This is the eDem version of implicit corporate bribery:
“I probably wouldn’t have hired him if he wasn’t the senator’s brother,” Scruggs said.
Biden eventually backed the bill, which ultimately failed to pass Congress.
“Jim was never untoward about his influence,” Scruggs said. “He didn’t brag about it or talk about it. He didn’t have to. He was the man’s brother.”
Yeah Biden thrived in politics during a morally bankrupt entirely devoid of any spirit of public service era. I would argue our empire entered decline in 1973, Biden was elected to the Senate as a very young man in 1972. His entire career he’s been thriving at minimum in the immediate vicinity of really extreme legal corruption.
I mean they called him the Senator from MBNA (big DE bank that was ultimately acquired by Bank of America) for decades. It wasn’t an accident that he helped change the bankruptcy code in extremely negative for normal people ways.
One of the big reasons we need to get rid of these old people (besides the obvious varying stages of senility) is that survivorship bias says they’re all careerists with strong sociopathic/narcissistic tendencies who put their careers above the good of the American people pretty much every day of their so called ‘service’. This absolutely goes for both parties as you couldn’t get the resources you needed to run a modern TV campaign without being that way.
lol this is just getting ridiculous.
Although I do 100% agree that scotus salaries being so low is absolutely ridiculous but this is just hilariously transparent
Yes…ha ha ha…YES!
Elections 
have consequences
they’re just going to do the same slowwalk bullshit they’ve done in ohio and alabama etc
I’ll be curious to see if SCOTUS overturns this. They already meddled once in 2021 when the GOP supreme court picked lines that were a shade less than a maximum gerrymander so I wouldn’t put it past them to do it again.
What did SCOTUS do in 2021? One extremely relevant precedent here is Rucho v. Common Cause:
The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be “incompatible with democratic principles”, the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.
I can’t remember if there’s been more cases concerning federal court authority over state-level gerrymandering since then. Moore v. Harper kinda touched on that but in a very ambiguous way:
While legal experts agree the decision struck down ISL, there is some debate about language related to the role of federal courts in election disputes. Law professor Richard L. Hasen at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that the decision’s language gave the Supreme Court “the ultimate say over the meaning of state law in the midst of an election dispute”, while University of Illinois College of Law dean Vikram Amar said that the Supreme Court had no intention “to make mischief” in such cases.[26]
Looks like they decided that the (R led) Wisconsin Supreme Court made too many majoirty-Black districts so they bumped the number down by one. I suppose that was a narrow enough issue that maybe they don’t strike this decision down, but I’m sure the derposphere is gonna go HAM on this so they might decide to Calvinball it up.
JFC I was about to stroke out thinking scotus had already turbo overturned the recent Wisconsin ruling.
Saw scotus scheduling hearing about the Colorado case. Think they going to make some broad ruling establishing the Supreme Court as the only entity that can declare a candidate an insurrectionist?
They’re going to say Trump stays on the ballot because only Congress can invoke the 14th amendment
They’ll find some out, the only question is which:
jbouie linked to this page today, which has a good summary of 14th amendment enforcements:
Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
…including a county commissioner in New Mexico who was removed from office by state courts over his participation in January 6th. But no matter how good the legal case against Trump is, it’s not like there’s any reality in which this SCOTUS kicks him off the ballot, lol
SCOTUS granted cert in two cases today that are probably going to be very bad:
Latest from the psycho 5th circuit: speech I don’t like violates the first amendment
Fuck it, everyone gets to be a lawyer cuz forcing people to meet a professional standard for the public good sounds disturbingly close to socialism.
Also, fuck them for telling me to exercise more or about the new iOS Notes app changes. SOCIALISM.
Kav ain’t gonna save us
Lol, this issue wasn’t particularly close. Like, of course the Federal Government can control the border… I guess when it’s a republican administration only.