So if an armed and violent group were to break down the doors and windows of the Supreme Court while it was in session with the announced intent to disrupt their proceedings and possibly commit bodily harm to the justices and their staff and personnel, that’s all cool?
That just sounds like a peaceful tour to me.
You’d have a point if the Trumpist right were at all concerned with principle, logic or integrity. Fascists use a veneer of words and argument only as a distraction and to buy time while they seize power for themselves. So yes, they’d be in an indefensible position, but in the end that doesn’t matter because they have no serious interest in defending it.
Oh no, not if it happens to them. Then it would be a coup.
…until it is done.
Me: Is that a DOOM reference?
/sees username
Me: *Nice. *
😎👉👉 👿
Since the Supreme Court agreed last month to take the case, Fischer v. US, more than a dozen January 6 defendants have already asked judges to halt their upcoming sentencings and trials. While some judges have balked, others have agreed to delays for the rioters in a handful of cases.
You can’t just say “some judges” in the era of trump appointed judges, it’s relevant context and 9/10 times these articles omit that key distinction.
That’s CNN for you. Sell you outrage without the full story
CNN isn’t special, but this is in NO way limited to them
Honestly, if the Tribunal of Six decides the wrong way on this… I think there might be riots. And they’d be justified.
You severely underestimate the level of apathy in this country when it comes to actually taking action. If it requires them to step away from being keyboard warriors, most people in this country want no part of it.
If they rule the wrong way on this, they’re granting rioters permission.
removed by mod
they deserve to be physically dragged
These folks need to go or be checked, but bringing violent rhetoric into this conversation is giving me flashbacks to reading r/the_donald comments.
I’m 100% sure someone will remember your civility when it’s your turn to be exploited, maligned, and otherwise assaulted. I’m almost as sure that then doing so will be as helpful to you as a distant candlelight vigil in your honor. 🤗
🥰
Because peaceful protests worked in preventing the nazis last time
Guess what the only solution to fascism and oppression that has ever worked in the entire history of mankind is.
Community Rule 2
No posts or links to content supporting, featuring, or promoting hate groups, terrorism, mass violence or calls to violence.
🤷♂️
Rules are for losers
They really are, rules are only there to try to keep the losers civil.
All rights are won through violence
People who enable violence deserve to reap what they sow.
they deserve to be physically dragged
To be clear, you’re not entirely wrong, but calling for a James Byrd Jr. level punishment crosses the line.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd_Jr.
Removed under rule 6, 24 hour ban.
LOL this country is a fucking joke.
Jokes are usually more clever 🤣
Of fucking course they are.
Yes, the Mullahs want to keep their enforcers out of prison. I’m not surprised.
Why buy jurists if you’re not going to use them?
So the leader of a violent coup attempt is given a lenient punishment by a sympathetic judiciary?
Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
I don’t get it, how would Congressional proceedings not be federal proceedings?
The article does a poor job of communicating what the case is about.
The questions presented: “Did the D.C. Circuit err in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512© (“Witness, Victim, or Informant Tampering”). Which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations. to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence?"[1]
I know, I know. We’re talking about Trump and his lawyers here, which means nothing makes sense by default.
But wouldn’t the counting of the votes be a congressional inquiry? I mean it’s literally answering the question of “Who won the election?”.
Can we go back to the days where a sane Supreme Court would have laughed this entire argument out of the room?
I would not call any supreme court “sane” but there was a period where there were some basic standards.
Semantics.
