• TipRing@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        60
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Politicians famously consider the opinions of people who don’t vote. /s

        • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • TipRing@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

        • retrospectology@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

      • retrospectology@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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.

        • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      7 months ago

      Whose idea was it to appoint Supreme Court justices for life? That seems like asking for trouble.

      • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • Chocrates@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          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

          • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            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

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.)

          • Serinus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

          • Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

          • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            It doesn’t have any protections about and entire political party colluding to grab power.

            I suppose I was a bit small in the scope of what were dealing with today and entire party willing to disregard democracy to accumulate power.

        • Serinus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          There is a process. They can be impeached just like the President.

          It’s more than just the Judicial branch that’s broken.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

      • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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!

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    166
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months 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.

    • ZeroCool@vger.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      71
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months 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
        25
        ·
        7 months ago

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

          • kevindqc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months 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
              39
              ·
              7 months 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
                ·
                7 months 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
                7 months 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

        • Chocrates@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months 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.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      Asshole claims to be an “originalist”.

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

    • HeadfullofSoup@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months 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

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

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

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

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    121
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    “I think you’re probably right,” Alito replies. “On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”

    In other words, dude wants some Taliban shit and wants to be able to control people are not prescribed to his religion.

    If his family doesn’t want to have abortions, or wants their kids to learn about god in school, there is nothing stopping them from living that way. Just don’t force me to live that way.

    The establishment clause yo

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    • MartianRecon@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      Well yeah but the number one thing these people crave is dominion over others. Any professed love for liberty, freedom, and the rule of law will go out the window the second they can successfully do so.

      That’s why they are acting now. Because their demographics are cooked after this election, so they are going all in to try and steal control away from the people.

    • Chocrates@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      My main concern with the reporting is that the reporter is leading Alito a bit. Alito isn’t pushing back at all, but I feel like that is the narrative fox and others are gonna go with

      • noisefree@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        He explicitly says he agrees with what she says. I don’t think it’s worth being concerned over what a propaganda outlet is going to spin up - there isn’t a scenario where they wouldn’t spin up a defense of Alito. Reality isn’t a concern for propagandists; no adjustment of tact will change that fact. To each their own, though.

        • APassenger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          He has to be part of an opinion in order for this to work. That opinion stands the test of time best if he can put forth a legal opinion that supports his preferred answer.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    117
    ·
    7 months 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
      7 months 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.

  • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months 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.

  • affiliate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    7 months ago

    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

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

  • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Mark my words. These people are not just willing, but eager to unleash nuclear hellfire in the Middle East, under the ludicrous delusion that they can fulfill prophecy and force Jesus to return. They shouldn’t be trusted to run fast food joints or craft supply stores, much less a superpower. It’s an apocalypse cult. They’ve convinced themselves that they’re better than everyone, but their religion spread across the globe by genocide, enslavement, and forced conversion, not by loving their neighbors. They have been trying to end the world for 2000 years.

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Not only is their kind better than everyone else in their eyes, but even among their kind, they as individuals are the CHOSEN ONES to fulfill the prophecy! I mean, they’re so smart and awesome that obviously the limitless power that created the cosmos needs a little help from such a very important big boy human.

      And then they go online and complain about how little kids all get trophies and told they’re worth something, or some shit.

      It’s delusions of grandeur, but in an especially Dunning-Kruger way.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I’m sure Samuel Alito’s wife is an expert ventriloquist who is saying these things in a very convincing impression of her husband.

  • nifty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    By law, religious people should not be allowed in government or policy making. Delusional people cannot be trusted with such work.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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?

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

  • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    6 months ago

    i’m so fucking sick of religion wrecking everything in this country. if people weren’t so dumb that they buy into all the bronze age fairy tale bullshit, then they wouldn’t be bootlicking these greedy scumbags pretending to be righteous while being the worst examples of the species

    • paf0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      “Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers.” - Jesse Ventura

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Wow, that’s pretty fucking blatant.

    But so were the last dozen things we’ve discovered about the Tribunal of Six.

    Unfortunately, I expect nobody will do anything about this in an official capacity, due to obstructionism by the right, and because politicians on the left would probably think iT’s toO diViSiVE

  • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The guy can say anything he wants. It’s not like if he does something illegal that the supreme court is going to convict him. He doesn’t need to ever win an election, he’s there for life.

    This will just upset the people who already know the guy is a problem and are already upset with him.

    I wish justices had term limits.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        The folks mad enough to off a SC justice are more likely to point their guns at Jackson or Sotomayer.

        Liberals will just frown and send polite letters to their Senators to maybe consider having a hearing or something.

      • Glitterbomb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        Of course not that’s way too direct, we’ve got laws.

        Biden has to issue a presidential act before he can legally off him.

  • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    7 months 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.

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

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

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months 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
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months 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.

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months 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?

  • exanime@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    6 months ago

    I mean, the USA has a Supreme Court Justice literally taking bribes from a billionaire who has stakes in FOUR cases this judge has not recused himself… and literally NOTHING has happened.

    Do you really think this recording will do anything?

  • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    7 months ago

    Illegitimate court. Every single ruling by them should be thrown out. Almost half of them are corrupt and compromised, letting personal beliefs and feelings sway law. Justice is supposed to be blind, not Christian nationalist. Get them all off the bench.