Did they really “fall” for it though? Or did they just spread it because it fit their agenda?

Plus, NORMALLY in reporting like this, there would be a link to see if the readers vehicle is impacted. I don’t think Reuters even bothered.

https://owners.kia.com/us/en/recalls.html

Says it’s updated as of 9/26.

“I demand summary judgement!”

“GRANTED!”

“No… not like that…”

IIRC this is the case where his lawyers neglected to ask for a jury trial, so it’s all on the judge and he IS NOT having it…

Found liable for sexual assault and defamation in civil court isn’t quite the same as “convicted sex offender” in criminal court.

For example, he doesn’t (yet) have to join a sex offender registry.

“what happens next is… unchartered territory.”

Weird choice of graphic. Why flip the US and place it on the left?

The Chinese map isn’t flipped, so it’s not a case of the entire graphic being mirrored…

“over-50 demographic”

Hey, hey, hey, don’t group all of us in with those assholes…

It’s a common theme:

“We want state’s rights!”

“Great, my state wants legal marijuana, gay marriage, safe and legal abortions, and physician assisted suicide.”

“No, not like that!”

Yup. I, personally, want 100% vote by mail. We’ve been doing it in my state since 2000, it’s safe, effective, results in high turnout and engagement, really nothing to hate.

Oh, except Republicans lose when more people vote. ;)

The Supreme Court was thrown into chaos because republicans refused to appoint any justices under Obama

Now, now, Obama DID get Sotomayor and Kagan. McConnell only blocked Merrick Garland.

That being said, in my lifetime, Democratic Presidents have only put FIVE members on the court, Republicans got 15. Carter is the one who drew a blank.

Nixon/Ford got as many in their two terms as all the Democrats since then COMBINED.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx

Ginsburg, Ruth Bader - Clinton
Breyer, Stephen G. - Clinton
Sotomayor, Sonia - Obama
Kagan, Elena - Obama
Jackson, Ketanji Brown - Biden

Burger, Warren Earl - Nixon
Blackmun, Harry A. - Nixon
Powell, Lewis F., Jr. - Nixon
Rehnquist, William H. - Nixon
Stevens, John Paul - Ford
O’Connor, Sandra Day - Reagan
Scalia, Antonin - Reagan
Kennedy, Anthony M. - Reagan
Souter, David H. - Bush, G. H. W.
Thomas, Clarence - Bush, G. H. W.
Roberts, John G., Jr. - Bush, G. W.
Alito, Samuel A., Jr. - Bush, G. W.
Gorsuch, Neil M. - Trump
Kavanaugh, Brett M. - Trump
Barrett, Amy Coney - Trump

And Trump should have been removed when he was impeached.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mitch-mcconnell-acquit-trump/index.html

It’s less the economic definition than it is this:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/banana-republic

noun - Usually Disparaging.

1. a small, poor country, often reliant on a single export or limited resource, governed by an authoritarian regime and characterized by corruption and economic exploitation by foreign corporations conspiring with local government officials.

2. any exploitative government that functions poorly for its citizenry while disproportionately benefiting a corrupt elite group or individual.

Unlike the House, Senate races are state wide and can’t be gerrymandered.

It’s going to take a major effort focused on reforming the Supreme Court to flip those seats, but looking at 2020, we flipped BOTH seats in Georgia which is about as red as it gets.

I don’t want to cast aspersions but:

“about three miles from the Kentucky state line.”

Seems to hit a couple of different stereotypes…

We need to look forward to 2024, take back the House and get a 60 vote majority in the Senate, along with the White House…maybe then, things will change.

I dunno if “serious problems” is quite it. There are 535 active members of the House and Senate, 50 active Governors, and lord only knows how many living former members of those positions.

Each case is a political tragedy, but coming up with a couple dozen cases out of multiple hundreds of people doesn’t seem endemic.

One the author seems to have missed was the 28 month long DOJ investigation into Democratic Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber for influence peddling.

Ultimately, it resulted in 0 charges, but Kitzhaber was forced to resign and was hit with multiple ethics violations.

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2015/02/gov_john_kitzhaber_resigns_ami.html

https://www.opb.org/news/article/john-kitzhaber-us-attorneys-wont-charge-former-oregon-governor-first-lady/

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/ethics-panel-finds-former-oregon-gov-kitzhaber-guilty-of-10-violations/

It’s pretty clear you have no concept of how our system of government works.

The Supreme Court is the top tier of the Judicial Branch, the 3rd “Separate but Equal” part of our government.

You can’t just decide “Well, I don’t like you, I don’t have to do what you say.” Doing so cracks the very foundation of what our government is built on.

Same if someone decided to ignore the President (Executive Branch) or a ruling coming from the House and Senate (Legislative Branch).

The only difference is the President has the ability to sign or veto laws passed by Congress, and Congress can over-ride a veto.

There is no similar constraint on Supreme Court rulings. They are the arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional. That’s their job. If you disagree with that, your options are 1) pass a new amendment or 2) a Constitutional convention.

Whether I like or dislike their definition of the 2nd amendment is irrelevant. It’s THEIR definition. It’s settled law. My liking it or disliking it doesn’t change that.

Want to change it? Make sure we have Democratic Presidents exclusively for, oh, the next 20 to 25 years or so. Hope we don’t have another block like they did with Merrick Garland.

Thomas (75) and Alito (73) are the next likely two to age out. If that happens under a Democratic President, it could shift the balance from 6-3 to 4-5. Given ages of court deaths and retirees that’s probably 10-15 years from now.

The next three though are Sotomayor (69), Roberts (68) and Kagan (63). Say what you want about Roberts, but he has served as a key swing vote, siding with the “liberal” judges on multiple occasions. Losing any or all of them under a Republican President would lock in a conservative court long past my lifetime.

Kavanaugh (58), Gorsuch (56), Jackson (53) and Barrett (51) could all be with us for 30 years or more. So that’s a baked in 3:1 disadvantage until maybe 2053? I’m 54 myself, so it’s unlikely I’ll live to see this.

I can’t help you if you continue denying the reality of the situation.

The highest court in the country has ruled. That’s it. It’s over. They are going to make more gun rulings and I guarantee it will get worse.

The court DOES NOT CARE what you, or I, or anyone else thinks about their rulings, they don’t have to because they know there’s absolutely no check on their power. They can’t be overturned, the House and Senate won’t impeach them, and Biden will never pack the court (if he did, the next Republican President would just re-pack it the other way.)

They might get overturned in 50 years, like Roe did, but that seems highly unlikely given how the court is becoming more conservative, not less conservative. In my life there have only been 5 Democratic appointees to the court compared to 14 Republican ones.

I’m not asking you to LIKE it. I’m asking you to acknowledge that the court and it’s rulings are not illegitimate. They are a function of our founding document and denying that is to deny what it means to be an American.

You can’t do that without throwing out the Constitution, where all these entities are defined.

You’re free to not like it, it doesn’t change the law of the land.