Both articles are from like 2 weeks ago, in case republicans claim it was brought up just for the Clarence Thomas thing.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/20/trammell-crow-jr-billionaire-linked-sarah-ferguson-accused-financing/

https://dallasexpress.com/national/trammell-crow-jr-named-in-human-trafficking-case/

@cspam This is partly right and partly wrong. Yes, the left is furious that the #Republicans unfairly stacked the #SupremeCourt after denying Obama his pick for a justice. It's a matter of basic fairness, a concept that Republicans seem to know nothing about (or they just reject it outright).

However, what they don't understand is that the Supreme Court wouldn't be getting 1/100th of the attention that it is getting since they started making decisions that are obviously political rather than deferring to establish precedent. I mean, if you are going to kick precedent in the teeth, then let's start by reviewing some truly terrible past court decisions, such as Citizens United. But they won't do that, because that decision primarily benefited rich white Republican men.

So now here we have a black justice who is voting to oppress people in various ways that don't affect those rich white Republican men much, and people can't understand it. Logically, it makes no sense that a black man would be carrying the water for his oppressors. UNLESS he is not feeling at all oppressed. Here he has a rich, white, allegedly racist man showering him with gifts and favors, and apparently that's enough to make him completely forget his roots. In the days of slavery there would have been a term for someone like him, that starts with the word "house" and ends in a racial slur. He's in that position precisely because he can be bought with favoritism and things of material value, and is willing to turn on his own people in order to keep the favors coming. He thinks of that rich white guy as his friend but would they still be friends if he was not doing the rich white guy's bidding? Maybe HE doesn't understand the power dynamic there, but the rich white guy who likes nazi memoribilia sure does.

Of course Republicans are such snowflakes that if you criticize them for even the most valid of reasons, it must be because you're biased against them. They cannot believe that some people might truly have ethical concerns about Thomas because they themselves have no ethics. But what they also don't get is that if you start taking people's rights away, the perople are going to start to wonder why, and what is motivating these people. Why are they so full of hate? Why do they want women and people of color and LGBTQ+ people to be oppressed or dead? And then they start making connections like these.

There's this thing about beehives. If you leave them alone the bees won't bother you (usually). But if you kick one, the angry bees come out and sting you. Republicans are like wild animals, they don't learn from their mistakes and they keep attacking beehives, metaphorically speaking. And while anyone can survive a few stings, enough stings will kill you, and if the Republicans are trying to kill their party's chances of future survival they are doing a great job. First of all much of their base is old, and as for their younger supporters they have convinced many of them that masks and vaccinations are unnecessary, so many of them might not be among the living in the near future. Where do they think all their votes are coming from? Seems the only way they can win is by rigging elections and that is what they are trying their hardest to do, but I don't think that's a great long term strategy.

As for the WSJ, remember who their audience is. They are writing for the rich white men that read their trash. If they think you are doing something wrong, that probably means you're achieving more success than they'd like! So keep digging into the lives of these reprehensible people; if they are on the take or have other ethical issues the people should definitely know about it!