Me: [hands over hold up note]
Bank teller: so it’s a robbery
Me: yeah but SCOTUS says only Congress can decide if it’s a crime, unless it’s some racist thing then it’s a states rights thing, so “law” is just like whatever now
Teller: that tracks [starts putting cash in sack]
It was already going to be hard to try and explain why following the law and why we make laws to my kid given the current state of the US.
What am I supposed to do aside from saying, "well specifically you need to follow this law because you don't have enough money and they'll kill you otherwise."
It's cliche but...
“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.”
That's not new. It's been like that for a while now. It only applies to anyone that doesn't make millions, and heavily targets anyone who isn't white, cis, and male.
As a standard, any law who's penalty is a fine is a law only for the poor. Work your way up from there.
We kind forget that the whole plot of "Judgement at Nuremberg" was how the Allies needed to hold the German Courts accountable for how they full throatedly aided the Nazi's in rounding up Jews and others for the Camps and nobody cared because "Communism."
Does this mean the Feds can step in to veto state-level federal election procedures? For example, can the Feds require vote-by-mail in all states for all federal elections using a standardized ballot? 😈
That will at least return the question to SCOTUS quickly.
