258
He’s absolutely right. And it’s absolutely awesome to see him call her (and Trump) out like this. This is some old school shit, and I’m here for it.
this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
258 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2659 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You'd think they would save this mob shit for the RICO trial.
I'm sure it could be used in that case, but it still applies here as well. It's not like you can only use evidence once, and shouldn't be calling these things out in real time if you have a platform to.
Don't save it, shout it from the rooftops. This shit is not okay
No, I mean Habba. Doing this mobster shit. It was a joke because RICO is often used against mobsters.
Finally. At least somebody in the government has pointed out the obvious (as expected of the Freethought Caucus co-chair). Trump is a mob boss, and the people in his orbit are his inner circle doing his dirty work.
Yeah, see Raskin was around back in the day when this mob bullshit was going on. He remembers.
This, on my mothers birthday
Yo mama got such a big birthday Jamie Raskin accused Alina Habba of thinking like a mobster.
This Roberts court is obviously corrupt and illegitimate. Quid pro quos abound between Thomas getting bribes left and right and trumps attorney implying kavanaugh owes trump something.
No one looking at these facts objectively can come to a conclusion other than this court doesn't care about the law and will destroy jurisprudence to meet their own corrupt goals.
We all know how the fucking Supreme Court is going to rule.
No we don't, and for two very good reasons.
-
Trump's three Supreme Court appointments are the most disloyal from his perspective. If Trump goes full-blown dictator, he will dissolve the Supreme Court, and there's a very real possibility he will have them executed.
-
If the Supreme Court fails to uphold the Constitution on an obvious Textualist/Originalist basis, it will be seen as illegitimate and may very well be dissolved because it will have failed its ultimate responsibility.
The Justices are very much aware of these factors.
I'm hoping they'll rule against him as well, but these reasons seem way out there.
-
That's assuming they believe he'll go full fascist and execute them. They don't. Even if they would believe that, ruling in his favour would prove their worth to him.
-
I see no way that democrats could dissolve the SC. They probably wouldn't even if they could.
-
I guarantee Trump and company are pressuring, if not explicitly threatening, those three at a minimum right now. Too much is on the line. They do.
-
If the Democrats allow the Supreme Court to stand after a second flouting following the overturning of Roe, they will be in breach of the Constitution as well.
Edit: grammar
The Justices are some of the most cocooned people in the country, by design. I hesitate to say what they're aware of a damn thing other than where the next ladle full of billionaire slop is about to land in their trough.
This sounds like a good way to turn an ally against them.
Does Trump have any leverage on Kavanaugh? He played close to the line with the rules to get him appointed for life, but choosing a person likely to be ideologically symathetic is more of a mutually beneficial arrangement than a favour.
It feels like the best way to get someone who is in a secure position of power like that offside is to tell them they have to do what you say or that they owe you. Kavanaugh can just as easily say Trump is disqualified, and never be told he owes anyone again.