this sort of dead-ender lesser evilism.
I feel like the mindset of "We can just ignore Supreme Court rulings that we don't like, so who cares if the Supreme Court stays super-conservative for the next 20+ years" is a very cavalier attitude.
To be honest, "6 dipshits decided women have no bodily autonomy so we're gonna just enforce that now" is also rather cavalier, don't you think? I don't agree with - or at least don't have a full opinion on - the full point GH is making. But there is an important observation that is part of his point: enforcing the SC's rulings is a decision. Dem states don't lose moral culpability for doing said enforcing because Thomas, Alito and friends said they should.
Is the system erosion from not enforcing the decision worse than enforcing the decision? I don't know, but there are real competing interests here. Always just following the court ruling with people like Clarence on it may very well be the greater evil in some cases.
On June 05 2024 08:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It looks like Trump's Supreme Court is reversing decisions that protected against racial gerrymandering. In other words, they're perpetuating racial gerrymandering, and the racism and unfair elections that go along with it.
There are only 9 Supreme Court Justices, and Trump's 3 picks created a 6-3 Republican majority. First, Trump's Supreme Court attacked women's right to bodily autonomy; now it's perpetuating racism and racial gerrymandering. If Trump wins in November, where he might be able to appoint 1-4 additional SCJs (4 of them will be in their 70s... 2 are Democrats and 2 are Republicans), we could be seeing a 6-3, 7-2, or even 8-1 Republican majority that would last *for decades*. Say goodbye to gay marriage and fair elections. Say hello to more sexist and racist laws, and a *national* ban on abortions (the moment Republicans gain any control in Congress and the Presidency). If you want a balanced court (or a left-leaning / liberal / progressive one), then please vote for Biden and future Democratic candidates.
I believe you mean well and are sincere, but I have to call these veiled threats out for the drivel they are.
The Supreme Court is like the ICJ or ICC in that it doesn't actually have the capacity to enforce its rulings and can thus be ignored.
If the Supreme Court bans gay marriage/abortion or reinvigorates slavery with some interpretation of debt being a crime, or whatever else, New Jersey, Washington, California, New York, and any other Democrat state doesn't have to just strip their residents of their rights in order to accommodate Trump's Supreme Court.
Beyond the obvious threat of "Vote for Biden or else" is the implicit admission/acknowledgment that the speaker and their ilk are going to be "more devoted to order than to justice" should Trump entrench such a farce of a Supreme Court and that court decides to interpret away even more of people's rights. Moreover that they'll throw whomever they "have" to onto the tracks ahead of the trolly to make sure it isn't themselves. Today it's women's bodily autonomy, Palestinians, immigrants (+ Show Spoiler +
President Biden on Tuesday unveiled new executive action authorizing U.S. immigration officials to deport large numbers of migrants without processing their asylum claims, announcing what is arguably the most restrictive border policy by a Democratic president in recent history...
To the dismay of migrant advocates, the seismic policy change attempts to upend U.S. asylum law...
The American Civil Liberties Union said it will challenge Mr. Biden's actions in court. "We intend to sue. A ban on asylum is illegal just as it was when Trump unsuccessfully tried it,"
), etc. Tomorrow some other groups, and eventually anyone espousing this sort of dead-ender lesser evilism.
I feel like the mindset of "We can just ignore Supreme Court rulings that we don't like, so who cares if the Supreme Court stays super-conservative for the next 20+ years" is a very cavalier attitude.
To be honest, "6 dipshits decided women have no bodily autonomy so we're gonna just enforce that now" is also rather cavalier, don't you think? I don't agree with - or at least don't have a full opinion on - the full point GH is making. But there is an important observation that is part of his point: enforcing the SC's rulings is a decision. Dem states don't lose moral culpability for doing said enforcing because Thomas, Alito and friends said they should.
Is the system erosion from not enforcing the decision worse than enforcing the decision? I don't know, but there are real competing interests here. Always just following the court ruling with people like Clarence on it may very well be the greater evil in some cases.
"It's okay because you can ignore it." at best addresses states where that's a conceptually possible thing. At worst it's an abandonment of those in states that will happily go along with them.
EPT
