wdlindsy ,
@wdlindsy@toad.social avatar

"This may be the most blatant Supreme Court intervention in a campaign since Bush v. Gore — with the same result. Disregarding that three of the nine justices were appointed by Trump; Clarence Thomas also has a massive conflict of interest because his wife was involved in the insurrection for which Trump seeks immunity."

~ Dan Pfeiffer

https://www.messageboxnews.com/p/thoughts-on-the-supreme-courts-massive

mmb ,
@mmb@subdued.social avatar

@wdlindsy Here is another view that takes a look at the bigger picture connecting all the trials & possible voter reactions.

https://blog.stephaniejones.com/2024/03/01/yes-the-supreme-court-could-have-declined-the-case-but-then-what/

Screenshot of post from Teri Kanefield's recommendation to read the blog post reflecting on Supreme Court's latest action regarding immunity: What I like about Stephanie is the following: She thinks for a while before she offers a response. The law is complicated and it's hard to see all the possibilities. Hot takes are generally simplified and wrong, but those are what people grab on to. She is both outspoken and compassionate and she thinks people are being cruelly manipulated by TV lawyers and their hot takes and simplified narratives.
ALT
  • Reply
    • wdlindsy OP ,
    @wdlindsy@toad.social avatar

    @mmb @wdlindsy We’ll see, won’t we?

    mmb ,
    @mmb@subdued.social avatar

    @wdlindsy Yes

    katrinakatrinka ,
    @katrinakatrinka@infosec.exchange avatar

    @wdlindsy
    Yet, utterly predictable given how many of them worked on Bush's side in that previous case.

    wdlindsy OP ,
    @wdlindsy@toad.social avatar

    @katrinakatrinka @wdlindsy I agree.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •