Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is drunk on power.
#SCOTUS #TeflonJohn #Trump #insurrection #immunity
https://www.thedailybeast.com/john-roberts-secret-trump-memo-revealed-in-huge-scotus-leak
@mark_melbin jeez, these clickbait stories are spiraling out of control. No, that’s not how that works.
I was critical of a different News outlet that had its own clickbait headline, but I was assured that people are going to take it seriously and it would be okay. And then you see nonsense like this.
No, that’s not how the US government works. The daily beast is lying to you. It is not a reliable source, but it does promote certain interests, effectively spreading propaganda.
For goodness sake realize that you’re being lied to from this source, and stop going to it.
You’re being manipulated.
No political faction has a monopoly on the truth, and no political faction has a monopoly on lies. Therefore just choosing one and assuming they'll be the "good guys" forever is stupid. No major political faction has perfectly clean hands and that's why if truth matters -- and it does -- individuals must think for themselves and critically analyze what they're presented with.
Both parties have at one time attacked the Supreme Court. Nobody on the left had anything to say when the supreme Court judicated away a major policy contention in Obergefell, but the right wasn't happy with it. Now the right is quite happy with the outcome of the Trump immunity verdict, and the left is laying the groundwork to destroy the institution by going after every Justice who doesn't agree with them politically. Whether the left or right likes it or not, both cases were tried based on existing law, and while individuals may disagree with the outcome, it isn't as if these were legislators creating something out of whole cloth. Civil rights already existed in the case of Obergefell, and sovereign immunity existed in common law predating the United States by hundreds of years.
The same chief justice presided over both cases, and yet for political partisans one was an example of the law working right and the other was an example of the law working wrong.
It's probably for the best that prosecution for official actions gets taken off the table for both parties because political processes are the things that should be guiding the decisions of presidents, not whether someone's going to be able to pigeonhole them into a partisan conviction. And in the end, Obergefell ended up being the right decision regardless of you political affiliation, with 51% of Republicans now supporting gay marriage in spite of it being a contentious issue in the past. Not saying that either decision is fully correct, but it's hard to say either one was entirely wrong either.
A counterpoint to Obergefell or the Trump immunity case proving how partisan the court is would be other cases at the same time that the same side lost. The Trump election cases could have taken on those cases and overturned the 2020 election but the supreme court chose not to in a major loss to the Republicans. Around the same time as Obergefell which gave the left a massive win, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. limited some Obamacare mandates based on religious freedom, handing the right a win.
That isn't to say the court is infallible or that it isn't occasionally partisan, but rather to show that reality is a lot more complicated than hit pieces might portray.
@sj_zero Yes, the point of consuming news should be to gain information that’s not partisan, but your comment here seems to lean into partisanship, basically keeping for her party.
Yeah I would say the point should be to keep abreast of what actually happens, but your description here is not really accurate, doesn’t accurately reflect the rulings that the court handed down.
The thing that you’re missing in your analysis is the actual logic of the rulings. You’re focusing on who you think different rulings might benefit and overlooking that there is actual objective reasoning behind them.
To put it a different way it sounds like you are saying the court is not partisan and then you go ahead and view the court through the partisan lens. Which is weird.
@volkris Wut?