3 ms·

Yeah, who would want to protect government officials? /s

• horsawlarway 4y ago
  They already have it in copious forms from other laws. So basically - it's another showboat law, which is the point of the whole comment. Seems you missed the point.
  • jtbayly 4y ago
    The point seemed clear to me that Supreme Court deserved what it had coming to it if they did stuff that "blew up in their faces."
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • jonhohle 4y ago
    I remember the hearings around MLB steroid use and discussions on whether new federal laws should be written to “prevent” drugs that were already illegal (or in breach of contract) from being used by an entertainment industry. If the executive branch wasn’t investigating existing laws That already applied, what effect would new laws that were more narrowly defined provide? It seemed so stupid until considered from the perspective that MLB superstars were getting a lot of media time and politicians weren’t. Now they had a chance to butt in and spend the majority of the time in front of the camera on a subject they were likely briefed on moments before any “hearings”. After participating (very briefly) in a local precinct political process within a single party a few years later, I’ve effectively lost hope in the political process. There are self-serving, narcissistic sociopaths who will do anything for perceived power and well funded entities who will prevent anything truly populist from gaining traction. I feel like the disillusionment it breeds is intentional.
    • rjbwork 4y ago
      >I feel like the disillusionment it breeds is intentional. Absolutely. Demoralization of the proletariat is priority number one for the bourgeoisie. You don't have to spend huge amounts of resources fighting them if there is no one to fight in the first place.