1102
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
1102 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19248 readers
2173 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You people make it sound like Thomas is somehow responsible for the slew of right-wing decisions of the court and not the fact that trump got 3 judges in there
They are both problems, but if blatant corruption concerns you less than which way they naturally lean, you might be a partisan moron.
The republicans aren't calling for him to step down so this is partisan politics, not an actual call for ethics reform.
That is because one party at least tries to be ethical most of the time and the other doesn't even have the courtesy to pretend. Ethics shouldn't be a party issue but here we are.
Both parties have a multitude of sketchy relationships, and a shady past. Manchins a democrat and he's the biggest sellout for Big Oil
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/20/joe-manchin-big-oil-democratic-senator
And yet one side is clearly worse than the other
Nobody's falling for your crap here
All day long on this community.
Hell, link one. One link.
https://lemmy.world/post/5229048
Have an entire thread.
"Ah like muh poleeticks like ah like muh football. Muh teem no mattur wut!"
No, I expect the usual will happen, everyone will try to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist
Kind of like your attitude towards reality?
A little secret: he ain't a Democrat. He just said so because the old folks in his State remember when their grandparents voted Democrat.
Anti-corruption should be bipartisan.
But it isn't. Conservatives aren't interested in democracy, they're interested in winning. So act accordingly.
And Trump should have been removed when he was impeached.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mitch-mcconnell-acquit-trump/index.html
Clarence Thomas has been a skeevy moron for a loooong time. Of course Trump's three appointments are why certain cases are getting pushed to SCOTUS, and why they're being ruled on the way they are, and I don't think anyone is trying to put that on Thomas alone.
The court has shifted hard right, and Thomas is corrupt.
Did I say he wasn't? The fact that he's being targeted alone is the issue I have, there's 0 articles posted here talking about any other judge
Oh shit, do you have evidence of other justices engaging in a similar level of corruption?? I'm very interested to see any articles or evidence you have to that effect.
Otherwise engage with the topic at hand, which is Thomas and the Koch brothers.
Well, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito have some stank on them, but one is dead, and the other two were smart enough to cover their tracks better. Kavanaugh had hundreds of thousands of dollars in gambling debt magically disappear before he was seated. I wonder if "whoever" paid that off wants something in return...
None of those rise to the rank of "wHy aReN't wE tAlKiNg aBoUt ThEm?? though. The crimes or corruption of a dead guy, and Kavanaugh whose corruption was widely discussed before and during and after his confirmation, don't warrant changing the topic away from crimes and corruption freshly unearthed about Thomas.
Dude was being distracting on purpose.
What are you talking about? Who is changing the topic? I'm saying ALL of the conservative Justices are as corrupt as Thomas. The Heritage Foundation, which is heavily connected to Koch, pushed Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. They're ALL bought and paid for.
This is the comment I had a problem with, not yours. Thomas isn't being "targeted" , he's having huge scandals break. He isn't being targeted alone the scandals of his peers have broken years ago (the ones that have broken thus far anyway, I'm sure there's more we don't know about yet). And those scandals were widely discussed at the time they broke.
Why would there be current articles about the other justices when we don't have current scandals for them? That's why I say the dude (not you, you're good) was trying to change the topic.
You are wrong, and you're doubling down because you know you're wrong. Bad habit.
I'm wrong in thinking that vaguely asking for articles about other justices instead of engaging with the current discussion of a specific justice whose scandal just broke is distracting? How?
And why are you and I fighting about this? You're not even the guy I called out for being distracting. I don't have beef with you.
And btw, I'm doubling down because I know that I'm right. When I know I'm wrong I just admit it, like an adult.
Howabout you grow up?
I've seen Alito come up a time or two, especially in the context of his insistence that there are no checks on the judicial branch. But he's been in some comprimising ethical situations like Thomas has, too.
People are only able to post here about news that is reported. The dominos are falling fast on Thomas. I'd bet that there is some kind of investigation already going on into Thomas' and other SCOTUS justices around unethical payments, and that so much is being discovered about Thomas that the presumed investigation will become public quite soon. The other justices? Maybe they're being looked at very closely, too, but their dominos aren't falling as fast.
We don't know exactly why so many details about Thomas' receiving payments under the table are reaching the media to be reported on, but somebody is digging, and they're digging like it's their job, because it very likely is. There's a lot that is not publicly known, so quit acting like randos on the internet should be posting news stories that don't exist. Or if they do exist, post them your fucking self.
it's almost like having appointed supreme court judges without term limits is a colossally bad idea
Like many things, the core concept was good for the time.. To try to insulate the court from unstable politics and presidential whims, in the interests of a stable legal system that doesnt have to be afraid of being replaced when they displease the president.
its just no one had the foresight to see that one side would betray the country 200 years in the future and turn the court into a corrupt, bought and paid for factory from which the undermining and destruction of democracy could be launched.
The Supreme Court was thrown into chaos because republicans refused to appoint any justices under Obama (Edit. I neglected to specify in his last year, Thanks to the next poster for pointing that out), This giving them more than enough picks under their guy to permanantly damage the court and skew it forever in their favor short of radical action.
Now, now, Obama DID get Sotomayor and Kagan. McConnell only blocked Merrick Garland.
That being said, in my lifetime, Democratic Presidents have only put FIVE members on the court, Republicans got 15. Carter is the one who drew a blank.
Nixon/Ford got as many in their two terms as all the Democrats since then COMBINED.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader - Clinton
Breyer, Stephen G. - Clinton
Sotomayor, Sonia - Obama
Kagan, Elena - Obama
Jackson, Ketanji Brown - Biden
Burger, Warren Earl - Nixon
Blackmun, Harry A. - Nixon
Powell, Lewis F., Jr. - Nixon
Rehnquist, William H. - Nixon
Stevens, John Paul - Ford
O'Connor, Sandra Day - Reagan
Scalia, Antonin - Reagan
Kennedy, Anthony M. - Reagan
Souter, David H. - Bush, G. H. W.
Thomas, Clarence - Bush, G. H. W.
Roberts, John G., Jr. - Bush, G. W.
Alito, Samuel A., Jr. - Bush, G. W.
Gorsuch, Neil M. - Trump
Kavanaugh, Brett M. - Trump
Barrett, Amy Coney - Trump
You are right. I forgot to specify in his last year, that is entirely on me.
I don't think "in his last year" matters. That's some calvinball nonsense McConnell pulled out of his ass to justify grinding the function of his branch of government to a halt and everyone just... went along with it. The year isn't what mattered, what mattered was that Obama was a black Democratic president and McConnell thought he could get away with it.
"The Founders" (I hate that term) were trusting everyone would act in good faith, and be of good moral character. They were very mistaken.
But if God didn't want them to be there, they wouldn't be. And we all know God doesn't make mistakes, and knows best, don't we? 'Murica! What Index Fund Would Jeebus Use?
A lot of the shit Thomas has slipped into his writing over the years has been used to justify the worst parts of the recent terms.
Thomas is the most right-wing of the current justices, so much so that he has actually (partially) dissented when the other right-wingers don't go far enough for his tastes.
One of the others will write something, and he'll come in with a concurrence and try to take it so much further, and he does it every single time he's not given the majority opinion.
So you're saying keep Thomas on the court because he's done such a good job?
You can thank Muck McGoon for that.
Whare are yoi getting that from?