If it lets an insurrectionist like Trump on the ballot, the supreme court will be putting out a welcome mat to autocracy
And they will be among the first up against the wall if that day comes, you can bet on it. I wonder if they have the slightest shred of self-preservation. If they are more afraid of maga now and not what maga will become, then their self-preservation instinct is badly flawed. We’ll see.
I think the right-leaning justices know pretty well that their positions are safe. They’re already benefiting immensely from corruption. When democracy dies and they have no obligation to the law, they’ll do whatever it takes to enrich themselves further.
Roberts doesn’t. His response to the American people who were angry about the Dobbs abortion decision was that they should shut up and listen to the court’s authority.
If there’s a bad vibe to eliminating a candidate for following laws that were explicitly written down 150 years ago to stop such a candidate, then what kind of vibe does it give off if we flat out ignore that same law?
If we allow ourselves to be swayed by the idea that taking away a very specific privilege from a person gives off a bad vibe, then we’d be undermining our entire justice system and the very concept of law itself.
The law is unambiguous, and we must follow it. If we don’t, then the rule of law truly has no meaning.
It’s literally following the law.
And they will be among the first up against the wall if that day comes, you can bet on it. I wonder if they have the slightest shred of self-preservation. If they are more afraid of maga now and not what maga will become, then their self-preservation instinct is badly flawed. We’ll see.
I think the right-leaning justices know pretty well that their positions are safe. They’re already benefiting immensely from corruption. When democracy dies and they have no obligation to the law, they’ll do whatever it takes to enrich themselves further.
Roberts doesn’t. His response to the American people who were angry about the Dobbs abortion decision was that they should shut up and listen to the court’s authority.
Yeah but the vibe of it all.
That’s a terrible argument against it.
If there’s a bad vibe to eliminating a candidate for following laws that were explicitly written down 150 years ago to stop such a candidate, then what kind of vibe does it give off if we flat out ignore that same law?
If we allow ourselves to be swayed by the idea that taking away a very specific privilege from a person gives off a bad vibe, then we’d be undermining our entire justice system and the very concept of law itself.
The law is unambiguous, and we must follow it. If we don’t, then the rule of law truly has no meaning.