• dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Isn’t there a journalism rule about not having a headline be a question with a yes or no answer? Seems like there should be.

          • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            I wouldn’t call it an exception (although there are always exceptions), the problem here lies in the word “sympathizers”, it’s too ambiguous. The answer is technically no, they’re just conservatives who are technically not insurrectionist sympathizers. But they are.

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              That’s some pretty convoluted reasoning, there.

              I applaud the effort. But either they are or they aren’t.

              Thomas is married to an insurrectionist, allito is flying symbols used by the insurrectionists.

              And the other conservatives on the court are all ardently supporting Trump with half baked rulings buying increasing amounts of time to- they hope- delay the trial long enough for it to not matter.

              I wouldn’t actually call them sympathizers- I’d just call them insurrectionists.

  • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Alito and Thomas have been biding their time on the Court, waiting for the 50 year conservative project to come to fruition, and now that it is they’re no longer willing to play pretend as objective neutral jurists. Their argument is simple “we won, we can do whatever we want”.

    • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      They’d be willing to pretend if they had to, but now there’s no need.

      Unless a super majority were to get elected to congress, that could either impeach them or at least pass laws governing their emoluments and conflicts of interest.

  • ynazuma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    There are corrupt traitors and liars in the SCOTUS. Insurrectionist sympathizers doesn’t seem like a stretch

    I mean Justices Thomas and Alito would sell their first born for a jet ride to an island resort

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Well, to be an insurrectionist, I think you have to actually be there during the insurrection

      • anavrinman@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Do you think that they aren’t participating in the insurrection? The presidential immunity question should be enough to answer this for you, before even considering that Thomas’ wife was actively helping coordinate J6.

        There’s a coup still underway and SCOTUS is right at the front of it.

        • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Right. Insurrection is a violent revolt. You think some old fuckers sitting on a bench is a “violent revolt”?

          • anavrinman@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Are you serious? You didn’t think that you’re splitting hairs a bit?

            “Yup. We have to let them go. Sure, they overthrew the government, but some pedantic arse said they need to be directly involved in violence, not just undermine democracy from the bench, in order for it to count.”