this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2026
275 points (95.4% liked)
Political Memes
11747 readers
1562 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sure is a good thing that she and her husband got the ball rolling for the Republicans! What would we do without deregulated and monopolistic media, Neo-liberalism globalization that gutted the middle class, deregulated markets that created the sub prime crisis of 2008, and a judicial system that punished people for being poor and/or BIPOC.
She was not wrong, she just was also complicit.
YUP. So much deregulation happened under the Clinton presidency and everyone sings his praises. He's a traitor to his constituents and country.
The legislative branch are just cowards, period. Don't like the way the SC has interpreted a law? No fucking problem: re-write the law. It's LITERALLY thier fucking job.
The legislative branch will write the laws that their voters want. The voters that won the elections voted for Republicans, so that's what we get.
I've really stopped paying close attention because it's all bullshit, but how many supreme court decisions are based on 'simply' an interpretation of the law, versus using some super stretched out version of the constitution to distort the law?
there's no difference. It's like asking when an AI produces a hallucination - they're all that, even the ones that are "correct".
Law is a social creation, not some science.
Trust me, I've argued about whether stare decisis even has meaning in the place it's supposed to have in law, but I think there is a difference in the course of an argument from the point of view of 'interpreting' a law compared to saying some other law contradicts it or does not allow it. Thus my curiosity about which tack this court of hacks is using more often.