203
This idiot glossing over the fact that the Jan 6th traitors not only attempted to capture congress to kill them and the vice president but also shit in their hands and smeared it on the capital walls?
For Real. J6 built a gallows.
They beat policemen to death and wiped their own feces on the walls of our Nation’s Capital.
(I am amazed how often this gets deleted by moderators on lemmy when I point this out)
load more comments
(34 replies)
So what I'm hearing is, we should treat SCOTUS the same way Trump supporters treated Congress on 1/6?
Is that really the argument they want to make?
load more comments
(17 replies)
Well, for starters, the Supreme Court protestors, as near as I can tell, aren't breaking down windows and doors trying to get in, beating people with flagpoles, carrying zip ties with which to kidnap and detain justices, setting up gallows, or chanting "Hang Clarence Thomas." (There's an uncomfortable image if I ever saw one.)
For all the people who upvoted this and clearly didn't read the article. . .let me quote the relevant part:
Alito acknowledged, “What happened on January 6 was very, very serious, and I’m not equating this with that.” But, he continued, “We need to find out what are the outer reaches of this statute under your interpretation.”
It's like 200 words into the article.
Seems like it would be pretty typical to see how wide a net prosecutors are casting with their interpretation. He's clearly not saying nor suggesting that they should be charged, only asking if they would be charged under their current interpretation.
Counterpoint: Alito is a piece of shit and isn't asking the question in good faith.
More specifically the question is, does the statute in question apply to people preventing a government procedure from occurring? Previously the statute has been used to prosecute folks who tamper with evidence. They're quibbling over the wording and whether storming a proceeding is also covered.
It's seems fairly obvious to me that January 6th rioters wanted to stop the proceedings in a way that protestors of the supreme court do not. It also seems obvious that the government wouldn't want citizens to be able to legally prevent it's basic proceedings from occurring.
Also worth saying the defendant ran at a police line yelling "charge"
Whataboutism at the Supreme Court. We're screwed.
If the election goes as well as we can reasonably hope, it might be possible to fix the Supreme Court situation. The biggest obstacle is the Democrats actually taking the W and doing what people want instead of waving their arms and panicking because they've won.
Democrats must still listen to their masters, and it ain't us people
If they stormed the Supreme Court and tried to hang a Republican justice I might see the parallel. I'd be silently wishing them godspeed, but I'd at least admit the justices had a fair point.
Damn, one of those protesters got shot after trying to go through the barricade setup because they got into the building like J6? The protesters literally just got signs out and were yelling in front of the building. May these illegitimate fucks die soon. Kavanaugh cant get cirrhosis fast enough.
I think cirrhosis is afraid of getting Kavanaugh.
Holy false equivalence, Batman.
When was the last time Dobbs protestors took a dump on these asshole’s desk?
Fucker wants to know why peaceful protesters who just want their bodily rights aren’t being prosecuted just like hypocritical assholes who say they respect Blue Lives but aren’t averse to killing a cop or two while overthrowing the govt.
Much hilarity ensues.
Because only one of those groups were patsies led by a handful of traitors to our country in a plot to overthrow our elected government. And it wasn't the Dobbs protesters.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I love how unflattering the pic of Alito is. While he's no looker at the best of times, this one captures his personality better than most.
These justices can fuck all the way off but this headline is taken out of context.
From the article: Alito acknowledged, “What happened on January 6 was very, very serious, and I’m not equating this with that.” But, he continued, “We need to find out what are the outer reaches of this statute under your interpretation.”
"I'm not equating those two things," lied the justice as he equated those two things.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
203 points (94.3% liked)
politics
18138 readers
3680 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.
- 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.
- 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