Speaks for itself. We’ve been beyond satire for a long time but this one still got me.

    • Kwakigra@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      4 months ago

      The Supreme Court members who made this decision are in official act range right now at this moment. Donald Trump is in official act range at this moment as well. Not to draw conclusions but I’m not sure how serious the Democrats are about staying in power.

        • galoisghost@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          The should just be honest:

          “Yes this is bad, but we might want to use this power ourselves so we won’t do anything to reverse it. You just need to vote so only WE have the power to use it.”

          • araneae@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            99% of democracies give up right before hitting it big and concentrating supreme power in the hands of a benevolent dictator.

            Examine this change of logic. The democrats want a mandate from the people before they act antidemocratically? So that they can maintain the highground when they do an inherently lowdown thing? And they could do it now but they want a blue election first? Are you a snake eating its own tail?

  • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    4 months ago

    All I’ve heard from MAGA so far is that fake electors aren’t illegal, followed by some explanation involving JFK and Hawaii. Now Trump himself is admitting that they’re illegal, but he’s immune?

    A lot more people are about to go to jail for him.

    Also, fuck MAGA for trying to nullify my vote.

  • seang96@spgrn.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    Wouldn’t their ruling not apply retroactively? Or if he declares it now it wouldn’t mean anything since he isn’t the sitting president?

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      Their ruling isn’t new law, it’s telling people what the law already said. Even all the stuff they made up along the way.

      • seang96@spgrn.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        And the definition of “official” is so gray it could be anything and not anything! Gotta love vauge interpretations from what is supposed to be our finest judges.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          I particularly like that they hinted that some things in the trial were official and some things weren’t, but they’re not going to tell anyone what they are at this time, we have to wait for the appeal to work its way back up. At which point the election will be over and they’ll just say “psyche, it’s all official”.

        • hypnoton@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          But even when prosecuting the pres for unofficial acts nothing involved in committing any official acts can be used as evidence in court.