"This is B.S.—you were doing this as a dilatory tactic to help your political friend," says Rachel Maddow on the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the Trump immunity argument, delaying his coup trial. "And for you to say that this is something that the Court needs to decide because it's something that's unclear in the law is just flagrant, flagrant bullpucky."

“This is B.S.—you were doing this as a dilatory tactic to help your political friend,” says Rachel Maddow on the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the Trump immunity argument, delaying his coup trial. “And for you to say that this is something that the Court needs to decide because it’s something that’s unclear in the law is just flagrant, flagrant bullpucky.”

  • @unreasonabro
    15•9 months ago

    If the supreme court suddenly starts acting weird, that’s a declaration of intent. As in, they intend to help the man who put them there get his job back.

    Because law and the mafia are two sides of the same coin, and it’s the person holding the coin who puts the spin on it.

    Impetuous people will hear that and take it as license to do anything; actual grownups will recognize that makes the law more precious, not less. The supreme court is now split down that line. “Yes, but I just gotta do this thing” is why there aren’t supposed to be strings attached to Supreme Court justices; they’re supposed to be found first, and invalidate the candidate.

    All it took was an immoral president and now poof, the whole institution is functionally just gone, and here we are, chickens with our heads cut off trying to figure out what to do about it. cept it’s hard to think once your head’s been cut off. maybe building our legal system as a layer cake with no access to the top levels for normal humans was the sort of shitty thing we weren’t supposed to do, flying in the face of all those principles it was “built on” and whatnot.