I’m sure Samuel Alito’s wife is an expert ventriloquist who is saying these things in a very convincing impression of her husband.
Good for him. Making America great again one day at a time.
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?
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.
Lordy, I hope there are tapes!
The article and the headline both clearly state that it was documented. No consequences will come of this either.
Get these fairy-tale-believing cunts out of government.
I will do my part by not voting in protest! That will surely work! (/s)
Politicians famously consider the opinions of people who don’t vote. /s
That’s why you vote uncommitted. There’s no way to ignore that message or use any of their usual excuses.
But the Democrats understand what they need to do in order to win election, they’re just so latched to the corporate tit that they won’t do it. Think they can get a few more gulps of that sweet lobby money before things get “serious”. The pigs are too busy feeding to give a fuck about our democracy collapsing.
Maybe they ought to? There’s quite a lot of potential votes out there. Also want to add that I always vote, and politicians never consider my opinion anyway.
Reliable demographics or voting blocks get preferential treatment over fair-weather voters. If you want to know why even the GOP won’t overtly kill social security or medicare (unless they include a way to keep current recipients on benefits), it’s because old people vote very reliably. Though with the modern day cultists this isn’t as true anymore since MAGAs will happily let the GOP take everything from them if they think it will hurt their perceived political enemies.
This is just useful expenditure of political capital. As a politician you want to stick your neck out for groups that are definitely showing up.
Seems like a good way to ensure you have low turnout elections, with only die-hard party-heads participating. That way, elections are won or lost on how jazzed up you can get your base, and you never have to attract anyone new. That sounds bad enough, but I think who the politicians actually listen to are their donors. Anytime there is a conflict between what the donors want, and what the constituency wants… voters can get fucked.
Believe it or not, there are people in the center that switch votes. That’s who they go after.
Still the same small pool of voters.
I mean they do, insofar as it might be easier to convert someone not voting into someone voting for them than it is to convert someone voting for their opponent.
Protest voting would be aimed at reforming a democratic party that’s unfit to confront fascism. It’s a legitimate strategy whether you agree with it or not.
Another Biden term will not do anything to mitigate Democratic complicity with fascism. Establishment dems are quite literally worse than useless.
Except it doesn’t reform. You win elections from the center, so if Dems lose they go further to the center. Because those are the voters that exist.
No voting accomplishes literally nothing. It never has and it never will. In reality, it’s counter productive every time.
Whose idea was it to appoint Supreme Court justices for life? That seems like asking for trouble.
There’s a funny thing about lifetime appointments.
You can end them whenever you want.
Especially religious ones. Maybe we should have religious tests, just not the way xtianists want them.
Honestly as much as the lifetime appointment wasn’t the worst idea the drafters had in terms of something for long term stability when the positions in every other branch have varying degrees of volatility, not having some process baked into the Constitution to deal with bad actors in the judiciary was a gross oversight.
not having some process baked into the Constitution to deal with bad actors in the judiciary was a gross oversight.
They can be impeached. That requires both houses of Congress to be on board with it though, and most people wanting a solution to that problem currently don’t want a solution that requires both houses of Congress or a supermajority of state legislatures to be on board because that’s not a kind of support they can get. the only other way to remove a justice from SCOTUS is one casket at a time.
The Constitution seems to have been written with the idea that politicians will have good intentions. The checks and balances seem to be just to enforce compromise and prevent a single bad actor.
It doesn’t have any protections about and entire political party colluding to grab power. I don’t know how we fix this without amendments or a brand new constitution
And at the time people involved generally did. The only reason we perceive things differently these days is because we expect different outcomes easing a system designed for something else. Our system of government initially was drafted to protect the rights of white land owning males. And it still does this really well. We’ve scaffolded a lot of other things on top of that trying to make it more Equitable for everyone else. But it can’t seem to stop giving preferential treatment to White land owning males.
The thing is the founders knew that they were going to be ignorant about the future. The further out you try to speculate the more wrong you’ll be. They knew that they wouldn’t be able to understand the needs of future generations. They expected things to change. They also expected the Constitution to be heavily amended or completely written every few decades. Instead the status quo has largely ignored their wishes instead deifying them and their original creation as perfect and infallible.
Originalism is fairly new i thought? But your explanation makes sense.
All democratic government relies on some amount of good faith. Many of the rules are set up to be guidelines for resolving disputes in a civilized manner, and preventing any single bad actor.
The place where this was most respected was in the transfer of power between presidencies.
That goodwill benefits everyone. If you break it, all hell comes loose. It’s why the Dems have worked so hard to stick to the good faith, even though the other party clearly hasn’t.
It’s why the Dems have worked so hard to stick to the good faith, even though the other party clearly hasn’t.
I’m not so sure the reason is quite so principled. I’m more inclined to believe the explanation in this video starting at about the 6:40 mark: the difficulty building a coalition in the Democratic Party (and especially the conflicting aims of Democratic voters and Democratic donors) causes the party to avoid policy and focus on process instead.
There is. The Military. Its why they swear to the constitutio to protect against all threats foreign and domestic. not a person.
Now, The real question is, how to deal with it if the Military is at best indifferent, or at worst, complicit, and either way refusing to act.
Which should also help shine a worrying light on why the right never wanted the military to investigate and purge white supremacists/fascists/etc
If by “the military,” you mean the well-regulated militia (every able-bodied adult male) exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, then sure.
‘Cause otherwise you could only be talking about the Navy, as (from the founding fathers’ perspective) a permanent standing army was very explicitly and intentionally Not A Thing. (That’s why the Constitution limits for appropriating money to raise and support an army to a term of two years or less.)
There is a process. They can be impeached just like the President.
It’s more than just the Judicial branch that’s broken.
Blame the conservatives for abusing the system.
The framers of the constitution. But to be fair, back then they did not expect people to live this long. If anything, blame science. It’s all their fault!
The way Alito and his wife feel about defending america, I feel about defending queer people. The way Alito and his wife feel about queer people, I feel about supreme court judges
Alito seems so unhinged, guy looks cooked.
Anyone can pay $150 to become a dues-paying member and rub elbows with the court’s nine justices at events like the dinner where Windsor spoke with Alito. (Tickets for the dinner were an extra $500.)
this is all it took for him to admit this stuff? anybody with 650$ could have walked in and asked him a couple prodding questions? these guys really arent even trying to hide it anymore
Traitors do be tratoring on the cheap.
anybody with 650$ could have walked in and asked him a couple prodding questions?
Alito has a long history of running his mouth. I doubt you’d even need to pay the $650, assuming he thought you were from a conservative media outlet.
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.
Arm up, comrades. They’ll surely fire the first round, but we need to fire the last.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
Plug for:
Liberalgunowners SRA
And remember, it only takes one side to start a war. Once that happens, you fight to defend yourself or you die.
They really do see this as a battle or a war
it is. you need to see it that way too if you want to win it.
This fucker understands that the fascist Republican will NOT compromise or ever get along with the majority of Americans. The fact he entertains their existence or bills at all means he’s a fucking fascist.
American evangelicals are the craziest bunch of kooks on the planet. As a Canadian I gotta wonder if normal Americans are embarrassed by their evangelicals. I mean it’s all about money and maybe a little Jesus as long as you hate the gays.
It’s nuts.
Also a Canadian. I heard Rick Mercer tonight he spoke for about 1 hr and he did highlight the right evangelical nonsense. Shit is bleeding up here and has been for decades. It’s scary AF. There are many people where there is no Canadian identity. It’s a proxy for American Identity and as such they’re as regressive as you would expect.
There are many people where there is no Canadian identity
There isn’t really a Canadian identity left at this point. I live in a tiny rural community where we consider ourselves to be keeping the torch in a way… We don’t lock our doors, we share and help each other, call each other on the phone just to chat, we sit around and drink too much coffee or beer and wrench on old junk. Drive around in winter plowing driveways and pulling cars out of the ditch. If a neighbour needs a tool it’s just “let yourself into the shop and it’s in the red toolbox, bring it back when you’re done”
The cities though? I have friends there and that community attitude is long dead. Any available resources are exploited and nothing given in return, everyone is poor and desperate and barely making rent. Our country is very sick.
I’ve been pondering this one because I grew up a country boy and now live in the city. What you’re talking about still exists. I live in Newmarket, ON and still rarely lock my doors and so all the things you mention.
John Ralston Saul said, and I’m paraphrasing, what made Canadians special was the uniqueness in how we came to be. Our relationship with “the other” now defined as immigrants, comes from a natural place of understanding and respect. You become a Canadian but you also keep your identity because Canada is made stronger by that inter-weaving of social fabrics.
I will agree that our country is hurting but I would argue the biggest threat to our nation is the immigration of American style identity politics that started back in the 80’s and has since escalated to a wave of “Fuck Trudeau”.
I have said before what truly scares me is that the Conservative movement in all their bigoted while male centric policies has realized that they can synergize their vitriol with people who have come here from brutally regressive countries when it comes to the treatment of women, gays and minorities.
Big picture we are going in the right direction but it’s going to be a rough decade or so.
also a Canadian. but I have nothing further to add.
As an American I’m embarrassed by like 80% of my fellow citizens.
Yes
as you hate the gays.
You’re not giving them enough credit. They also hate trans, women, pregnant people, free-thought… the list goes on and on.
Out-groups. The more the better, apparently.
yes
Yes.
Yes
Is this going to continue to be more evidence that there’s a different justice system for the rich and powerful in the US than for everyone else?
By law, religious people should not be allowed in government or policy making. Delusional people cannot be trusted with such work.
Who would pass such a law? Hell, who would even vote for such a law? Churches have enormous influence at the ballot box.
Even at the peak of its power, the Soviets couldn’t simply abolish religious leadership. And they were in a country with Atheists in the highest tiers of government, with actual money and military power to toss around. What’s the plan to outlaw religious demagogues in a state founded by religious demagogues?
Getting reasonable people into positions of power and authority will be a start
Belling the Cat
On one hand, yeah non-religious is what I want to happen in our government positions. But on the other hand, making it a law is one of those things you just can’t do.
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.
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.
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.
What he says, and what he does…
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.
