• notabot@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Whilst it’s an amusing thought, I really don’t think that advocating assassinating your judicial opponents is a good idea. Remember that once it starts, it wont stop, so even if you get someone who aligns with your views, they’ll likely be eliminated in short order.

    Term limits, age restrictions or even just a robust anti-bribery system would likely achieve similar results.

    • somename [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      6 months ago

      Considering the Supreme Court basically just legalized bribery, what do you think the odds are that we’re going to get that?

      • notabot@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s why I said ‘even just a robust anti-bribery system’. Right now the Republicans seem to be trying to speed-run turning the country into a fascist dictatorship, minimally hampered by the Democrats. The Republicans hold all the power right now, bar the actual president, so it makes sense they can push though their vision of the future.

      • notabot@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Oh I know, that’s why I said ‘even just a robust anti-bribery system’. You wouldn’t have though it would be too controversial to say that the members of the supreme court shouldn’t be on the take, but there you go.

    • MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      Whilst it’s an amusing thought, I really don’t think that advocating assassinating your judicial opponents is a good idea. Remember that once it starts, it wont stop, so even if you get someone who aligns with your views, they’ll likely be eliminated in short order.

      The US omniparty already murders its political opponents. It murdered sitting politicians, it murdered political candidates, it murders the leaders of political parties, it murders non-electoral political pressure groups, it murders loose-knit groups of single-issue activists, it murders outspoken critics of its policies, it murders union leaders, it murders union members, it murders foreign heads of state, it murders foreign political figures, it murders members of NGOs that counter its interests.

      This is the factual, repeated, and continued to this day, history of the United States of America.

      And, admittedly depending on what you believe, its possibly murdered a sitting president.

      • notabot@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        That fair, although I do think that the president marching into the supreme court, armed with his choice of automatic weapon, and just gunning them down might be a little too extreme even for the USA. The Dems like to, at least be seen to, play fair.

            • MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              6 months ago

              Agreed. But he’s not. Even driving a car in shades he just talked about how cool his dad was when he drove a car in shades.

              Man, my dad was so good at spraying the supreme court with Tommy Gun fire. That was the generation that knew how to get things done, am I right jack? biden

          • notabot@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I thought the entire concept was jokey, but OK, let me restate my point: Yes, the US government has killed many people, though typically individually and discretely. The president personally shooting multiple supreme court justices as Sickos suggested would be seen to be several levels above that and probably be too extreme for even democrat supporters to stomach. The dems also seem to like to be seen to be playing fair, which suggests they wouldn’t even contemplate that approach.

            • MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Biden gunning down supreme court justices is of course a jokey image, presented by you.

              My point was that the idea that political violence doesn’t occur is counter-factual. It is deeply ingrained in the history and present of the United States as a country. Therefore the idea that any sort of armed resistance or defence, or anything else the state regularly demonises as violence such as property damage or sabotage, is a bad idea because it might lead to the start of the state using violence in retaliation is moot. The state already does, even sometimes against itself.

              • notabot@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Biden gunning down supreme court justices is of course a jokey image, presented by you.

                This was the exact statement Sickos made at the top of the thread: ‘Bro Biden is going to die in the next four years regardless; he could personally shoot every conservative supreme court justice. He chooses not to. How can you respect that?’ I thought it was posted in a jokey way, and so engaged with is as such. It seems I was wrong in that, for which I apologies to both you and them.

                Furthermore, given the latest supreme court ruling regarding presidential immunity, it seems I was wrong in assuming such an action it would be too extreme even for the US. I retract my statements to that effect. Seen as he’s been given a green light to do anything that could be considered an official act, this would now seem like an entirely feasible approach to the problem.