No offense.
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
681 points (99.4% liked)
Political Memes
12033 readers
2477 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The best we can hope for is some development of class consciousness as the public sees plainly the two-tiered justice system that ignores the extreme wrongdoings of the ownership class.
Then we can work towards a society in which there is a narrower gap between the wealthy and the impoverished, and there are mechanisms to keep anyone from amassing too much wealth or political power.
Until then, civilizations will rise, rot from within and collapse has they have historically, over and over and over again.
Jury nullification in ALL criminal trials, until the Epstein class is behind bars.
Shoplifters, drug dealers, even murderers and rapists. All should go free, all should get 'not guilty' verdicts, regardless of evidence.
Until the "justice" system applies to the rich and powerful, it shouldn't apply to anyone.
I'd love to see it but we are struggling to get enough people organized to take any action. It would take a large percentage of organized jurors to hold the courts hostage that way.
If we could get 5% of the population to just plum stop paying taxes, by comparison, that would force the state to the negotiating table. 3.5% participating in a general strike would do it as well.
I've pretty much come to the conclusion that any lasting change like that will not happen in my lifetime. This is all we have ever done, it is presumably all we will ever do, failing alien invasion or a mass extinction event. And while global warming is shaping up to be the latter, I doubt the wars over water and food will suddenly turn their attention to billionaires and do something about them; it will merely slowly escalate and get worse while they gaslight the majority that everything is business as usual, until one day we wake up and all these assholes have fled into their doomsday bunkers.
I have high hopes for a superintelligent AI takeover within our lifetime.
While perhaps not likely, there's a real chance that the AI could be a benevolent and fair ruler. And, if nothing else, being better than our current (actively malicious) rulers really isn't a very high bar to clear.
as long as we don't end up with something like AM or a paperclip maximizer, an AI takeover could be okay, however given our luck so far I would not hold my breath for benevolent robot overlords.
Nothing will happen until people stop pretending violence is not a tool to be used. It is one the state uses against the working class, and it is one the working class has conceded under the delusion of voting away the owners in the system they own.
Nothing short of violent revolution will end this.
I think revolution can be accomplished without violence, at least until the ownership class resorts to violence to retain their wealth and power, at which point violence is thrust upon us.
As Nelson Mandela put it, A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle,and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor. At a point, one can only fight fire with fire.
Although Elie Mystal noted if a Democratic triumvirate were to strip SCOTUS of jurisdiction (they can do that without a Constitutional amendment) then SCOTUS might declare that law unconstitutional (it's not, but this SCOTUS doesn't really care) and then we can have a situation where some states think the court's rulings are legit, while others think they're not, and states might be willing to go to war over it.
Easier and less ambiguous solution would be to expand the size of the court and appoint new justices (it has been done in the past). Add 5 more justices to the court, all hand-picked left-leaning nominees, and the fascist elements of the court could be indefinitely neutered without any legal ambiguity whatsoever.
Or just impeach and remove the problematic justices. Several of them already have plenty of evidence to support impeachment for corruption.
There are a number of ideas to help regulate the power of the court. Adding more members is a popular one, but that isn't going to prevent Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society from conspiring to pack the court again with ideologues, partisans and corrupt crooks (looking at you, Clarence Thomas).
And impeaching and removing a justice is as difficult as impeaching and removing a president, which is to say, nearly impossible.
One option is to add a lot of new justices, like bringing the total to one hundred. A small number of them would bench a committee to choose the cases to be heard, and then for each individual case, six to nine of the pool would be tapped to hear it, the way that the other courts operate. That way it takes a lot more effort and resources for corporations and billionaires to bribe all the justices. It's also a lot harder for organizations like the Federalist Society to dominate the court. (They'll try, but it'll be evident they are trying long before it creates an unbreakable veto on the rest of government.)
Currently, legal experts are looking at a multi-pronged approach, installing term limits (that will require a constitutional amendment), adding judges, and chartering a mandatory code of ethics enforced by congressional committee. I'm afraid that doing these three will not be enough, and it won't fix the problem quickly enough.
We're beyond mild reforms of the Supreme Court. We need to break it, and then create something else new in its place. And stripping it of its jurisdiction as the last court of appeals that decides constitutionality, will go far in that effort.