Popehat: Do please fuck right off with this. — Subium • Bluesky web client

Do please fuck right off with this.

Conventionally decorous fascism is apparently preferable to a chaotic and complicated Republic.

"We must 'turn the temperature down' by preventing any form of justice or consequence from occurring."

“We will also ban the production and selling of pitchforks henceforth.”

Them: “The person we can’t help but voting for keeps committing crimes, and those dang justice folks keep trying to stop him.” If only the guy just…wait for it…stopped committing crimes?!

Am I just a bumpkin who didn’t go to law school, or is this a Supreme Court justice literally saying “even if I disagreed with this opinion on the legal merits, I won’t say so because I don’t want MAGA hats in front of my house?”

It was interesting that they announced that the court wouldn’t take the bench today

i took it as meaning she wouldn’t join the liberals’ concurrence because she thought it was temperature-raising.

Literally "but decorum!!!!" Amazing that we're seeing this again

Considering it worked out well last time, it's hardly surprising they're trying this trick again.

we now go live to the supreme court "settling" issues:

We're voting 9-0 so you stop saying mean things about us. Please don't read too much into this ruling when making decisions in the future when we are all dead.

“Also we can’t afford to have awkwardness at our country club.”

Particularly galling attaching this to a per curiam opinion. Fucking cowards.

Threatening violence works. Everyone clear on that now?

Actually I wish that were true. The right would just see it as license to bring down the hammer even more. It only works to cow feckless liberals.

Someone is running trextual analysis on this right now to point out the author.

It’s from Barrett’s concurrence

Think they mean to better guess at the author of the per curiam opinion.

Just so.

I can't help but imagine this as a minority concurrence to Korematsu or Dred Scott.

CG Taney Dred actually did solicit votes from justices in Dred Scott that disagreed in an attempt to make the ruling unanimous and to try make the slavery issue "speedily and finally settled". The Court as a group did the same on US V Nixon too.

I love that this makes my point even stronger. Wait, by love I mean hate, because I would prefer it to not be true.

That all nine justices agreed on the outcome of this case will absolutely be remembered by the American public and historians. Just not favorably.

Kagan, KBJ, and Sotomayor - like Garland - do not understand what is happening on the political right and what it means for the country. Or, they do and they want to try to ensure they are protected. I don't agree that acquiescing to political violence from the right like this will shield them.

Or they have been beneficiaries all along and want to maintain their privileges in the system.

That's the thing though. I don't know how someone like Garland, or Kagan for that matter, can be confident they'll walk free after 2025 if Trump gets in. They're not acting like their personal freedom is at risk, and imo they should have been all along.

They clearly don't believe that.

Was the take home message "lol get fucked plebes" Cuz that's what I got.

"We're going to turn the temperature down by empowering the guy lighting the fires." I guess one outcome from this nonsense is that states can't prevent Eisenhower from being on the ballot again despite being very ineligible at this point. And if someone complains... we shout Deocrum!

"Calling balls and strikes" and also trying to control the crowd

says the only court that accepts flagrant bribes and doesn't see anything wrong with that (pssst you puppets, it's that influence why the heat is turning up)

Sadness Did not have "fall of roman empire" on my bingo card

Pwease don't be mean to us at restaurants

Look, I can't speak for the nation, but my temperature today isn't noticeably cooler. Quite the opposite, in fact.

So the Supreme Court gets to rule that I'm going to stop being angry now? I thought that was a State responsibility.

Once again, Civility favors the oppressors, not the oppressed.

“We’d rule definitively on this, but it’s just really inconvenient timing. P.S.: don’t be mad.”

Tone policing from Barrett?

Whiny & needy tripe to be sure. I found it horribly undignified (which is quite on-brand for the MAGAe, now that I think about it).

Now is now the time to amplify disagreement! Save that for when we weave the constitution into a crown.

*is not Lol

Gang of crooked rapists telling the public to be good children and sit quiet... they ought to be hanged.

Amy 'Karen' Barrett tone policing the other three women on the Court is Republican performance art.

Peace in our time!

Supreme Court of Tone Policing

The rapist that appointed Barrett must be coddled and appeased, that’s what the American people should take away from this.

They always call for unity when they are on top, and the rest of the time it’s “fuck y’all.”

Should have just denied cert.

Big “my thoroughly reasoned Dred Scott decision will solve the slavery problem” energy

Lol, also, how is pre-emptively calling out the minority not turning the national temperature up? What an asshat she is.

Post