The right wing majority on scotus legalizes bribery and criminalizes homelessness because to them, rich people deserve rights and poor people deserve nothing. If they were deserving they’d be rich.
yes they view graft, which they themselves enjoy, as the just rewards for a life well lived. it attaches to the offices of power naturally. it's their spoils!
Gotta pick yourself up by your bootstraps like Brett Kavanaugh did when some anonymous donor paid off his hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of debts.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Frank Wilhoit
Yes, the revolting trend of "Prosperity Theology" ...
'If you're rich, it's because God loves and rewards you.'
It's from the same sewer of greedy human delusion that attempted to justify slavery and disown guilt.
Their sugar daddies profit off of prison labor, so if they continuously lock up people for being homeless there will be more yachts for daddy and them!
The pathology, even borderline sociopathy, of the conservatives on #SCOTUS, is both laid bare and is the inevitable result of the #GOP’s decades long project to legalize lawlessness for the wealthy.
the protestant work ethic never got derided the same way as “rain follows the plough” despite being just as stupid on its face and far more damaging in the long run
It's the combination of believing "the world is zero-sum" and "the world is just (i.e. those who are rich deserve it, those who are poor deserve it)" that is the underpinning of right-wing politics. Which is why the New Deal was so powerful, and why the right wing hates it so much.
Calvinist predestination at its finest, "I'm rich, so God loves me more, you're not, so God obviously does not love you, you are not one of the chosen, you must be bad, and don't deserve to be treated as human"
The Puritans ought to be taken out behind the barn and beaten with a switch instead of being lauded as heroic. Those weirdos have a lot to be ashamed of.
I’m describing the supreme court’s jurisprudence on public corruption laws accurately, and the screenshot of this absurd opinion supports my point not yours.
To be clear, you're saying an opinion that recognizes gratuities and briberies are punishable under separate statutes "legalizes bribery"?
It's fine to disagree with the reasoning but your description is not an honest one.
I am saying an opinion that effectively legalizes bribery as long as payment is deferred is part of the long pattern of scotus undermining public integrity prosecutions for bribery yes. You regurgitating the reasoning in obfuscating legal jargon really doesn’t change anything
Again, you're just making up what the opinion does. If by "regurgitating the reasoning" in the opinion, you mean I took the time to understand what it says instead of making something up, I and most others would see that as making a stronger, better argument.
