• solsangraal@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 days ago

      he doesn’t even have to go that far. he could just tweet their home address and say they’re the “enemy of the people”

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        21 days ago

        That’s the crazy thing. So many Republicans in congress have said they are afraid for their safety if they go against Trump. He’s got the government in a vice grip. They clearly don’t agree with how far he’s gone, they’ve said as much privately, but refuse to vote against him in bills bcz Trump followers at this point are crazy.

        • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          21 days ago

          So many Republicans in congress have said they are afraid for their safety if they go against Trump

          i have less than zero sympathy. fuck them

          They clearly don’t agree with how far he’s gone, they’ve said as much privately, but ref7se to vote against him in bills bcz Trunl followers at this point are crazy.

          they should have thought of that before they signed on to supporting a rabid full-blown cult and their con man leader just to oWn TeH LiBs. again, fuck them. i’m not saying i hope they die, but i’m not not saying that either

  • Hadriscus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    Can someone ELI5 ? I thought Trump had the supreme court in his pocket, having appointed a majority of its members?

    • Zak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      Trump appointed three out of nine justices. Three more were appointed by Republicans (Bush 1 and Bush 2), so a 2/3 majority of justices are considered conservative.

      Judicial conservatism, however does not always align with political conservatism. Judicial conservatism tends to mean staying close to the original meaning of the text of the law. Some of Trump’s actions require creative interpretations of the law; in the case at hand, Trump wants to use a law meant to expel citizens of an enemy country during a war to deport immigrants he accuses of being members of gangs without allowing them to challenge that action in court.

      Thomas and Alito dissented, arguing that a creative interpretation of the law should be allowed here; neither is a Trump appointee.

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    Bet you a buffalo nickel that before the end of his tenure, he’s going to expand the court with ultra-loyalists, all but completely open about how they will ignore the law or always interpret it in the way that gives Trump what he wants.