2602
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
2602 points (94.1% liked)
Malicious Compliance
19678 readers
4 users here now
People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.
======
-
We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
-
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
-
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.
======
Also check out the following communities:
!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's the ridiculous thing about this entire case. This was a web designer and bigot who made websites for married couples. There were no homosexual couples asking the designer to make them a wedding website. She had one fake web request, and the Illegitimate Court said she had a right to discriminate against imaginary people.
This opens the floodgates to the rest of the bigots who want to protest the existence of people they hate by denying them services.
This case is bullshit, as you already stated. The problem is that the purpose of it is to lay the groundwork for medical professionals to deny service to "ungodly" people.
Haven't there already been state-level cases that allow this? I swear I saw something about this out of Tennessee.
Actually! There was no website. It was all made up.
Thanks for the link. I just read the article. So the Supreme Court made an all-encompassing ruling based on a lawsuit filed over an easily-verifiable-as-fabricated story. It would be bizarro shit if we didn't already know the court's just doing exactly what they were put there to do. It's completely fucked up.
Thanks for pointing that out! It's the most obvious psy-op yet and people still aren't catching on.
I'm actually surprised, I thought the reason they were reluctant to endorse the so-called Independent State Legislature Theory because they didn't want to erode their already fragile credibility in light of the seemingly endless corruption scandals. Then they go and basically ignore the entire concept of standing and make a ruling based on literally nothing! I think I need to reexamine how smart I think they are...
An argument I've seen to explain this decision was that it detracted from the judiciary's influence/power by instead empowering state legislatures. Take that as you will, but I wouldn't put it past them.
I guess? But like, if the Independent State Legislature of California decided to go along with the decision and become the People's Republic of California then the Court could just say "no but not like that tho" and then ban California from doing that. They must still care somewhat about credibility/legitimacy, but I guess they just couldn't help themselves when the chance to attack The Gays was available.
She*, and she stole a real (straight, married, with children) man's identity to use as hypothetical. The whole thing should be absolutely thrown out by a higher court - the court of the people.
Also, what happens if a scotus judge is assassinated? Like for real, what if a terrorist straight up murders one? If it's the president, the vice president takes over, and if them.... There's like a power list for that. But, what about a scotus? Does the standing president just get to pick one again? Or is there a list of rank? Or is it like monarchy where the judge has a written will or a say over who replaces them? Goddamn; why do we even have this shitty system.
Thanks, fixed.
Scotus judges won't be assassinated because the violent terrorists support them.
Well there's still 3 liberals that could be replaced by the next Republican.
While I don't believe there has ever been a SC Judge assassinated, all vacancies are to be filled by the President and approved by the Senate.
More realistically though, the wealthiest Republican party donors pick the SC, and have been doing so for the better part of the last few decades now.
Nobody else has a real say, and whenever somebody attempts to regain control for the people, the propaganda machine starts a'hummin', and we all start going at each other's throats again.