I’m sorry but what? This is really weird logic as language and words aren’t required to follow some linear path of severity. People call the GOP, Trump and the like Nazis because… they fit the definition of Nazis, actual card carrying Nazis support them by a significant majority. (Yeah yeah I know there is the odd one here or there that doesn’t)

If it walks like a Nazi, talks like a Nazi and engages in Nazi tactics, behaviors etc. Then it can be called a Nazi. You don’t reserve your language so that you have some end point to progress to.

It’s also very weird to use the boy who cried wolf when the whole point of that story is that you don’t call something that which it isn’t for fear that when the real thing comes along no one will believe you as that would imply that they are in fact not Nazis. Which would only be true in the most technical of sense (As in they are not of the Nazi party of Germany) but by most dictionary definition the word fits.

Lastly, what the hell are you even talking about “edgy”? Do you think people are calling them Nazis to be edgy? Because that’s ridiculous and quite frankly your entire comment screams of someone trying to defend them through deflection.

What irritates me about this is the blatant double standard, I dare not say hypocrisy because the double standards are the point. Thomas himself benefited from affirmative action and was supportive of it when it benefited him, and likewise too Trump handed out unaccountable, unauditable and broadly forgiven PPP loans in a significantly large “alteration” of the economy. So the conservative justices are essentially saying that when things benefit them and/or their side they are supportive of it from a judicial standpoint but when it does not benefit them and/or benefits what they would likely view as the opposing side then they are against it.

But that’s not how the law or its interpretation is supposed to be. Laws are not meant to favor one group over another and even in the rare instance where that is inevitable it isn’t supposed to be subjective or arbitrary. It is supposed to be grounded in legal principle and precedent, two things that are consistently being ignored or discarded by this conservative majority just like their legislative and executive cohorts.

While that’s not a bad idea, until you actually root out the core corruption it would likely only ever exist on paper. The rich and corrupt will find a way around it even if they have to buy legislators to engineer a loophole for them.