474
Are There Insurrectionist Sympathizers on the Supreme Court?
(www.rollingstone.com)
Yes
Isn’t there a journalism rule about not having a headline be a question with a yes or no answer? Seems like there should be.
You’re likely thinking of this:
Guess there's always an exception, huh?
I wouldn't call it an exception (although there are always exceptions), the problem here lies in the word "sympathizers", it's too ambiguous. The answer is technically no, they're just conservatives who are technically not insurrectionist sympathizers. But they are.
That’s some pretty convoluted reasoning, there.
I applaud the effort. But either they are or they aren’t.
Thomas is married to an insurrectionist, allito is flying symbols used by the insurrectionists.
And the other conservatives on the court are all ardently supporting Trump with half baked rulings buying increasing amounts of time to- they hope- delay the trial long enough for it to not matter.
I wouldn’t actually call them sympathizers- I’d just call them insurrectionists.
Of course it's convoluted reasoning, I'm repeating what the conservatives believe? The effort does not come from me.
Let's not pretend they openly admit it was anything close to an insurrection, theyre just trying to "bring us back to Jesus". We all know what it was and what they are trying to do
the problem here lies in the word “sympathizers”,
I'd say - the term enablers would be more apt.
Isn’t there a journalism rule about not having a headline be a question with a yes or no answer?
To be fair, this seems more like a yes or really yes question.
...and why?
There are corrupt traitors and liars in the SCOTUS. Insurrectionist sympathizers doesn’t seem like a stretch
I mean Justices Thomas and Alito would sell their first born for a jet ride to an island resort
Or a real sweet RV.
Side note, as much of a piece of shit that Thomas is...his love of RVs is a bit endearing. Like watching a middle-aged autistic incel playing with his model trains. Except he's really smiling because he shit in your cereal, not because of the trains.
Yes. Full stop. No question mark necessary
Does the Pope shit in the woods?
Alito and Thomas have been biding their time on the Court, waiting for the 50 year conservative project to come to fruition, and now that it is they're no longer willing to play pretend as objective neutral jurists. Their argument is simple "we won, we can do whatever we want".
They’d be willing to pretend if they had to, but now there’s no need.
Unless a super majority were to get elected to congress, that could either impeach them or at least pass laws governing their emoluments and conflicts of interest.
Just need a trifecta with a spine to kill the filibuster and pass laws. Or some executives with balls of steel to take the fight to the court and flex their own power in the law-enforcing part of the equation. They aren't omnipotent determiners of law.
I mistook the headline for an Onion article.
Yes. Coup plotter sympathizers, too. Don't forget the coup plot. The insurrection was more exciting to cover; the coup plot was (and is) the real danger to our country.
Do frat boys assault underaged girls?
Alito and Thomas = Corrupt facist traitors 🗑
yes
Yes.
This is one of the only question headlines I can remember where the answer isn’t no.
Duh. Majority of SCOTUS are a disgrace.
It’s a break of the normal rule that any article title that poses a question can be answered with ‘no’
This is what I never got about fascism until recently: It's the people in the system that bring it in.
Duh
Is the Pope catholic?
That's not so certain....
No. There are insurrectionists.
Well, to be an insurrectionist, I think you have to actually be there during the insurrection
Do you think that they aren't participating in the insurrection? The presidential immunity question should be enough to answer this for you, before even considering that Thomas' wife was actively helping coordinate J6.
There's a coup still underway and SCOTUS is right at the front of it.
Right. Insurrection is a violent revolt. You think some old fuckers sitting on a bench is a “violent revolt”?
Are you serious? You didn't think that you're splitting hairs a bit?
"Yup. We have to let them go. Sure, they overthrew the government, but some pedantic arse said they need to be directly involved in violence, not just undermine democracy from the bench, in order for it to count."
Was that another court where Trump set his own people?
Why can’t I hold all ~~these lemons~~ this common sense?
We have no room for rhetorical questions here. Please move along.
This is like asking if they lied about roe v wade during conf hearings.
… and sexual predators
What a stupid fucking question.
You know usually they that for headlines with a question mark the answer at the end is always no. But I guess there's an exception to every rule huh?
Uhm .. the picture is missing the rapist justice
Is there a need to place rhetorical questions as post titles?
Duh?
I mean, you have a picture of them. I think you know... Is this some kind of weird fucking trick or something?
A nation divided is going to be split top to bottom.
Many such cases.
Have you been lost in the wilderness these past 3 years? Its pretty much taken over the media for both sides
this post was submitted on 22 May 2024
474 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4514 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS