MSN
www.msn.com

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent term ended with a flurry of conservative-leaning decisions that have been met with shock and disapproval, particularly from the left. This conservative trend is seen as a reflection of the 6-3 conservative majority established during Trump’s presidency. Noteworthy rulings include siding with a web designer who refused services to same-sex couples, ending affirmative action in colleges, and dismissing President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan.

  • S_Roman@lemmy.world
    2·
    1 year ago

    You’re showing some conflict of interest, but come on.

    Yup, that’s generally what “in the pocket of the rich” means. It means you have a conflict of interest to rule in favor of the rich because they have given you shit. I sincerely do not understand what part of that you’re hung up on.

    He just ruled on roe v wade, show me how he’s in the pockets of the rich for that ruling

    Just because somebody is in the pocket of the rich doesn’t mean that every single ruling will have something to do with money. You have an unrealistic expectation here as well.

    If you’re looking for rulings that blatantly side with the rich, the citizens united ruling is the place to start.

    Here is another good place to start: https://time.com/5793956/supreme-court-loves-rich/

    Or anything, come on, you said it, make your point.

    See the above links.

    You said the system is broken and it’s because you get called a communist by someone online.

    No I did not. If you’re going to spend the time to debate you should at least understand what people have said.

    So you’re sad because vote isn’t overriding every one elses?

    Nope. Never said that either.

    I don’t know what you want me to say, to you not getting your way every election

    I want you to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a simple solution for these problems. You keep saying “oh, just do X if Y doesn’t work”, but that’s not the reality of the situation, these problems require significant and complicated change.

    • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
      13·
      1 year ago

      Yup, that’s generally what “in the pocket of the rich” means.

      Any conflict of interest? LOL you’d be hard pressed to find any politician that hasn’t had some COI transactions.

      Just because somebody is in the pocket of the rich doesn’t mean that every single ruling will have something to do with money. You have an unrealistic expectation here as well.

      That’s why I asked you, tell me what case he’s ruled on that he got bought off. I’m encouraging you to show me.

      Here is another good place to start: https://time.com/5793956/supreme-court-loves-rich/

      1. That’s court cases from the 80’s. How does that prove your point that our current SC is in the pocket of the rich?

      2. You’d have to do more than show that sometimes the cases go against the ‘marginalized’ - you have to prove it’s bad law. The SC is supposed to rule on if the law supports one side or not - it’s not their place to empathize with one party over the other. You want the SC to rule more friendly to you? Get ‘better’ law makers in office.

      No I did not. If you’re going to spend the time to debate you should at least understand what people have said.

      You: The systems broken, I can’t get what I want!

      Me: It’s up to your representatives, get involved, get better people in office

      You: They call me a communist :(

      • S_Roman@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 year ago

        I’m encouraging you to show me.

        I think I’m alright. I’m not going to waste my time any further.

        You: The systems broken, I can’t get what I want!

        Me: It’s up to your representatives, get involved, get better people in office

        You: They call me a communist :(

        Why say anything if you’re just gonna misrepresent what I’ve said?

        • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
          12·
          1 year ago

          I think I’m alright. I’m not going to waste my time on you any further.

          I know, hard to make an argument when you just make wild claims.

          Why say anything if you’re just gonna misrepresent what I’ve said?

          That’s what you said, like 2nd comment of our conversation.

          • S_Roman@lemmy.world
            2·
            1 year ago

            I know, hard to make an argument when you just make wild claims.

            No, it’s just hard to talk with people who do not do so in good faith.

            • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
              13·
              1 year ago

              I asked you to support your claim that the reason why supreme court cases are being rule dhow they are is because they are in rich folks pockets.

              You really couldn’t, so I don’t see why there would be a point to continue this convo.

                • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
                  11·
                  1 year ago

                  It takes a lot of logical leaps to go from ‘someone paid for his vacation’ to say 'they’re just ruling with whatever rich person is sending them money! I can’t point to any specific people…or cases they ruled on, BUT THEY ARE!!"