• Scratch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      With Joe stepping down and a surge of support for Kamala, is there a point where the Supreme Court has to accept they’re not winning this time and switch to clean house of people who overplayed their hand?

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        What? No, definitely not. They’re appointed for life and don’t have to give a shit about anything Kamala could possibly do.

        (Well, short of using the immunity they gave Trump to Seal Team Six them, I guess, but no Democrat is likely to do that and they know it.)

        • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          no Democrat is likely to do that

          Honestly this is what pisses me off.

          When an opponent who literally wants you or yours dead hands you a gun, shoot them with it. Because if you don’t shoot, they will.

          Republicans have handed democrats so many tools over the years they could easily wield against Republicans… But they don’t.

          They take the “high road.”

          The Moral High Road is Filled With Corpses.

          • ryrybang@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            They don’t even need violence. Just an official act that decrees that only 3 specific justices have case voting power. The other six are just non-voting members. Effective immediately.

        • doughless@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          If Democrats are ever lucky which to get 2/3rds of the Senate (and 51% of the House), at that point the Supreme Court might start to think twice about their decisions.

          Edit: unfortunately unlikely, though

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Grossly unlikely. We’re likely to see the country continue to consolidate most of the population into a few states. We could be seeing a situation in the next few cycles where it’s outright impossible for Democrats to win the senate while blowing out the House and Presidential vote.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I don’t think anyone on the Court is as far right or as nakedly corrupt as Thomas. Just because he’s advising her, I wouldn’t take that as an endorsement from the full Court. He frequently writes concurring opinions that go way beyond anyone else.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Maybe, but for sure she is starting off with an active voice on the supreme court in her favor. That’s a good start.

        • dudinax@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s real interesting that they thought dismissal for a transparently bad reason has a better shot than dismissal for lack of evidence.