• BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    168
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Windsor goes on to tell Alito: “People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that — to return our country to a place of godliness.”

    “I agree with you. I agree with you,” replies Alito

    Disturbing on the face. But then you think, what exactly do they think is ungodly? Business regulation? Gay right to exist and marry? BLM? It’s gay and trans rights isn’t it? Let that sink it, they think human fucking rights are ungodly.

    VOTE.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      Asshole claims to be an “originalist”.

      Same asshole: We have to “return” a country founded as a secular one to “godliness”.

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      “I agree with you. I agree with you,” replies Alito

      Send this guy to prison. He’s compromised the Constitution in the open.

    • HeadfullofSoup@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 month ago

      You know godliness when a man could marry and rape a child before starting to whip those slave back into place just as god wanted all along

    • ZeroCool@vger.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      73
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      The GOP will be coming for Brown v Board of Education next, and you can bet your ass Clarence Thomas and the other right wing justices will be all for it.

      • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 month ago

        I wonder if there will be a third school for Asian kids. Or do they go with black? Is it white and “other”?

        • Chocrates@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          Other and white mean whatever the ones in power mean. I recently learned that Russians often don’t see Caucasians (from the caucuses) as white.

          • kevindqc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Silly you. There will be Catholic schools to teach the bible, and to teach girls how to be good submissive housewives.

            • Riskable@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              41
              ·
              1 month ago

              No, actually. The current GOP stance on compulsory schooling is, “no”. They really don’t believe every child should be educated.

              I’m not even talking about kids with special needs or “just minorities”. They really don’t believe in compulsory education. It’s considered government overreach.

              The ideal GOP educational system is 100% private and only those who can afford it get to go. They couldn’t care less about literacy rates.

              They want the Bible taught in schools but they don’t want kids to actually read it. That would reveal what’s in it (liberal stuff everywhere!), after all.

              • jj4211@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                It’s one of those things that depends on the situation. As it stands, they want “no compulsory education”, but it’s because they don’t like what the students will learn. However, if they could be assured that the compulsory education would be consistent with their views, then they would be all about compulsory education. No need to fear the Bible, there’s plenty of “help” interpreting it available to people reading it…

                Same on abortion rights. Currently the rhetoric is “well, it should be up to the states, not the federal government” but if they can ban it nationally, suddenly they would not be in favor of states like New York or California deciding for themselves.

              • nifty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Indirectly, this is why red states have the cheapest real estate values, but no one wants to move there. Economic value is literally centered around blue states, which have the highest literacy rates

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    They don’t even give a thought to the optics at this point. They don’t care about public sentiment and what most of us want, they’ll do whatever they damned well please and asshats like Trollito will give you the metaphorical finger in the process.

    That’s ALL Republicans, by the way. This is why I’ve been saying for more than a decade now that not ONE of them should be allowed into office.

  • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 month ago

    He’s surprisingly right, even if he is part of the problem.

    The current political climate in this country can’t last into the long-term future. I dislike the idea of conflict but many of the current right’s ideals simply cannot coexist with those outside of their cult. The right has also been more aggressive about dismantling the country in several areas as a means of takeover. They really do see this as a battle or a war.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      They accomplished the majority of it by simply showing up. They didn’t need their guns or elaborate criminal conspiracies, they just applied for positions of power (however minor) and used that power to push their agenda and support their dogshit friends doing the same.

      Meanwhile, progressivism on the internet has been taken over nihilistic neckbeards that just sit back and watch it all happen, making worthless promises about how if it gets too bad, their for-profit firearms will bail them out.

      We used to get arrested.

      • retrospectology@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I’ve got news, it’s not progressives standing in the way of fighting this. It’s the morons who cling to “bipartisanship” because they still think this is about protecting the corporate money hose with their GOP pals across the aisle.

        Meanwhile every Republican will vote like an ideolouge whether they are ir not. Neoliberalism has failed, utterly and completely, to confront fascism. Instead they bury their heads in the sand, ignore their growing base of Millenials and GenZ, and think they can protect a status quo that’s dissolving beneath their feet.

        People like you need to wake up. You’re not going to get “slow progress” out of the lesser of two evils, you’re going to get a negligbly slower slide into fascism. There is no protecting your comfortable bubble at this point.

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          Their message doesn’t seem to be edited so I believe their ending of “we used to get arrested” speaks to what they think we should be doing. I don’t think they care much for moderates if they’re advocating violence.

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 month ago

          What progressives? There’s about 3 of them in politics. They don’t have the power to stand in the way of anything because they’re hopelessly outnumbered by “neoliberalism but you can have crumbs and social things”.

          People like you need to wake up. You’re not going to get “slow progress” out of the lesser of two evils, you’re going to get a negligbly slower slide into fascism. There is no protecting your comfortable bubble at this point.

          Who do you think I am?

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      And remember, it only takes one side to start a war. Once that happens, you fight to defend yourself or you die.

  • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Excellent job by Lauren Windsor. A full mask off, candid discussion that shows blatant partisanship is a step up from the other wrongdoings we’ve heard of Alito and Thomas so far.

    Republicans are a craven mafia family so they’ll do nothing, but this is still a very important news story. Change to the Court will only come once the public passes a critical threshold of distrust for it, and this story brings us closer and closer to that tipping point.

    The Court will be reformed in our lifetimes. It’s gone too far and will be course corrected. It’s just a matter of when. And I can only hope it will be while Alito and Thomas and McConnell are all still alive so they can see the consequences of their partisan actions.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 month ago

    Ever wish you’d stumble onto a Death Note? To hell with that psycho manually scrawling the names of whoever pops into his head. Strategically study and pick off corrupt and fashy leaders with a variety of cardiovascular illnesses and aggressive cancers. Maybe the occasional shanking of a child molester, accidental head trauma for an ultra greedy megachurch pastor, or quiet suicide for life- & planet-wrecking ceos and tycoons. All randomly spread out and just enough to keep their organization stagnant or sliding backwards. I mean if you have the power of a deity at your disposal it’s not that hard to use it strategically for the benefit of humanity.

  • tisktisk@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Stupid question. I don’t doubt the record is authentic, but how do we talk about ‘recordings’ in the age of rampant deepfake ai? There’s no trustworthy method of validating these claims, right?

    • mPony@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      it may not be a stupid question, but it does seem like a disingenuous question (though you probably don’t mean to do that on purpose, others would).

      Just because deepfake technology exists doesn’t mean that that all video and audio recordings are immediately untrustworthy. It does, however, mean that anyone trying to defend reprehensible behaviour will have an easy method of defense.

      This technology WILL be used during the current U.S. election cycle, and the upcoming Canadian election cycle, and probably every other election cycle after that. Just remember that Roger Stone said “flood the zone with shit”. Know your shit from your shinola.

      • tisktisk@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        How does such a plain question appear insincere? Especially when no one even addresses my second question? lmao

        Just because deepfake technology exists doesn’t mean that that all video and audio recordings are immediately untrustworthy.

        Are you sure? I only ask because you didn’t really provide any kind of logic to justify this claim. If we can artificially generate anything we can imagine, how are we to distinguish what recordings are authentic vs artificially generated? I don’t see a clear or easy solution to the dilemma, but am hoping others can shine light on the issue.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    1 month ago

    It would be one thing if there was no mechanism for accountability within the Supreme Court. Its a fundamental flaw in our constitution.

    However: https://www.fastcompany.com/90243523/can-a-supreme-court-justice-be-removed-yes-and-heres-how

    The way the Biden campaign is running to the right this election, Democrats will almost assuredly be losing the house and the senate, so removing any of these justices is a bit of a fantasy. If anything, we’ll probably lose a liberal justice for a conservative one.

      • ZeroCool@vger.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I’ve noticed a large percentage of Lemmy users don’t read articles, so rather than discussing the news in the comment section, they just nitpick the headline instead.

          • ZeroCool@vger.socialOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Ah, yes, there’s lemmy’s second favorite hobby, whining about paywalls rather than just pasting the url into one of the numerous sites that allow you to circumvent them if you can’t view it. But hey, why do anything for yourself when you can just demand others do everything for you?

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 month ago

          I’ve noticed a large percentage of Lemmy users don’t read articles, so rather than discussing the news in the comment section, they just nitpick the headline instead.

          I’ve noticed this is not unique to Lemmy.

    • ZeroCool@vger.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah, it’s an expression. Kinda like how you ask someone to “roll the window up” in a car and everyone knows what you mean, despite the fact that the vast majority of cars produced in the last 20 years have come with automatic windows as a standard feature. But hey, don’t let me interrupt lemmy’s favorite pastime, inanely criticizing headlines as if that actually offers anything of substance to the discussion.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    118
    ·
    1 month ago

    The second flag is the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, a Revolutionary War-era banner. The “Appeal to Heaven” language references philosopher John Locke, who argued that, when earthly political appeals are exhausted, men have the right to take up arms and let God sort out the justness of the cause. While the The Appeal to Heaven flag was not always controversial, it has been revived by militant Christian nationalists and was also a potent symbol on Jan. 6. This flag was flown at the Alitos’ vacation home in New Jersey in 2023.

    I didn’t know the flag was literally “kill everyone and let God sort them out”…

    • littlewonder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      In b4 some pedantic asshole argues about its original meaning, acting like context doesn’t matter at all, and it’s totally cool and normal to fly that flag–like Alito hasn’t told on himself already.

  • rsuri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    Pressed on whether the court has an obligation to put the country on a more “moral path,” Roberts turns the tables on his questioner: “Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” He argues instead: “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.” Presented with the claim that America is a “Christian nation” and that the Supreme Court should be “guiding us in that path,” Roberts again disagrees, citing the perspectives of “Jewish and Muslim friends,” before asserting, “It’s not our job to do that. It’s our job to decide the cases the best we can.”

    I know John Roberts has made some terrible rulings, but he deserves credit where it’s due in that he won’t literally tear up the Constitution. Unfortunately he’s the exact kind of Justice the Trump-era GOP tries to avoid choosing, because he puts the Constitution above Trump.

    • littlewonder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      He’s like the other right-leaning justices, where he is an originalist, but only as long as it fits his political belief system.

      So weird that a justice, influenced by a party run by religious extremists, picks and chooses when to strictly follow a foundational text. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      he deserves credit where it’s due in that he won’t literally tear up the Constitution

      Guy pealing big ribbons off the edge of the document for the last 19 years still hasn’t shoved it wholesale through a shredder. And for that we should be grateful, maybe, unless oops he’s in a 5-4 decision were the other justices decide to go at constitutional law with a blowtorch.

      he puts the Constitution above Trump

      Excited for him to put on RGB’s “I Dissent!” necklace in the SCOTUS decision that hands Trump Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia in 2024.