▲ 233 ▼ The Supreme Court majority sounds sold on Trump's Big Lie (www.salon.com) submitted 2 years ago* by KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml to c/politics@lemmy.world 61 comments fedilink hide all child comments What is the fucking point of living if everything you believed in can be taken from you by some old white fucks
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Its not a lie, they just made it law of the land lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) The fuck are you talking about? The SCOTUS hasn't ruled yet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Its law of the land until they rule it isn't moreso when a case that will set precedent goes to the supreme court. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It isn't the law of the land. I agree that the court could fuck this up and create a catastrophe, but the law is plain and clear on the issue, Presidents are not kings. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It 100% is, the supreme Court only gets to say if it is or isn't legal until they do it is neither legal nor illegal but no more or less illegal than if it were committed at the same time. It wouldn't be clearly established until ruled on which it hasn't been. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) The fuck are you talking about? The SCOTUS hasn't ruled yet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Its law of the land until they rule it isn't moreso when a case that will set precedent goes to the supreme court. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It isn't the law of the land. I agree that the court could fuck this up and create a catastrophe, but the law is plain and clear on the issue, Presidents are not kings. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It 100% is, the supreme Court only gets to say if it is or isn't legal until they do it is neither legal nor illegal but no more or less illegal than if it were committed at the same time. It wouldn't be clearly established until ruled on which it hasn't been. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Its law of the land until they rule it isn't moreso when a case that will set precedent goes to the supreme court. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It isn't the law of the land. I agree that the court could fuck this up and create a catastrophe, but the law is plain and clear on the issue, Presidents are not kings. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It 100% is, the supreme Court only gets to say if it is or isn't legal until they do it is neither legal nor illegal but no more or less illegal than if it were committed at the same time. It wouldn't be clearly established until ruled on which it hasn't been. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It isn't the law of the land. I agree that the court could fuck this up and create a catastrophe, but the law is plain and clear on the issue, Presidents are not kings. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It 100% is, the supreme Court only gets to say if it is or isn't legal until they do it is neither legal nor illegal but no more or less illegal than if it were committed at the same time. It wouldn't be clearly established until ruled on which it hasn't been. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It 100% is, the supreme Court only gets to say if it is or isn't legal until they do it is neither legal nor illegal but no more or less illegal than if it were committed at the same time. It wouldn't be clearly established until ruled on which it hasn't been. permalink fedilink source parent