“She is evil, chosen solely because she checked identity politics boxes,” Cernovich wrote. “Another DEI hire. It always ends badly.”
She was DEI hired by your guy, motherfucker.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
“She is evil, chosen solely because she checked identity politics boxes,” Cernovich wrote. “Another DEI hire. It always ends badly.”
She was DEI hired by your guy, motherfucker.
She was a Christian woman hire. Double DEI!
(Relatively) young Christian woman hire. Triple DEI, no erasees.
Also, shouldn't he be in prison?
So Barrett is DEI for voting against Trump. But Roberts is fine.
Roberts is a white male. Barrett is just a woman.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh. So it's a sexist (and racist) dog whistle.
No, just a whistle. Everyone can clearly hear it.
How can 40% of this country go this fucking cross-eyed cave man without stopping to take a breath once in a while
You still haven’t accepted how profoundly stupid republicans-at-large really are.
It's more about their unlimited berserker energy
Yeah but you can’t use that energy if you’re intellectually consistent. Then again that requires an intellect in the first place and conservatives only have parroting of other dumb people’s words without a hint of understanding.
Both Roberts and Barrett joined the liberal block on this vote, and as a 5-4 ruling both of them were required to get to a majority. That only Barrett is getting social media energy over it says something.
That only Barrett is getting social media energy over it says something.
That there is no such thing as being "one of the good ones". If you are not a rich white male they will turn on you, it's just a matter of time.
They didn't say anything about Thomas being a dei hire.
He's never handed them a loss. Weird coincidence.
I think she was there to dismantle Roe. High odds you can count on Heritage loyalty.
Working class should be a bit more at ease about this. Voting to maintain the status quo of paying people who have already performed work under contract is a very good thing.
Women and reproduction are toast with this one, but workers might be ok. Or I’m scrabbling around in the dark looking for any spark of light.
This decision should have been unanimous. Paying people for work completed should simply be a given. Or why bother?
Paying people for work completed should simply be a given.
I see you don't know much about the current president of the US. Why pay people when you can simply have them do the work and then keep the money yourself?
Pretty much Bezos’ philosophy, more or less. Literal sweat shop in those places to fund his yachts and penis rockets.
The only thing that should come out of not paying for fair labor should be guillotines
Voting to maintain the status quo of paying people who have already performed work under contract is a very good thing.
I was kind of surprised that Gorsuch ruled against... Isn't he the one who ruled in favor of upholding super old treaties with Native Americans? What are those if not contracts?
You know what would be awesome... if Trump threw a temper tantrum and packed the Supreme Court.
At this point it'd just shred the last remnants of legitimacy that Roberts is desperately trying to cling to.
It'd also suck, of course, but it's going to suck regardless.
I wouldn’t put it past him. Other presidents stuck by norms instead of flexing/reaching for power outside of the strict reading of their position. Trump 2.0 gives two shits; if the SCOTUS rebuffs him? WTF wouldn’t he delegitimize them by forcing Congress to accept his stooges as he packs the court. Where’s that hair dye guy? Or that hack judge from Florida? Or any of his lawyers the last 10 years.
By hack judge from Florida I assume you mean Aileen Cannon the person voted by me to be most deserving of being struck by lighting two years running.
I'm sure he'd love to get her on the court and I'd fucking hate it.
the monkeys paw curls and your new justices are MTG, Matt Gaetz and the trump children.
This is one thing the Democrats actually have the power to block. They can't filibuster court appointments but they can filibuster attempts to expand the court and attempts to impeach a court justice. That means unless one of them dies, Trump can't touch the court.
Until the Republicans change the filibuster rule 5 minutes later.
TBH they could. They could change that rule right now, they've got 52 without a caucus. They've displayed the party unity in the past needed to do some pretty horrible stuff if they wanted to.
I don't think SCOTUS would dilute their own power by seating more judges if there wasn't a Congressional Act to legally change the size of the court, which is set by federal law.
Congress is also supposed to control the purse strings, and yet...
These motherfuckers would create their own Supreme Court, and just go with whatever they say. Who's going to stop them?
I wasn't saying our current Congress will do the right thing here. If they redefine the SCOTUS thru federal legislation then they're legally in the right even while they're morally bankrupt. I just don't think the 9 justices will allow acknowledge reducing their own power on the bench if they are not legally bound to do so by Congress. Not when they seem to be ok with expanding their power on the bench (president is immune to prosecution, but only if we say so).
You mean the Congress that is proposing putting Trump in the $100 bill?
I didnt say I think Congress wouldn't do it. The SCOTUS would have no choice if Congress does it properly, albeit for the wrong reason. But we've already seen SCOTUS rule against Trump this term. So I don't think they'd go along with weakening the strength of their individual vote on the bench without Congress doing it properly.
Well, the teabaggers "aka, 'maga'" are fucking crazy, too, so....they should be ignored at every opportunity.
And I hope the backlash she receives encourages her to make the right decision more often. Not saying it will, just that I hope so. Some "fuck you" energy would be appreciated.
I'm being entirely too optimistic here, but it's the only thing keeping me sane.
My first thought too - when she sees the kooks, will she remember that she was hired because she is/was one?
Haha wow, insane people run our country now, cool cool cool cool cool