General Discussion

B.See

(9,038 posts)

47. For the Supreme Court we have today:

Mon Aug 4, 2025, 11:51 PM

Aug 2025

a court that is rubber stamping everything Trump wants. The court that is enabling the dismantling of democracy. The court that is working on behalf of Trump, at the behest of Trump. Which it would NOT be doing for Kamala. NOT that she'd be demanding that they gave HER the power to do whatever the fk she wanted.

That's the difference. Perhaps the following article can help make my point clearer. (Or perhaps not):

Trump policies forced to pass thanks to Supreme Court - MSN

here's another:

Full List as Supreme Court Rules for Donald Trump 15 Times in a Row - Newsweek

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Those who refused to vote for Hillary in 2016, and VP Harris in 2024, are complicit in the Supreme Court we have today. [View all] lostincalifornia Aug 2025 OP

Yup. No argument from me. FadedMullet Aug 2025 #1

Those who encouraged others to vote third party, or to vote "uncommitted" and not vote in the general... Oopsie Daisy Aug 2025 #2

That "send a message" bullshit. calimary Aug 2025 #17

All this! Exactly. sheshe2 Aug 2025 #26

Thank you, I'm glad others are saying it. Eliot Rosewater Aug 2025 #28

That ideology's First Commandment is Both Sides Corrupt, so it doesn't matter who's president. betsuni Aug 2025 #48

How did Harris' loss impact the makeup of the Supreme Court? Fiendish Thingy Aug 2025 #3

It's been a pattern over 25 years. Fiendishly difficult to discern, I know. Hekate Aug 2025 #5

That's not what the headline and topic of this thread says Fiendish Thingy Aug 2025 #7

What's changed is all the B.See Aug 2025 #19

And that by not voting for Kamala Harris the court will get even worse. Eliot Rosewater Aug 2025 #30

Yes, I feel your pain on that one. BannonsLiver Aug 2025 #46

The same court would still be in place if Harris had won. Fiendish Thingy Aug 2025 #34

Depends on how one reads it, I think. B.See Aug 2025 #41

The OP is about the court Fiendish Thingy Aug 2025 #45

For the Supreme Court we have today: B.See Aug 2025 #47

It would be the same court whether Trump or Harris were president Fiendish Thingy Aug 2025 #49

You don't seem to understand B.See Aug 2025 #54

Absolutely, and we would have a different DOJ also. What seems to be missing is that many of the same folks that lostincalifornia Dec 2025 #59

You're correct. I would have worded things differently. DFW Aug 2025 #53

That is exactly right, and if I was a betting man, they will before the sociopath leaves office. lostincalifornia Dec 2025 #60

Yes and since I am looking back at a pattern, let me point out Bush v Gore, bollixed up by Nader & decided by SCOTUS Hekate Aug 2025 #40

Simple, it will include any SC court judges in the next two years, and lostincalifornia Aug 2025 #10

Yes. AverageOldGuy Aug 2025 #24

I think you are right. They sure don't want a possible Democrat in the WH when they retire. lostincalifornia Aug 2025 #38

I don't believe that the OP made any claim about the makeup of the SCOTUS. Orrex Aug 2025 #13

Oh don't go and mess up the attempt to derail Eliot Rosewater Aug 2025 #31

But but but they cackle when they laugh and and and... Hekate Aug 2025 #4

May I add Al Gore to the list? Thunderbeast Aug 2025 #6

So true. FalloutShelter Aug 2025 #12

Nader lost. Gore won. Bobstandard Aug 2025 #16

So true. FalloutShelter Aug 2025 #25

Nader is a closet republican DemocracyForever Dec 2025 #57

Hate this mind set. Group think is for MAGA. Tbone421 Aug 2025 #8

Oh please! GMAFB! Democratic party loyalty is NOT "group think". Oopsie Daisy Aug 2025 #11

Thank you for saying what everyone else is thinking Eliot Rosewater Aug 2025 #32

Well said OD. lostincalifornia Aug 2025 #39

Thanks. If you're new you're lucky you weren't here for the great purge of 2015 LT Barclay Aug 2025 #18

Nader helped GOP in 2000 DemocracyForever Dec 2025 #58

Welcome to DU. I, for one, am pleased to have you here. It was a bete noire with me, some decades ago. NNadir Dec 2025 #61

I don't believe they took the SCOTUS into account. SleeplessinSoCal Aug 2025 #9

This has been the goal of the Federalist Society for the last 25 years since Leo took over. paulrevere2018 Aug 2025 #22

An actual conspiracy that the people ignore. SleeplessinSoCal Aug 2025 #37

They specifically argued that SCOTUS wasn't a reason to vote for HIllary iemanja Aug 2025 #42

My Republican mother used SCOTUS as an excuse... SleeplessinSoCal Aug 2025 #44

Yep. nt mcar Aug 2025 #14

Can't argue about that. calimary Aug 2025 #15

Re the OP, they're B.See Aug 2025 #20

Like the loss of our Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and Eliot Rosewater Aug 2025 #33

Which brings us to Mitch. BidenRocks Aug 2025 #21

Yes, they are. AverageOldGuy Aug 2025 #23

Once I might understand (although really dumb) but twice - just plain ignorance. walkingman Aug 2025 #27

I recall their "Let it all burn down!" arguments at the time. sop Aug 2025 #29

Yeah...And DRAGGING Everyone Else WITH Them! electric_blue68 Aug 2025 #35

So Effing True! electric_blue68 Aug 2025 #36

And for George HW Bush who started it all with Clarence Thomas. kerry-is-my-prez Aug 2025 #43

True. They can't say they "didn't vote" just because they didn't cast a ballot in those races. Beartracks Aug 2025 #50

The makeup of the Supreme Court was/should have been reason enough to vote for Hillary Clinton. 3catwoman3 Aug 2025 #51

This just in mahina Aug 2025 #52

The Rehnquist 5 made today's nightmare possible ClimateChangeisReal Aug 2025 #55

"Bush vs Gore" ruling created today's SCOTUS DemocracyForever Dec 2025 #56