[walrushunter]

There's no other way to see it.

I'm not sure why the parent comment decided to bring politics into it. You'd think the idea that the government shouldn't be able to accuse you of a crime and take your money without a trial would be bipartisan.

[wpietri]

> I'm not sure why the parent comment decided to bring politics into it.

The Federalist Society and their fellow travelers have been politicizing the Supreme Court for literal decades. To talk about the Supreme Court while avoiding any mention of politics is a itself a stridently political act.

[skybrian]

Further back then that. Supreme Court has been a political institution all along. (The Marbury vs. Madison decision was an interesting political maneuver.)

[tbrownaw]

> I'm not sure why the parent comment decided to bring politics into it.

It's the standard way to denounce decisions you don't like.

[cheschire]

There was a recent video by John Oliver going deep into the politics of the supreme court, so it's in the public discourse enough recently that the two concepts of justice and politics are probably linked for some folks.

It's one of those annoying things that tends to happen a month out from presidential elections I guess.

[ThunderSizzle]

John Oliver has enough bad takes and lies that I'm at the point that if he says something, I assume it's a lie at this point. Or at least his conclusions are lies

[cheschire]

Yeah I tend to take it more as satire or wild exaggeration than real investigative reporting.

When his buddy Joel McHale, who also acted on the fictional TV show "Community" along with John Oliver, tried making his own hot take comedy news show, it really put things in perspective for me.

Now I watch it for the comedy aspect as much as anything I see on other news media these days. Take what I see with John Oliver amped up to a solid 9 or 10, divide it by 10, and that's probably how serious or impactful the thing actually is that he is reporting on.