|
The Fig Economy@figgityfigs.bsky.social |
The opinion has this snide tone that’s basically like “calm down shitheads, this is the minimum possible intervention on our part to protect the poor widdle pwesident from being prosecuted when he leaves office” and it’s really, really fucking not.
5 replies 3 reposts 46 likes
|
geoff (takin' it easy)
@radiofreepony.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I can imagine a (hateful and disgraceful) argument "if the president did the wrong thing for the right reasons, we'll turn a blind eye," but right in the opinion is "his reasons can't matter, how dare you think they would"
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Chris Parker
@crs1.bsky.social
[ View ] |
they behave like the rest of us are as dumb as the mooks they recruit with Fox Nooze when the fulcrum is literally self-awareness & intelligence
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Aubrey Gilleran
@aubreygilleran.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I actually know a small-government libertarian here in NC who was going to vote for the Libertarian but is now going to vote for the Democrat because of this ruling. Because he rightly points out how conservative and libertarian media would be reacting if a 5-4 liberal court did this for Hillary.
2 replies 0 reposts 11 likes
|
|
The Fig Economy
@figgityfigs.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Like a lot of this stuff is the hypotheticals and logical implications of the decision, and they’re important to understand its scope and radicalism, but *right in the decision” they say the president talking to the vice president about overthrowing the election is immune.
3 replies 1 reposts 12 likes
|
David Noll
@david.noll.org
[ View ] |
yeah that is exactly how it reads
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes