You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
8 points

SCOTUS can’t overrule an election outcome unless there is contention and proof. Won’t happen. Her numbers are too good, and that’s taking into account that polls only reach old people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

SCOTUS can’t overrule an election outcome unless there is contention and proof

They can do whatever the fuck a majority of them wants. That’s why Mitch McConnell considered stacking the courts much more important to his legacy than electoral success.

The way the broken system works, they have the final say on ANYTHING and can only be overruled by the by now impossible constitutional amendment process.

No matter how nonsensical or blatantly corrupt their reasoning, their judgment is effectively final.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

If SC tries to force an illegitimate Trump presidency down our throats there will be hell to pay. Biden might also need to use some of his newly-acquired presidential immunity superpowers and ship the SC to Antarctica to do science research for the rest of their tenure.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

If SC tries to force an illegitimate Trump presidency down our throats there will be hell to pay

There should be but there won’t. Just like when they forced an illegitimate Bush president down people’s throats in 2000 and the powerful ignored the millions decrying THAT injustice.

Biden might also need to use some of his newly-acquired presidential immunity superpowers and ship the SC to Antarctica to do science research for the rest of their tenure.

Even if he’d ever do such a thing (or indeed ANYTHING that violates the rules and norms that Neoliberals consider much more important than any outcomes of following or breaking them), they made sure that what constitutes “official acts” is up to the SCOTUS themselves, thus effectively making any executive overreach by Biden just as illegal as before and any by Trump the law of the land.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Bush v. Gore. Contention, no proof. Since when has this SCOTUS ever shied from doing something it “can’t”? Roe v. Wade. Presidents are kings.

Sorry bud, it’s not looking good, and believe you me will I be voting. But it’s not even a question that they’re trying coup 2.0.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Hanging Chad in Florida is different than election deniers trying to not certify elections. Won’t happen.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

It is exactly the same thing. Jeb Bush and W. Bush’s campaign manager rigged the vote in Florida, same as Trump loyalists will do this cycle.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Uh-huh. Ignore everything else that’s happened just this year, then. Ignore all the obvious preparations they’ve been making, how they’ve stacked the courts. It’s gonna work out great.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 7.6K

    Posts

  • 135K

    Comments