Politics

10187 readers

186 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Wisconsin Republicans may consider impeachment if recently seated Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice does not recuse herself from redistricting case (www.jsonline.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Vos said Protasiewicz would likely be violating the oath of office if she doesn't recuse herself from cases involving maps she called 'rigged.'

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 73 points 1 year ago (5 children)

That's a clever line of attack, but having an opinion does not constitute a conflict of interest. Otherwise there would be a whole shit-ton of recusal happening every day.

A conflict of interest usually involves some form of monetary compensation or other fiscal benefit.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You think the #fascist #GOP cares about that? All that matters to those #fascists is they have the numbers to remove her from the bench.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I'm discussing the specific choice of what rhetoric they decide to use, not why they are using it. Why they are using it is fairly obvious at this point.

There are many different lines, arguments, whatever that could be employed, though. By paying attention to which ones are specifically chosen, you can learn more about their target audience, which is larger than simply fans of a white, ultra-nationalist ethno-state. Hence their need to continue to use rationalizations like this, instead of being forthright about their intentions.

This one in particular surprised me, as I didn't foresee it. They're usually more predictable than that.

load more comments (3 replies)