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?
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2025
354 points (99.4% liked)
politics
25847 readers
2535 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
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.
There's pressure valves going off all over the place, and he's fixing it by shovelling in more coal.
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.
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.
"Left wing activist judges! Activist judges! Activist judges! The left! The left wing activist judges!"
... fucking projection ass hypocrites. Always.
Legislating from the bench!!!
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
"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.
Going to flight school before piloting a 737 full of passengers is just a social construct, brah.
Thank you for illustrating the definition of thought terminating cliche. That's like, my entire point.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yes, I was making a joke about it as if we were having a conversation or posting on a message board.
Like you mentioned, it was to further illustrate your point, and to bring some levity to the situation. My apologies.
Oof. This has turned into a pretty good example of why I think it's stupid when people basically get offended when people don't "get the joke" in regards to written sarcasm. But I clearly misinterpreted your intention, and made no attempt to get clarification - so my bad! Sorry about that.
Petition to make every fediverse comment require narration so that sarcasm can be easily detected.
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.
He needs to be removed.
*His head needs to be removed.
Brought to you by the guillotine gang.
I’m a fan of burning at the stake, but I won’t turn down beheading.
Why not both?
I suppose we could warm them up on the stake and then finish it on the guillotine
#GuillotineParty
Even the actual gospel isn't gospel to these demons.
Lmao orangutan is a particularly apt metaphor
These people are the real “Satanists”. They believe in a will to power and nothing else.
Hey hey, don't lump the satanists in with these pieces of shit, they are actually generally pretty cool in my experience.
That’s why I used scare quotes, and not that “Satan worship” is even “real”, historically speaking, in so much as it represents the exaltation of material reality and the nihilistic pursuit of power for personal worldly gain, these “Christians” exemplify it far more than the self-described “Satanists”.
isclarencethomasdeadyet
I wonder how much these public statements cost whoever paid him to make them.
Is it a new motorhome?
Supreme court justices are not actually that great at reasoning, especially the conservatives. Everyone should listen to 5-4, they do a great job revealing just how stupid the supreme court can be.
I mean, it's not stupid, it's intentional obtuseness in service to an ideology.
There is definitely some of that, probably even mostly that, but you'll never convince me Sam Alito is even a middling intellect
Corrupt! Fuck this dude. He single handedly has been a main factor of why the US has gone to shit.
Not just him don't forget Roberts.
Roberts, between his hatred of fair elections and manipulation of the gullible press that echoed his "balls and strikes" myth making, might be the person most detrimental to US democracy
Alito
BUT this DOESNT APply to Their Rulings! THEIR rulings ARE Gospel!
"Because I was paid to"
Why would we care what this money-hole thinks. Especially when this money-hole accepts bribes.
That sounds like the Living Constitution with extra steps.
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.
view more: next ›