Yes
Isn’t there a journalism rule about not having a headline be a question with a yes or no answer? Seems like there should be.
You’re likely thinking of this:
Guess there’s always an exception, huh?
I wouldn’t call it an exception (although there are always exceptions), the problem here lies in the word “sympathizers”, it’s too ambiguous. The answer is technically no, they’re just conservatives who are technically not insurrectionist sympathizers. But they are.
That’s some pretty convoluted reasoning, there.
I applaud the effort. But either they are or they aren’t.
Thomas is married to an insurrectionist, allito is flying symbols used by the insurrectionists.
And the other conservatives on the court are all ardently supporting Trump with half baked rulings buying increasing amounts of time to- they hope- delay the trial long enough for it to not matter.
I wouldn’t actually call them sympathizers- I’d just call them insurrectionists.
Of course it’s convoluted reasoning, I’m repeating what the conservatives believe? The effort does not come from me.
Let’s not pretend they openly admit it was anything close to an insurrection, theyre just trying to “bring us back to Jesus”. We all know what it was and what they are trying to do
the problem here lies in the word “sympathizers”,
I’d say - the term enablers would be more apt.
Isn’t there a journalism rule about not having a headline be a question with a yes or no answer?
To be fair, this seems more like a yes or really yes question.
…and why?
Removed by mod
Or a real sweet RV.
Side note, as much of a piece of shit that Thomas is…his love of RVs is a bit endearing. Like watching a middle-aged autistic incel playing with his model trains. Except he’s really smiling because he shit in your cereal, not because of the trains.
Yes. Full stop. No question mark necessary
Removed by mod
Alito and Thomas have been biding their time on the Court, waiting for the 50 year conservative project to come to fruition, and now that it is they’re no longer willing to play pretend as objective neutral jurists. Their argument is simple “we won, we can do whatever we want”.
They’d be willing to pretend if they had to, but now there’s no need.
Unless a super majority were to get elected to congress, that could either impeach them or at least pass laws governing their emoluments and conflicts of interest.
Just need a trifecta with a spine to kill the filibuster and pass laws. Or some executives with balls of steel to take the fight to the court and flex their own power in the law-enforcing part of the equation. They aren’t omnipotent determiners of law.
Does the Pope shit in the woods?
Yes. Coup plotter sympathizers, too. Don’t forget the coup plot. The insurrection was more exciting to cover; the coup plot was (and is) the real danger to our country.
I mistook the headline for an Onion article.
Do frat boys assault underaged girls?
yes
Alito and Thomas = Corrupt facist traitors 🗑
Yes.
This is one of the only question headlines I can remember where the answer isn’t no.
Duh. Majority of SCOTUS are a disgrace.
It’s a break of the normal rule that any article title that poses a question can be answered with ‘no’
Duh
