• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Where did I suggest it was a foregone conclusion?

    Where you made this all about Biden as if there would never be another Democrat in the presidency again.

    I think you’re naive if you think the Democrats would ever do anything meaningful in that situation.

    Unlike you, I do not believe I can predict the future with that confidence. And I don’t think SCOTUS believes they can either.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Take it down a notch, dude, you’re coming in real hot and it’s not clear to me why.

      I never claimed I could predict the future. You really like putting words in my mouth.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is what you said:

        I think you’re naive if you think the Democrats would ever do anything meaningful in that situation.

        That is literally a prediction of the future. I did not put any words in your mouth.

        As far as “coming in real hot,” you are welcome to interpret what I say to you that way, but you would be incorrect.

        • prole@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          What would Democrats do? You think they’ll actually reform the Supreme Court? LOL. Even if they tried, it would never happen, and especially not before the election.

          I’m genuinely curious what you think the Democrats would do to “take advantage” of the hypothetical SCOTUS decision on Trump? What are conservative justices worried Democrats might do?

            • prole@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              The implication here is that nobody ever makes plans because “they can’t predict the future.” That’s silly.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, the implication here is that they might not rule in favor of Trump because they know the future is uncertain and doing that would be risky. I’m not sure how I could have made that more clear. If you can claim that they will definitely rule in favor of Trump then you will have certainly demonstrated your belief in your powers of prognostication.

                • prole@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You know what was also risky?

                  Ruling against Roe. Ruling that a company can refuse service to a theoretical gay customer because they’re gay. Ruling that affirmative action is unconstitutional. Ruling against Biden’s student loan forgiveness.

                  I would also say things like blatantly flaunting your billionaire handlers is pretty risky as well, and literally nothing came of that.

                  This isn’t exactly a risk-adverse SCOTUS.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So you’re saying there is only one possible way they will rule? Again, I don’t claim to predict the future.