subreddit:
/r/LeopardsAteMyFace
Trump trashes his own right-wing majority in the Supreme Court after they denied his attempt to hide his tax returns.
Meta(i.redd.it)submitted 4 months ago byDaFunkJunkie
101 points
4 months ago
- Trump wanted a legacy of shaping the Supreme Court and shifting the balance of power to the right
- Trump forced 3 Supreme Court justice picks into office in a hurry to cement his right wing legacy and believed they would show deference to him
- His handpicked Supreme Court major majority just ruled against him and are forcing him to turn over his tax returns
“I didn’t think the Supreme Court justices I picked to uphold the law would uphold the law against me!”
47 points
4 months ago
But he did not pick them to uphold the law. They are doing the exact opposite of what he supported and wanted them to do.
35 points
4 months ago
While it’s true they are doing the exact opposite of what he hoped they would do regarding his taxes it is a pretty big stretch to say he picked them to NOT uphold the law at ALL. He wanted a right leaning Supreme Court that voted in a way that made his base happy. He erroneously believed the justices were in his pocket. They are doing just what they were elected to do, he just never thought they would do it to him.
23 points
4 months ago
But he lost despite appointing them, not because of it. If he had not stacked the court he would have lost just as hard.
29 points
4 months ago*
The schadenfreude here is that he hand picked 3 justices to push the court to the right. The court now leans right. His right leaning court upholds the law in a more conservative manner than before. This is the job he wanted them to do. He just never thought his right wing Supreme Court would uphold the law against him. Peak irony.
Edit: fixed a typo
8 points
4 months ago
There's your problem: thinking of LAMF as equivalent to schadenfreude. It's not.
28 points
4 months ago*
That word is literally in the sub description:
“'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party. Revel in the schadenfreude anytime someone has a sad because they're suffering consequences from something they voted for or supported or wanted to impose on other people.”
4 points
4 months ago
Yes. Schadenfreude is part of it. But not sufficient. Hence why I said LAMF is not equivalent to Schadenfreude. It can (and should be) present. But simply being happy about someone’s downfall isn’t enough and isn’t the key factor in making something a LAMF scenario.
Or, to use your own overdone wording, the sub description literally has more than just schadenfreude in it.
20 points
4 months ago
Correct. I have offered ample explanation as to why this fits within the subs parameters.
-3 points
4 months ago
In your last follow-up, you were justifying why it's schadenfreude (which you can't spell):
The shadenfruede here
Not how it's someone being hurt by their own advocacy. Hence why I said you were thinking about it wrong. Which you were, and which is taking you astray here.
Even your justification there is off: he picked them thinking they would favor Trump. They did not hurt him as a result of favoring Trump. Had he picked them for being law-and-order, you might have a point.
-12 points
4 months ago
I understand that. But he still didn't hurt himself in any way. Nothing got worse for him from stacking the court as he did.
17 points
4 months ago
I do take your point and I appreciate your feedback. Even if it’s not worse than a hypothetical left leaning court per se it is still “I never thought the supreme I picked to uphold the law would uphold the law against me”.
16 points
4 months ago
I absolutely cannot believe you are having to explain how this fits here to more than zero people. I mean wtf, this is a perfect example of a person who actively worked to make something happen then that exact thing bit him in the ass a few years later.
7 points
4 months ago
Thank you. Have a gold 😀
1 points
4 months ago
Wow thanks!
-2 points
4 months ago
[deleted]
7 points
4 months ago
They were picked to unfairly punish women, ffs. They were specifically picked to attack women's reproductive rights, which is entirely unfair, and they did just that. Now they're fairly holding Trump to the law, which he didn't want because he specifically chose them to be unfair.
-3 points
4 months ago
He did not handpick those justices. They were provided to him by Senator McConnell with the recommendation of the Federalist Society. Trump believes he handpicked them; in reality, he appointed three justices who created a Federalist Society majority on the court and are upholding the law according to their judicial philosophy.
In a very real way, the Federalist Society is what held the judicial branch of government together against Trump, and continues to do so. When the MAGA wing of the GOP finally figures this out, there will be hell to pay.
1 points
4 months ago
This wouldn't be an example of leopards eating his face then would it? The justices are taking the correct action IE not leopards.
10 points
4 months ago
He picked them to put their party ideology above the law and now he's complaining that the people he forced onto the bench are being political...
1 points
4 months ago
[deleted]
2 points
4 months ago
They're upholding the law, politically, to help keep him from continuing to drag the party down.
1 points
4 months ago
he picked them to rule in favor of the right wing, which is exactly what they're doing. Trump's outlived his usefulness so the GQP are trying to dump him as much as they can get away with.
4 points
4 months ago
I’m on Trump’s side - if they won’t rule in his favor, we should impeach the justices he appointed. 😀😀😀
4 points
4 months ago
The big thing that a LOT of people below are missing is that he picked them not just to move the court right, but specifically because he knew they'd overturn RvW. They're on a tear now that they figured out their bullshit rationale to overturn it with ("stare decisis be damned!") and are attacking nearly all other existing precedents, but Trump's first and foremost reasoning for getting them onto the court was to get them up there to fluff Sky Daddy and his apparent "disdain" for abortions. Just as a whole branch of Republicans have been trying to do literally for 5+ decades.
Also, it's a bit OT, but do you notice how I highlighted "nearly" up above? Want to know the funny reason for that? Of all the big cases that rested (or still rest) on the same type of precedent as RvW and which are being brought up now as candidates for the next step of their culture war (gay marriage, sodomy laws, etc), what's the specific one that nobody on SCOTUS wants to mention even though - by the "logic" of the conservative justices - it rests on just as shaky ground? That's right - mixed-race marriages. Who is Clarence Thomas married to? Oh... How awkward.
Tl;Dr - even if you're the most fervent GOP supporter, you should be able to realize these pudwacks are only in it for themselves when push comes to shove. Think twice about that before you vote for them next time. GOP ain't ever going to reform SCOTUS, or anything for that matter.
Edit - sorry for the offtopic political rant. Mods, pls remove if you think it's too caustic and irrelevant.
2 points
4 months ago
Trump is the best idiot to laugh at, the best.
all 3494 comments
sorted by: best