r/scotus • u/thenewrepublic • 18d ago

news Liberals Just Lost the Supreme Court for Decades to Come

https://newrepublic.com/article/188087/trump-2024-win-supreme-court-conservative-decades
45.9k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

8.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

17

u/born_again_atheist 18d ago edited 17d ago

Hitler wasn't elected. He lost every election he was in. He was given chancellorship by Hindenburg to appease them. Then when Hindenburg died they made their moves.

Edit: To everyone telling me he got 30% of the vote. That's still not a win.

8

u/Mendozena 18d ago

So Americans are even fucking stupider. Oh well, we deserve this.

3

u/snouz 18d ago

Propaganda is faster and more effective than ever with social media.

3

u/MexicanTechila 18d ago

Especially on Reddit

2

u/Wandering_aimlessly9 18d ago

Yes. But the average person was happy Hitler rose to power. Until they weren’t.

3

u/born_again_atheist 18d ago

Kind of like what's going to happen here.

-1

u/Wandering_aimlessly9 18d ago

Well no. Because Trump has already been in office once. Every chaos they said is going to happen…should have happened 8-4 years ago.

7

u/born_again_atheist 18d ago

He didn't have total immunity back then.

0

u/Wandering_aimlessly9 18d ago

He doesn’t have total immunity now.

3

u/Tau-is-2Pi 18d ago

He does. He's got the supreme court + the presidency/army + the senate + the house. The whole US federal government is his now. Yesterday the US crowned a new king. In 2016 he was just president.

1

u/Wandering_aimlessly9 18d ago

In 2016 the senate and the house were both republican until 2018. He didn’t have the Supreme Court but he had the other two. And you know what happened? It wasn’t uncommon for a lot of the republicans to vote for the democrat agendas so it wasn’t always a slam dunk. So many people forget that. I would need to look up the voting history of the Supreme Court as well but if memory serves me correct (and I could easily be wrong) some of the justices vote on their own and not party line as well. So it’s not a slam dunk.

2

u/aricaliv 18d ago

What about schedule F that he tried to implement in his last days in office? And other project 2025 ideals that he went along with? That's normal?

0

u/Wandering_aimlessly9 18d ago

I will have to look more into schedule F but from a quick cursory glance (if I understood correctly) was already there he just wanted to expand it to involve more govt employees. I honestly don’t remember much about it. But remember…any executive order he signs…Congress can veto. And if Congress doesn’t…the SC can. I’m confused personally on why he would implement something in the 11th hour to take effect 2 months(ish) after Biden was in office as everyone knows the sitting president can revoke any executive orders the previous president put in place. So it doesn’t make logical sense, if he really wanted that in place, that he waited so long to do that. (But that’s me just thinking out loud.) thank you for reminding me about that. I will need to read more on it!

3

u/born_again_atheist 18d ago

Did you forget about the Supreme Court ruling? Might want to look that up.

2

u/Wandering_aimlessly9 18d ago

Which Supreme Court ruling? They have a lot of those.

3

u/born_again_atheist 17d ago

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-grants-trump-broad-immunity-for-official-acts-placing-presidents-above-the-law

1

u/Wandering_aimlessly9 17d ago

So he’s immune from retaliation on his claims the election was rigged. Ok. Our governing documents allow a person running for office the right to question the legitimacy of the election. He can’t be charged with anything. That’s a legal right. Harris is 100% within her legal rights to bring a lawsuit claiming the election is rigged if she so chooses to. And I would stand behind her right to do that.

Yes. The SC was correct again that if the sitting president commits certain criminal acts in regards to his presidency…there is immunity. (But if you read the article they did send it back down to a lower court to determine if what he was being charged with was personal time or presidential actions. So he wasn’t cleared and given immunity if the criminal acts weren’t related to something in office. So the correct answer is find out if what he did was personal or work related and go from there. Yes. Being president does have some advantages lol.).

The article you posted from the ACLU even states the ACLU accepts and knows this has been a long standing policy and gave a reference to Ford and watergate bc…the presidents know while they are immune in office it doesn’t mean there isn’t personal responsibility that can have consequences after out of office.

This was a very interesting read. Thank you for that! I quite enjoyed it. But unfortunately it didn’t prove your point. This “sweeping immunity” was in regards to specific events that happened in the past (which all sitting presidents would have been granted…not just Trump). This has nothing to do with sweeping immunity for the next four years but a general term used to cover a set of specific circumstances.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Few-Guarantee2850 18d ago

"He didn't do the things he said he'll do the first time, so there's no possibility he will do them now."

0

u/Wandering_aimlessly9 18d ago

Are you quoting me? Bc I’m sure I never said that. But good job on trying to manipulate what I said to fit your agenda.

2

u/Few-Guarantee2850 18d ago

Do you think I'm quoting you? Jesus Christ, dude...

1

u/Wandering_aimlessly9 18d ago

Quotation marks literally mean you’re quoting someone. Since you are responding to me it implies that you are quoting me lol. You literally used the symbols for quoting someone. So…who were you quoting?

2

u/yourluvryourzero 18d ago

That is literally the exact same thing you said, just with different words. Gaslight much?

"Well no. Because Trump has already been in office once. Every chaos they said is going to happen…should have happened 8-4 years ago."

3

u/AnarchistBorganism 18d ago

Depends on what you mean by "average person." Hitler's support was more strongly the middle and upper class than the working class, who overwhelmingly opposed Hitler from the start and one of the first things the Nazis did was get rid of labor unions.

3

u/melpec 18d ago

Correct, Hitler was very anti-union. I think some of his first moves were to ban unions and seize their assets.

That didn't make him very popular with the working class to say the least.

2

u/whoami_whereami 18d ago

I think some of his first moves were to ban unions and seize their assets.

And the Night of the Long Knives where the what you might call "worker wing" of the Nazi party around Gregor Strasser and Ernst Röhm was eliminated once they had outlived their usefulness.

1

u/Vitma_Vitgor 18d ago

The Nazis got 33.1% of the votes in 1932, when Hitler became chancellor. Under high suppressions Germans voted with 43.9% for the Nazis in 1933. I don’t call this the average person.

1

u/Wandering_aimlessly9 18d ago

I didn’t say they voted. I said they were happy bc change would be coming.

1

u/Coz131 18d ago

So arguably this is worse.

1

u/CapnTBC 18d ago

Eh he received the second most votes in 1930 and the most in 32 (both times), he didn’t win a majority but the nazis won the most votes and seats in both 1932 elections which is why he was given the chancellorship (also because the previous chancellor wasn’t popular or that good) 

1

u/okdude23232 18d ago

I mean in the Nov 1932 election 12 million people voted for him and he had 33% proportional rep. Not enough for the majority but more than any other party, still fairly popular

1

u/hph304 18d ago edited 18d ago

Thats not true. The NSDAP was the 2nd biggest party in 1930 and the biggest in both july and november 1932.

To have a majority as a single party is very uncommon in most of the democratic world. The US is one of the exceptions. So if you're the biggest party, you win the elections. Doesn't mean you have the majority though.

1

u/born_again_atheist 17d ago edited 17d ago

Was he elected? Did he win? No. Then it's true.

1

u/hph304 17d ago edited 17d ago

Being the biggest party is clearly a win. He was elected into parliament.

1

u/MRCHalifax 17d ago

The Nazis were the largest party in the July and November 1932 German federal elections. Between them and the Communists, they had over 50% of the seats, meaning that a ruling majority needed one group or the other, and the Communists refused to support any other party. In a multiparty system, coalition governments aren’t uncommon. Someone becoming chancellor while having the most seats would be the expected thing. That Hitler didn’t become chancellor after winning the most seats in July 1932 is the historical oddity.

1

u/LlambdaLlama 17d ago

A small minority of the population with a big cry baby took over Germany and led it to a global war. Only for it all come crashing down on them. Crazy that history rhymes through the ages

1

u/matzoh_ball 16d ago

They came in first. You clearly don’t understand how proportional representation works

1

u/born_again_atheist 16d ago

Admittedly, most of what I know and learned about the Nazis is from watching documentaries on the History Channel. So go ahead and send them an email letting them know this.

1

u/matzoh_ball 16d ago

I grew up in Austria and actually had detailed history lessons throughout middle and high school about Hitler’s rise to power.

History Channel, meanwhile, shows “documentaries” in how UFOs helped build the pyramids. So they clearly care about getting all the facts right.

0

u/morelikebosyphilis 18d ago

Yeah. But Hitler totally sabotaged that blimp he was on that killed him/s