• @Ensign_Crab
    link
    English
    17 months ago

    Yeah, the way it works is that a bunch of inbred hayseeds try to install Trump as dictator, and because you wish they had succeeded, you downplay what they did and pretend that the Supreme Court still has legitimacy.

    • John Richard
      link
      -27 months ago

      The Supreme Court hasn’t had much legitimacy for much longer than you realize. They’ve been taking away consumer and workers rights for decades. You just haven’t realized it until recently when it has become a hot topic and now it is easier to blame Republicans, but overlook everything else.

      • @Ensign_Crab
        link
        English
        17 months ago

        You just haven’t realized it until recently when it has become a hot topic and now it is easier to blame Republicans, but overlook everything else.

        They’ve been more shameless about it. As in this case, where they’re pretending that obstructing a government proceeding applies only to documents, and where you’re pretending that anything other than ignoring the statute entirely requires enshrining guilt by association into law.

        • John Richard
          link
          -27 months ago

          I’m not sure how or whether you gather that they are pretending that obstructing a government proceeding only applies to documents, but that isn’t what I gathered at all. I made two major points…

          1. That if they didn’t question the law, then it would likely apply to Jamaal Bowman and other protests (many of those by Democrat activists)
          2. That doing so was dangerous as it sets a basis for charging everyone with the same crime regardless of evidence of their actual intended purpose.
          • @Ensign_Crab
            link
            English
            17 months ago

            I’m not sure how or whether you gather that they are pretending that obstructing a government proceeding only applies to documents

            Because I actually read the article instead of immediately being like “buh whuubut BLM?!??!?!”

            • John Richard
              link
              -37 months ago

              So what did it say then cause it doesn’t say what you’re suggesting

              • @Ensign_Crab
                link
                English
                07 months ago

                It’s in the article that you ignored because you’d rather demonize BLM. Don’t bother me again.

                • John Richard
                  link
                  -37 months ago

                  Not it isn’t but fine by me. Have a good pipedream

                  • @Ensign_Crab
                    link
                    English
                    17 months ago

                    Not it isn’t

                    From the article you will never read:

                    His attorney argues that Congress intended the obstruction law to apply only to instances where defendants tampered with physical evidence, such as destroying or forging documents used in proceedings.

                    The court is sympathetic to this bullshit argument. Since it’s not demonizing black people, you ignored it.

                    Have a good pipedream

                    Expecting you to quit whatabouting for Trump’s inbred violent minions is a bit of an unrealistic expectation, yes.