**Translation:**The law is whatever you pay me to make the law.
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2025
437 points (99.1% liked)
politics
25858 readers
2850 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
We as a country need to bring back death by hanging or firing squad, and make executions public square events like mma
The right has always been hypocrites. Now they are so blatant they can’t even coherently argue their points. It’s just corruption. Pure and simple. The constitution and precedent only ever mattered when it was advantageous to them / their bribers.
If Clarence is sentenced at Nuremberg, I suggest that it should be a drawing and quartering by his motorcoach fleet.
“At some point we need to think about what we’re doing with stare decisis‚" Thomas said, referring to the legal principle of abiding by precedent. “And it’s not some sort of talismanic deal where you can just say ‘stare decisis’ and not think, turn off the brain, right?”
....I have no idea. What the holy fuck did you just say? Was that English, Clarence?
Oh that’s easy, stare decisis for things we like and overturning everything we don’t like. Simple!
When the US constitution was written, it was assumed they didn't have to spell out exactly how the judiciary would work because the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition was over a millennia old without getting written down (predating statute law) but apparently that assumption was wrong.
Im sure in the rulings he won't give any explanation at all. Every time no explanation is given I assume the explanation is because fuck the people and the constitution that was built around the principle of power coming from it.
Cash in pocket doesn't seem to be a very bonkers reason to me.
Wrong? Sure. Foolish? Absolutely. Short-sighted? No doubt.
But bonkers? Who wouldn't sell their fellow man out for a few extra bucks? Hell, a nice new RV sure sounds nice, maybe a vacation to go along with it.
I really wish he would've taken the John Oliver deal for that sexy beast of an RV to retire... oh well. Here we are
Ironically I don’t disagree with him but for completely different reasons. It’s pretty obvious he wants to use this as an excuse to do whatever he’s paid to do by the biggest bribe.
But Jefferson pushed for vast changes and “revolution” (not the violent type which honestly feels pretty naive) every generation. Because why should the rules and ideals and commitment of the dead hold back the present and future.
I have always thought precedent, when it comes to interpreting laws, should have an expiration date. If congress doesn't pass a law to support the precedent, then it is no longer valid after that date. For constitutional interpretations, once past the expiration, a lower court can't use it as justification anymore.
That works great and all until somebody tries to block renewal of basic human rights. Put constitutional referendums on a schedule.
Here in Sweden two consecutive elected governments have to approve changes to the constitution. Seems like another useful tool to prevent abuse.
Lower court precedence, however, sure it would be nice with expiration dates so legislature has to authorize it explicitly to keep it. You could even have boards whose responsibility is to translate precedence from courts into law proposals to be voted on.
What a stupid metaphor. Settled law is called "precedent." If there's an orangutan driving the train it's because YOU GUYS made that possible.
There is an orangutan driving the train. His name is Trump.
What it must be like to be a reptile in a human skin.
I wonder how much these public statements cost whoever paid him to make them.
"Left wing activist judges! Activist judges! Activist judges! The left! The left wing activist judges!"
... fucking projection ass hypocrites. Always.
We can NEVER forget that this is what they do
Legislating from the bench!!!
We never go to the front to see who’s driving the train, where is it going. And you could go up there in the engine room, find it’s an orangutan driving the train, but you want to follow that just because it’s a train.
What?
It's better than saying, "I've been bribed a shit ton and no one is caring, so I'll say and do whatever I want."
An orangutan is driving the train and apparently you're cool with that.
I think he called Trump an orangutan, let's tell Daddy and get him fired .
There's pressure valves going off all over the place, and he's fixing it by shovelling in more coal.
Yeah, it's crazy because, if the train is functioning perfectly fine, and has been for centuries, why does it matter who's driving it?
He wants to be the driver. That's why. He calls into question the way things have worked because he wants to take over.
And besides, the train driver does not have any control over the route the train will take.
It's the old orangutan-train-engineer argument, which gained legal precedent in Plessy v. Ferguson, brought by passage of an 1887 Florida law, whereby states began to require that railroads furnish separate accommodations for each race.
Why would we care what this money-hole thinks. Especially when this money-hole accepts bribes.
And the rape, don't forget about the rape.
arguing that decided cases are not “the gospel,”
This is correct, but not in the sense that he provides. Society changes, what was okay before may not be okay now. Weighing precedent and modern society is a careful process. Tossing off precedent should have justification for why it's being shrug and there needs to a preponderance that this is indeed the shift of society.
Walking in and saying, "well we should just outright critical" is absolutely not the way to do it. Overturning previous case law should happen, but that shouldn't be the fucking default. And when you do overturn previous case law, you really need to bring a fuck ton of support, not, "meh we changed our mind." Being a contrarian for sake of rocking the boat isn't how our highest court should operate.
Yes, but on the other hand: he got his and fuck yours.
Is it a new motorhome?
That sounds like the Living Constitution with extra steps.
"One of the good ones."
If everything falls to pure fascism, I hope I at least get to see the leopards eat Clarence's face.
I will hope, but it seems a little unlikely. Somehow, the most craven ones seem to escape justice most of the time. It's the true believers who rush out to the front, people like Stephen Miller or Alina Habba, who tend to start to catch some strays as the shit hits the fan. The dude who's sitting in the back quietly doing 100 times more damage seems to eventually get away on a boat to the Seychelles or something. He might get impeached in 5 years, or he might live out his days secure in the knowledge that he can drive his fucking RV around and do whatever he wants.
He reasoned that some precedents were simply “something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”
Is he admitting this is how he writes his opinions?
It's also meaningless, in the sense that it describes the entirety of society.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Sure. Why should the third car on the train follow the cars ahead? Break free from the track, accept the bribe, jump the rails and chart your own course.
Lmao orangutan is a particularly apt metaphor
Even the actual gospel isn't gospel to these demons.
The bible is something somebody dreamt up and others went along with. God doesn't write.
view more: next ›