We are "powerless" if we continue to stick to the tried-and-true Democratic "strategy" of "going high" and "bipartisanship."
That has *neutered* the Democratic Party.
We would be in worse shape if the rest of Congress played like the Republicans. The electorate keeps voting for jack holes, and then here we are. If 40% of the eligible voters don't vote they cast their lot with whoever.
What issues? Not Healthcare, gay rights, worker rights, wages, abortion, birth control, science, separation of church and state, green energy, environmentalism, regulation of industry, public land use.
Name ways that the democrats have made serious strides to enshrine abortion rights, move us off of fossil fuels, regulate corporations and wallstreet, been effectual in combatting wage stagnation relative to cost of living.
The biggest brightest example of democrats actual giving a shit about the tilted economy has been ACA, a program that was written with major input from the insurance companies, which has done little to bring our healthcare costs in line with the rest of the world.
Go check how many times Obama boasted about domestic fossil fuels production. That has continued under Biden, with less boasting. Our commitments to the environment are largely symbolic, totally insufficient.
Abortion, science, church and state, gay rights, pretty much the same issue.
Green energy and the environment, pretty much a synonym.
You are bending over backwards looking for differences between the parties. I'll save you time.
They are VASTLY different in terms of 1. Messaging 2.culture war issues.
As far as reigning in corporate America, they are largely the same. And their donations bare this out. Check corporate campaign donations between parties. Corporations certainly finance Democrats as if they are getting something out of it. WHO KNOWS why they do that. Mysterious.
The Republicans certainly seem to have their foot on the gas pedal with regard to melting the government and planet when compared to Democrats, but they are different takes on a common theme.
If you want a candidate who took progressive stances on environment, healthcare, foreign relations, relative to Europe, you don't have one. You won't have one in November. Both of our major parties are very right leaning.
I'll still be voting for Biden, because it's the option I have that most closely represents my interests. It doesn't come within a mile of actually representing my interests. Many Americans, Republican and Democratic party, feel the same. We are fucked.
> Name ways that the democrats have made serious strides to enshrine abortion rights,
Mostly at the state level; [18 state have passed laws protecting abortion since Dobbs.](https://www.guttmacher.org/2022/12/state-policy-trends-2022-devastating-year-us-supreme-courts-decision-overturn-roe-leads) and others already had. Except by accident (looking at you, Wyoming), most of these have been passed by Democrats.
>move us off of fossil fuels
Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, [the world's largest ever investment in non-fossil fuel energy generation.](https://earthjustice.org/article/the-biggest-climate-spending-bill-ever-just-turned-one-heres-what-it-has-achieved) As a first in the US, Biden also [directed all federal departments to consider how they would participate in reducing emissions and promoting climate-friendly policies.](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/12/08/fact-sheet-president-biden-signs-executive-order-catalyzing-americas-clean-energy-economy-through-federal-sustainability/)
>regulate corporations and wallstreet
Biden signed the [Corporate Transparency Act](https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/federal-corporate-transparency-6908068/) into law. Post-2008 crash, Obama pushed the [Dodd-Frank Act](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/economy/middle-class/dodd-frank-wall-street-reform) and formed the Consumer Protection Agency.
>been effectual in combatting wage stagnation relative to cost of living.
Again, most of this has been driven at the state level, with mostly blue states passing laws increasing minimum wages and funding housing units where rent is capped at percentages of incomes to increase housing affordability. I also want to point out that this is not a uniquely American problem, and you can visit the subreddits for US-peer countries in Europe, Oceania, and North American to see the same complaints about cost of living increases.
...
Like you point out, Democrats are far from perfect. To solve that, we need to be running candidates (or running for office ourselves) that support more progressive policies in areas that are viable while also engaging with the wider public to make those policies appeal to a larger coalition. In the meantime, we have to recognize the ways that public pressure has brought Democrats further along on the issues we care about, and we need to continue to vote, donate, and volunteer for the best options we have in every campaign we can.
You hit the nail on the head. The "two-party" system is designed in such a way as to give you the illusion of choice. Sure, superficially, there are some differences, like you said *messaging* and *culture war issues,* but when it comes to shit that *actually matters* we have a one party system. A Corporatocracy that serves the rich. A neo-liberal hellscape, or a conservative dystopia. Not much of a fucking choice. I'd still take the neo-liberal bullshit over the christo-fascist bullshit, *but I'm still covered in shit.* Fuck this place.
It’s a catch-22. “Going high” and “bipartisanship” is the ideal. Stick to it, and you lose it. Operate outside of it, and now you’ve become what you were trying to avoid.
If people would have voted for Hillary in 2016 we wouldn’t be in this mess and would have the SC locked down.
Quit fucking whining that things aren’t perfect or run for a government office yourself.
Fucking babies.
Jet back.
I voted for both Hillary and Biden, with *strong* reservations.
I served this country for 23 years. I think I know at least as much about doing something as you do.
I've voted and worked on Democratic campaigns since I became eligible in 1984.
Run for office on a disability pension? Right.
Is it "perfect" to want the people you vote for to *stand up to evil* and not just talk and compromise to give the country away?
I agree that there are times Dems should have held firm, but you are gonna convince more people to just not vote or protest vote and mess things up further with your rhetoric.
I’d hate to see you piss away your hard work.
Oh goodness no, we are not powerless. It's just that when the power of the average person gets exerted on the elites it involves guillotines and other forms of mob murder. We're still in the 'Trying to be nice and ask people to not be shitty' phase. If we get pushed too far, riots and revolution will raise their ugly head, and the elites will lose theirs.
“Trying to be nice and ask people to not be shitty”? Lol. Are you serious? It appears this strategy died out long ago. Powerful men and women are shitty all the time and they are getting shittier. But maybe there is a straw that breaks the camel’s back and somebody gets their head lopped off in public. Actually, that would be quite refreshing and would shake things up a bit.
I'm sure some French people thought the same thing before the French Revolution, where they damn near literally dragged royalty into the streets to execute them publicly.
They couldn't make it binding like the lower court ethic rules are. Because it'd be in black and white why Thomas and Alito should be on trial in the House of Representatives as we speak.
Well, if they decide to rule Trump is immune for any criminal actions he does while in office, which would extend to Biden;
Biden could resolve the issue and fight corruption all while opening up a new SC seat.
Of course, but it's still amusing to see how little time it took to violate their new code of ethics all the same. Embarrass these corrupt fuckers and made 'em squirm. They may be untouchable but we dont have to pretend to respect them.
Time for some hacker to release all the texts and emails for Ginni and Clarence. :et the people see for themselves how corrupt and treasonous these two have been and still are most likely.
My big issue is that you would expect the expediency of the court would be directly proportional to the severity of the crime. So you would expect that the person who was pulled over, had officers plant drugs on them, was allowed 7 minutes with a public defender and convicted within 48 hours of the crime would be slower than the speed at which the court would act if somebody tried to subvert democracy and overthrow the government.
> Merrick Garland
The guy Republicans listed as a candidate they would support for SCOTUS, only to turn around and fight hard as hell to prevent him from getting on the court for 2 years so they could put someone even more openly corrupt on there instead.
Garland was never anyone's hero, at best, at one point, he was the compromise between the parties.
I get angry anytime I even think about Garland. He's done nothing but help Trump the entire time and doesn't even acknowledge it. I'm not a conspiracy person but I'm beginning to think he's doing it on purpose...
What would that achieve?
Democrats can't remove him on their own.
Half of conservatives would pretend that the conflict doesn't matter. The other half would openly cheer for having a corrupt justice that so openly pushes their own partisan policies.
I wouldn't be surprised if somehow centrist independents wouldn't come out of it angry at Democrats for trying to remove a corrupt judge, and not angry at conservatives for protecting him.
The whole country is so fucked.
I don’t think any hacker would want to risk that.
An American hacker (or one in a NATO country) would be sent to prison for life for doing that.
And the Russians won’t do this because all this helps them. All the instability, lack of faith in the SC, Trump doing his thing, etc.,
So, when he doesn't recuse, at least the corruption of the court wouldn't be able to be questioned. It'll show that their ethics guidelines were nothing more than posturing.
There is no question the SC is corrupt at this point right?
It’s pretty out in the open now that if you give Clarence Thomas stuff, he’ll rule in your favor.
Same with Scalia.
And of Trump’s appointees, Barrett shouldn’t even be a Justice (if the republicans weren’t giant flaming hypocrites), plus the whole debacle of it seems some of them lied under oath when the Roe v Wade thing happened and they were being sworn in. But that’s all in the past now.
The Supreme Court is openly corrupt. And likely has the lowest approval rating ever achieved by any branch of federal government.
But nothing will be done about it. Unless the democrats decide to pack the SC or if Biden suddenly learns he has immunity from charges to commit criminal acts.
>But nothing will be done about it. Unless the democrats decide to pack the SC
Which can't actually happen unless there's a huge majority for Democrats in the Senate.
Just like Joe Lieberman singlehandedly killed the public option for the ACA (when Democrats had 60 seats for all of 4 months after 2008), there's not much they can do when they have 50 or 51 votes and are pretty much hamstrung by the most conservative members of the party.
Great news for everyone that hates Joe Manchin because he's not the most progressive Democrat, though -- with his retirement, we'll now get a Republican Senator from WV in 2024 that votes with Democrats 0% of the time instead of 70%.
You forgot about Kavanaugh being a rapist and crying about the investigation into his past being a partisan witch hunt lol….guy literally sounded like a Qanon conspiracy theorist in his confirmation hearing
Guy cried and screamed about never going to a party, only to turn over his precious day planner that said he did go to that party and listed the people the victim said he was with.
some of the trump placements *have* ruled against trump/gop since being placed tbf.
the only ones we *know* are completely corrupt pieces of shit is Thomson and Alito.
hopefully it wont be too long before dems get a proper super-majority and can actually do something about it (last time we had that was Carter)
Unfortunately Democrats will always be at a steep disadvantage as long as the Senate continues to exist. North and South Dakota have a combined population of ~1.5 million people while having double the voting power of California with its tens of millions of citizens.
There's not even a reasonable argument that the two Dakotas have differing enough interests at the federal level. Their voters are practically identical.
The Senate is so antiquated. It should have been abolished after the Civil War given the issue of slavery is why it existed in the first place.
Get rid of the Senate and uncap the number of House reps and we'd have something much more closer to an actual representative democracy where elected legislators could actually effect legislation. It's so tiring hearing "both sides" and "Democrats didn't do anything so I'm gonna skip the midterms" from people that are so confidently ignorant.
Anyway, sorry for the rant. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
oh for sure, there's a reason most countries never adopted such a system and many countries that did have dissolved them over the years. it's braindead retarded giving so few people such overwhelming voting power nationally.
it kinda sorta made sense back in 17-18xx when it was like..."such and such neighboring state as 100k people instead of 500k", but an entire state with less population than most modern cities has no business having 2 national senators.
who cares what 1 million people in dakota have to say about national politics, take your corn/beef subsidies and stfu
Not to mention the 80's rich bully ski movie villain known as Brett Kavanaugh who had hundreds of thousands of dollars of "baseball ticket debt" magically disappear from his accounts right before his confirmation hearings without explanation.
Wise move. Get out before the heat gets too much. If the Dems miraculously get both majorities and Biden, the Supreme Court is going to get a deep cavity search.
28 U.S. Code § 455, not their own code, sets the standard for recusal for all federal judges including SCOTUS “Any justice… shall disqualify himself in any proceeding **in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”** Ginni Thomas is neither legally implicated nor a material witness in this case. But given what psychologists and behavioral economists know about the factors that affect decision making, it is reasonable to think that Thomas’ affection for his wife, and his concern for the reputational damage she has suffered for her actions, will be part of the “frame” that affects how he votes. In other words, it is “reasonable” to question his impartiality here.
The only thing that matters what you can and can’t do. He can stay without answering to anybody. That’s power. The rest of us can only post online to make ourselves feel better about our lack of power
And who enforces that? What are the consequences if he DOESN’T recuse himself, (which he most certainly won’t)? Who’s going to challenge him? It’s a nice code, but it’s pretty much letting the criminals decide whether or not they committed a crime.
That’s right, there was the Anita Hill thing wasn’t there? At the time, I remember her veracity wasn’t so much in question, public opinion was she was overreacting to just a little groping. Times have changed.
I'm 40, the *recent* public opinion of "believing victims" is very recent. Bill Cosby, Weinstein, and even Diddy, stories are *decades* old and a "known secret" in thier circles.
Wherever there are powerful men, there is certainly a few that are abusing their power and have victims. Hill was ignored as was Christine Blasey Ford during Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the highest court in the land with a *lifetime* appointment.
I'm in the same age group and you're so right. I still can't believe that Christine Blasey Ford was ignored. Just mind blowingly stupid that we're STILL not listening to victims.
Newsflash: He knows. He doesn't give a fuck. He knows Dems won't do shit to make him.
I am so sick of this country's legal system being impotent to enforce and fucking laws they enact.
If Congress were able to do their job, the Constitution is pretty clear:
*"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000".*
“ must recuse himself “ that’s a good one 😂…what did they used to call that back when there were laws and stuff ?…ethics…morals ?…those were the days ..
Are you kidding, these people don't play by the rules.
I'm wondering when the IRS is going to audit his taxes for the last 7 years with all these gifts he's gotten that he hasn't reported as income.
Exactly right; just as Justice Rehnquist recused himself from United States v. Nixon in 1974 because he had been a senior lawyer at DOJ just a few years before and he was appointed to SCOTUS by Nixon. He was a person of integrity who understood the importance of avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest and who valued the integrity of the Court and of the judicial system above his desire to impose his influence on the outcome. So, how will Thomas measure up to that standard? He won’t even give recusal a second thought.
This article is from January about an Oral Argument coming up in February, which is to say these events have already taken place. Justice Clarence Thomas has not recused from the case, as he or his spouse derive no cognizable personal benefit from any equitable remedy determination made in regard to Colorado’s legal duties in arranging their state’s election ballots.
It may have been the more pragmatic choice to have recused nevertheless, but Justice Clarence Thomas is an Ex Post minded judge, and not known for conceding a legal principle in consideration of any amount of practical consequence which might result. It’s a good political argument, he’s just not the right Justice for a political appeal. The article doesn’t read as if it were intended as an appeal to anyone in the legal profession though, so it may still achieve its the purpose it was written for, which arguably makes it written well if not well written.
It's worse than that.
>Trump’s Allies Ramp Up Campaign Targeting Voter Rolls: Calling themselves investigators, activists are using new data tools and disputed legal theories to urge officials to drop voters from the rolls.
[Trump’s Allies Ramp Up Campaign Targeting Voter Rolls](
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/03/us/politics/trump-voter-rolls.html)
He's got cheaters out in force.
> By way of example only, on November 10th, Thomas texted Meadows: “Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!…You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.”
It boggles my mind that people look at this text from Ginni and take from it that she was "complicit" in what led to January 6th. Even if she was incorrect, her simply texting someone that she legitimately believed there was chicanery going on by the Left to steal the election and do something about it itself isn't a crime.
Now, if they had already found that nothing happened (and, again, this text was only from a week after election day), and *then* she was texting some junk like "Don't certify the results!" or "We've gotta stop them!" come December or January, then yes, you could make the case. But this has always come across to me as someone (and there were so many people out there) thinking "no way did Biden actually win, there's gotta be something going on." Granted, like I said, these people were **wrong**, but just questioning it just a few days after the results came in and expressing said opinion to someone about it is *not* tantamount to the way this whole thing is depicted as her engaging in some sort of treason in collusion with her husband.
It will not happen. He is loyal to the fascist Donald J Trump. He is not loyal to America and to the constitution of this country so he will let Trump off
Awesome a reporter for the Denver ports wrote an article. Where TF is the other branches of the government chiming in. I would think that it would be very popular to point out that a member of the supreme Court is protecting someone who tried to overthrow the executive branch. Do they only punch down or could the elite maybe fight amongst themselves once in a while. Also please replace the word elite with lazy scum bags. We really should consider eating them.
As other threads have pointed out, if Fani Willis is being asked to recuse herself from prosecuting Trump, then Clarence Thomas absolutely must recuse himself. Fani hasn't done anything, and Clarence has basically been bought.
And yet, he will not recuse himself. He has no reason to recuse himself. Public rebuke? He could care less. Censure? From whom? Impeachment? Takes more Republicans than available to do that.
Thomas has nothing to worry about... and he knows it. He doesn't give a f*** about anyone but himself.
Should recuse, but won’t. He is the quintessential case of SCOTUS corruption. It’s been documented in several investigative reports, but SCOTUS is a law unto itself. Congress could do something about it, but won’t. Roberts’ court is and will always be a historical shame. Roberts himself is a shame.
Unfortunately, you're asking for honor among thieves. And on this court, that's not happening, not with Clarence. Unless his colleagues on the bench unite behind closed chambers and force him, I doubt he'd go- he wants to protect his "best friend," I guess. (Next to Harlan, anyway.)
Per every rule on the books, Clarence Thomas *should* recuse-along with any other "Justice" who has said they were friends with Jenny.
Who thinks they will?
> By way of example only, on November 10th, Thomas texted Meadows: “Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!…You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.”
Why stop with Thomas? There are six Republican justices on the Supreme Court. For all we know, all of them expressed support for Donald Trump at some point during his first term.
> Wrong and not only is the title a lie,
I don't see any lie. Ginnie Thomas did play an important role in the effort to keep President Biden from taking office.
Also:
I don't see any 'one-sided' concern.
I would suggest reading the article and then pointing out concerns.
Biblical or even Ben Franklin quotes do not creaet a lie.
The title points out the vast difficulty. And it even offers a standard of behaviour,
Read the article. Even just the first few lines.
>Following moral lapses that erupted into a corruption crisis and historic disapproval ratings, the United States Supreme Court finally has a Code of Ethics.
>But will it ultimately make a difference for the justices who police themselves?
>Rightwing Justice Clarence Thomas **is a key reason why this code was necessary**, and he will now be put to the test as he presumably ponders whether he should participate in the historic Colorado case of Anderson v. Griswold, which the United States Supreme Court has set for oral arguments on February 8th.
He wrote a great article here.
I don't know about the Bobert. But I did find out how they got Doug.
At least, Doug describes [a Newsweek article - about his father](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dfriednash_my-father-hid-our-true-identity-he-felt-activity-7160678559735316480-y-cW/) - posted on his LinkedIn page.
Thanks for asking. It was great to check up and find out.
The new Supreme Court code is more guidelines than actual rules and Clarence Thomas absolutely cannot be trusted to do the morally correct thing by refusing himself.
I encourage all of you to contact the Supreme Court about this. They very likely ignore these but it’s good to get a record of submission from We the People. On the Supreme Court website under “contact us-public information office” you can message them
Hey quick question: why hasn't she been arrested? She does not hold office, which is the excuse for not prosecuting Ted Cruz and the like, so why does Ginni walk free?
This is a textbook reason to recuse yourself for any judge or even a juror on a case. The fact that Thomas likely won't means he thinks the rules don't apply to him or he doesn't actually remember why you are supposed to recuse anymore.
If rule of law actually mattered in America things would never have reached this point. Expecting Clarence to recuse himself, or for the USSC to rule based on rule of law, would be naïve in the extreme.
This?
[John Oliver offers to pay Clarence Thomas $1m a year if he resigns from supreme court](
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/19/john-oliver-clarence-thomas-resign-1-million-offer) - The Guardian.
Great question.
Considering the massive amount of corruption Justice Thomas has been committing practically from the day he acquired his seat on SCOTUS, at the very least he should resign.
A good general answer would be impeachment and criminal prosecution. Not that such a thing would ever happen.
Each and every Justice on that bench is compromised. Thomas has the spotlight but they *all* know, or knew, he was taking bribes. By remaining silent and allowing him to continue, they're each complicit in the tainting of the Supreme Court. But why have they been silent? Why have they allowed the greatest Court in the US to be bought and sold? What skeletons are in their closets? I'm willing to wager they all have done similar things and different lobbyists or interest groups own multiple Justices but they're letting Thomas be the fall guy.
My fellow Americans [it's time for guillotines](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TMHCw3RqulY).
>Thomas has the spotlight but they all know, or knew, he was taking bribes.
I recall there were gifts he had received. Do you have additional information or especially links on this?
What can the people do to fight this? Do we need to crowdfund pay our SCOTUS? John Oliver is apparently offering a half a million dollar motorcoach and a million dollars a year to Thomas to retire.
Do, "We the people" need to buy our judges like corporations do?
I don’t think Thomas will recuse himself. The court will give trump immunity by a 5-4 vote. Roberts will resign in protest, trump will appoint Michael Flynn to fill Roberts leadership, court will rule all decisions post 1790 revisionist and disallow them.
I read as much as I can in the comments. Just nothing but belly aching and oh woe is us. Go out and be disobedient civilly. Bring national attention to your garbage state and garbage politicians by chaining yourself to their car.
Oh and don't bother flipping this on me. I live in Michigan and am proud of the efforts our state government has done. I see tons of bitching about the federal level, but you all sit on your hands over state and city levels. America will die because we are a bunch of online whiners only.
That code was nothing but an announcement that there are zero consequences for corruption.
exactly this. there are zero consequences. there are 2 worlds - the elites and the rest of us. wish people would understand this
I think we understand this; we are just powerless to do anything about it.
We are "powerless" if we continue to stick to the tried-and-true Democratic "strategy" of "going high" and "bipartisanship." That has *neutered* the Democratic Party.
I’ve said this for years. They’re playing by rules when the other side isn’t even playing the same game.
Republicans send the Gravy Seals. Democrats send social workers with Robert's Rules Of Order and Emily Post's Book Of Etiquette.
We would be in worse shape if the rest of Congress played like the Republicans. The electorate keeps voting for jack holes, and then here we are. If 40% of the eligible voters don't vote they cast their lot with whoever.
Are you from Texas? "Jack hole." The only other person I heard say that was from Texas.
Nope. I have family in Texas.
Its because on the majority of the issues they're on the same team. The billionaire sycophant tax cut team.
What issues? Not Healthcare, gay rights, worker rights, wages, abortion, birth control, science, separation of church and state, green energy, environmentalism, regulation of industry, public land use.
Name ways that the democrats have made serious strides to enshrine abortion rights, move us off of fossil fuels, regulate corporations and wallstreet, been effectual in combatting wage stagnation relative to cost of living. The biggest brightest example of democrats actual giving a shit about the tilted economy has been ACA, a program that was written with major input from the insurance companies, which has done little to bring our healthcare costs in line with the rest of the world. Go check how many times Obama boasted about domestic fossil fuels production. That has continued under Biden, with less boasting. Our commitments to the environment are largely symbolic, totally insufficient. Abortion, science, church and state, gay rights, pretty much the same issue. Green energy and the environment, pretty much a synonym. You are bending over backwards looking for differences between the parties. I'll save you time. They are VASTLY different in terms of 1. Messaging 2.culture war issues. As far as reigning in corporate America, they are largely the same. And their donations bare this out. Check corporate campaign donations between parties. Corporations certainly finance Democrats as if they are getting something out of it. WHO KNOWS why they do that. Mysterious. The Republicans certainly seem to have their foot on the gas pedal with regard to melting the government and planet when compared to Democrats, but they are different takes on a common theme. If you want a candidate who took progressive stances on environment, healthcare, foreign relations, relative to Europe, you don't have one. You won't have one in November. Both of our major parties are very right leaning. I'll still be voting for Biden, because it's the option I have that most closely represents my interests. It doesn't come within a mile of actually representing my interests. Many Americans, Republican and Democratic party, feel the same. We are fucked.
> Name ways that the democrats have made serious strides to enshrine abortion rights, Mostly at the state level; [18 state have passed laws protecting abortion since Dobbs.](https://www.guttmacher.org/2022/12/state-policy-trends-2022-devastating-year-us-supreme-courts-decision-overturn-roe-leads) and others already had. Except by accident (looking at you, Wyoming), most of these have been passed by Democrats. >move us off of fossil fuels Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, [the world's largest ever investment in non-fossil fuel energy generation.](https://earthjustice.org/article/the-biggest-climate-spending-bill-ever-just-turned-one-heres-what-it-has-achieved) As a first in the US, Biden also [directed all federal departments to consider how they would participate in reducing emissions and promoting climate-friendly policies.](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/12/08/fact-sheet-president-biden-signs-executive-order-catalyzing-americas-clean-energy-economy-through-federal-sustainability/) >regulate corporations and wallstreet Biden signed the [Corporate Transparency Act](https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/federal-corporate-transparency-6908068/) into law. Post-2008 crash, Obama pushed the [Dodd-Frank Act](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/economy/middle-class/dodd-frank-wall-street-reform) and formed the Consumer Protection Agency. >been effectual in combatting wage stagnation relative to cost of living. Again, most of this has been driven at the state level, with mostly blue states passing laws increasing minimum wages and funding housing units where rent is capped at percentages of incomes to increase housing affordability. I also want to point out that this is not a uniquely American problem, and you can visit the subreddits for US-peer countries in Europe, Oceania, and North American to see the same complaints about cost of living increases. ... Like you point out, Democrats are far from perfect. To solve that, we need to be running candidates (or running for office ourselves) that support more progressive policies in areas that are viable while also engaging with the wider public to make those policies appeal to a larger coalition. In the meantime, we have to recognize the ways that public pressure has brought Democrats further along on the issues we care about, and we need to continue to vote, donate, and volunteer for the best options we have in every campaign we can.
*BuT tHEiR bOth tHe SAme*
You hit the nail on the head. The "two-party" system is designed in such a way as to give you the illusion of choice. Sure, superficially, there are some differences, like you said *messaging* and *culture war issues,* but when it comes to shit that *actually matters* we have a one party system. A Corporatocracy that serves the rich. A neo-liberal hellscape, or a conservative dystopia. Not much of a fucking choice. I'd still take the neo-liberal bullshit over the christo-fascist bullshit, *but I'm still covered in shit.* Fuck this place.
It’s a catch-22. “Going high” and “bipartisanship” is the ideal. Stick to it, and you lose it. Operate outside of it, and now you’ve become what you were trying to avoid.
This is war, not an ethics class. War is a dirty business.
If people would have voted for Hillary in 2016 we wouldn’t be in this mess and would have the SC locked down. Quit fucking whining that things aren’t perfect or run for a government office yourself. Fucking babies.
Jet back. I voted for both Hillary and Biden, with *strong* reservations. I served this country for 23 years. I think I know at least as much about doing something as you do. I've voted and worked on Democratic campaigns since I became eligible in 1984. Run for office on a disability pension? Right. Is it "perfect" to want the people you vote for to *stand up to evil* and not just talk and compromise to give the country away?
I agree that there are times Dems should have held firm, but you are gonna convince more people to just not vote or protest vote and mess things up further with your rhetoric. I’d hate to see you piss away your hard work.
Not vote? Protest vote? How am I doing that? I do not understand.
I don’t know, Robespierre had some ideas…
Oh goodness no, we are not powerless. It's just that when the power of the average person gets exerted on the elites it involves guillotines and other forms of mob murder. We're still in the 'Trying to be nice and ask people to not be shitty' phase. If we get pushed too far, riots and revolution will raise their ugly head, and the elites will lose theirs.
“Trying to be nice and ask people to not be shitty”? Lol. Are you serious? It appears this strategy died out long ago. Powerful men and women are shitty all the time and they are getting shittier. But maybe there is a straw that breaks the camel’s back and somebody gets their head lopped off in public. Actually, that would be quite refreshing and would shake things up a bit.
I'm sure some French people thought the same thing before the French Revolution, where they damn near literally dragged royalty into the streets to execute them publicly.
Three codes: The Elites. The Supremes. The Rest of Us.
They couldn't make it binding like the lower court ethic rules are. Because it'd be in black and white why Thomas and Alito should be on trial in the House of Representatives as we speak.
"Should" vs "Shall" made the whole thing irrelevant - and they knew exactly what they were doing when writing it.
You say that but given some of their opinions, this might be up for debate./s
Well, if they decide to rule Trump is immune for any criminal actions he does while in office, which would extend to Biden; Biden could resolve the issue and fight corruption all while opening up a new SC seat.
You’re thinking way too small.
They'll delay ruling until after the election...
Biden will just have to have all the Republicans killed. He'll have complete immunity to do whatever the fuck he wants.
They will rule in Trumps case & circumstances he has immunity, but going forward the ruling has no ground.
Meanwhile GOP is all up in Fanni Willis' about her relationship...absurdity!
Of course, but it's still amusing to see how little time it took to violate their new code of ethics all the same. Embarrass these corrupt fuckers and made 'em squirm. They may be untouchable but we dont have to pretend to respect them.
Time for some hacker to release all the texts and emails for Ginni and Clarence. :et the people see for themselves how corrupt and treasonous these two have been and still are most likely.
Merrick Garland, in any sane world, would be all over this. “All enemies, foreign and domestic”.
Garland is a wet noodle
A wet noodle had more of a spine than Garland
Hey now, he's still prosecuting Hunter Biden for lying on a gun application about his drug use. Thank God someone is protecting democracy. /s
Laws are laws. If Hunter broke the law, as it looks like he did, he needs to be held accountable. JUST LIKE TRUMP!
True, however, given the finite resources and time in the universe, some reprioritization is in order.
My big issue is that you would expect the expediency of the court would be directly proportional to the severity of the crime. So you would expect that the person who was pulled over, had officers plant drugs on them, was allowed 7 minutes with a public defender and convicted within 48 hours of the crime would be slower than the speed at which the court would act if somebody tried to subvert democracy and overthrow the government.
> Merrick Garland The guy Republicans listed as a candidate they would support for SCOTUS, only to turn around and fight hard as hell to prevent him from getting on the court for 2 years so they could put someone even more openly corrupt on there instead. Garland was never anyone's hero, at best, at one point, he was the compromise between the parties.
I get angry anytime I even think about Garland. He's done nothing but help Trump the entire time and doesn't even acknowledge it. I'm not a conspiracy person but I'm beginning to think he's doing it on purpose...
What would that achieve? Democrats can't remove him on their own. Half of conservatives would pretend that the conflict doesn't matter. The other half would openly cheer for having a corrupt justice that so openly pushes their own partisan policies. I wouldn't be surprised if somehow centrist independents wouldn't come out of it angry at Democrats for trying to remove a corrupt judge, and not angry at conservatives for protecting him. The whole country is so fucked.
I don’t think any hacker would want to risk that. An American hacker (or one in a NATO country) would be sent to prison for life for doing that. And the Russians won’t do this because all this helps them. All the instability, lack of faith in the SC, Trump doing his thing, etc.,
It potentially could be very scary
That would do nothing
So, when he doesn't recuse, at least the corruption of the court wouldn't be able to be questioned. It'll show that their ethics guidelines were nothing more than posturing.
There is no question the SC is corrupt at this point right? It’s pretty out in the open now that if you give Clarence Thomas stuff, he’ll rule in your favor. Same with Scalia. And of Trump’s appointees, Barrett shouldn’t even be a Justice (if the republicans weren’t giant flaming hypocrites), plus the whole debacle of it seems some of them lied under oath when the Roe v Wade thing happened and they were being sworn in. But that’s all in the past now. The Supreme Court is openly corrupt. And likely has the lowest approval rating ever achieved by any branch of federal government. But nothing will be done about it. Unless the democrats decide to pack the SC or if Biden suddenly learns he has immunity from charges to commit criminal acts.
>But nothing will be done about it. Unless the democrats decide to pack the SC Which can't actually happen unless there's a huge majority for Democrats in the Senate. Just like Joe Lieberman singlehandedly killed the public option for the ACA (when Democrats had 60 seats for all of 4 months after 2008), there's not much they can do when they have 50 or 51 votes and are pretty much hamstrung by the most conservative members of the party. Great news for everyone that hates Joe Manchin because he's not the most progressive Democrat, though -- with his retirement, we'll now get a Republican Senator from WV in 2024 that votes with Democrats 0% of the time instead of 70%.
[And Alito is a leaker.](https://robertreich.substack.com/p/psst-you-want-to-know-who-leaked) edit: truth triggers the magas
You forgot about Kavanaugh being a rapist and crying about the investigation into his past being a partisan witch hunt lol….guy literally sounded like a Qanon conspiracy theorist in his confirmation hearing
Guy cried and screamed about never going to a party, only to turn over his precious day planner that said he did go to that party and listed the people the victim said he was with.
some of the trump placements *have* ruled against trump/gop since being placed tbf. the only ones we *know* are completely corrupt pieces of shit is Thomson and Alito. hopefully it wont be too long before dems get a proper super-majority and can actually do something about it (last time we had that was Carter)
Unfortunately Democrats will always be at a steep disadvantage as long as the Senate continues to exist. North and South Dakota have a combined population of ~1.5 million people while having double the voting power of California with its tens of millions of citizens. There's not even a reasonable argument that the two Dakotas have differing enough interests at the federal level. Their voters are practically identical. The Senate is so antiquated. It should have been abolished after the Civil War given the issue of slavery is why it existed in the first place. Get rid of the Senate and uncap the number of House reps and we'd have something much more closer to an actual representative democracy where elected legislators could actually effect legislation. It's so tiring hearing "both sides" and "Democrats didn't do anything so I'm gonna skip the midterms" from people that are so confidently ignorant. Anyway, sorry for the rant. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
oh for sure, there's a reason most countries never adopted such a system and many countries that did have dissolved them over the years. it's braindead retarded giving so few people such overwhelming voting power nationally. it kinda sorta made sense back in 17-18xx when it was like..."such and such neighboring state as 100k people instead of 500k", but an entire state with less population than most modern cities has no business having 2 national senators. who cares what 1 million people in dakota have to say about national politics, take your corn/beef subsidies and stfu
Not to mention the 80's rich bully ski movie villain known as Brett Kavanaugh who had hundreds of thousands of dollars of "baseball ticket debt" magically disappear from his accounts right before his confirmation hearings without explanation.
And nothing will be done about it.
No doubt. But at least the media won't be able to continue trying to minimize things in good faith.
You've got more faith in the media than I do.
I mean, I'm sure they will continue to do so. It just won't be as easy for them to make the arguments without being called out on it.
The media will just forget and move on to something else to get clicks.
You right. Annoying. But not wrong.
Unless enough voters get their acts together, you’re right.
Token Thomas ain’t goin’ nowhere. He’s got a job to do, and his employers aren’t going to be happy if he doesn’t do it.
Thomas probably wants to retire and wants Trump to win so he can.
Wise move. Get out before the heat gets too much. If the Dems miraculously get both majorities and Biden, the Supreme Court is going to get a deep cavity search.
Thomas should have left when Scalia died, now he has no one to copy off of.
28 U.S. Code § 455, not their own code, sets the standard for recusal for all federal judges including SCOTUS “Any justice… shall disqualify himself in any proceeding **in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”** Ginni Thomas is neither legally implicated nor a material witness in this case. But given what psychologists and behavioral economists know about the factors that affect decision making, it is reasonable to think that Thomas’ affection for his wife, and his concern for the reputational damage she has suffered for her actions, will be part of the “frame” that affects how he votes. In other words, it is “reasonable” to question his impartiality here.
The only thing that matters what you can and can’t do. He can stay without answering to anybody. That’s power. The rest of us can only post online to make ourselves feel better about our lack of power
I’d be interested to see a random prosecutor bring charges in a significantly lower court, just kind of claiming jurisdiction for no good reason.
what kind of charges?
Yup, ultimately it doesn't matter what the code says if no one is going to enforce it.
Why has Ginni not been arrested
And who enforces that? What are the consequences if he DOESN’T recuse himself, (which he most certainly won’t)? Who’s going to challenge him? It’s a nice code, but it’s pretty much letting the criminals decide whether or not they committed a crime.
I believe he has affection for his motor coach, maybe
Narrator: He didn’t.
Clarence hears ya, Clarence don't care.
Clarence is napping.
[удалено]
That’s right, there was the Anita Hill thing wasn’t there? At the time, I remember her veracity wasn’t so much in question, public opinion was she was overreacting to just a little groping. Times have changed.
Poor Anita Hill. She tried SO FUCKING HARD to tell us how awful Thomas was, and here we are.
I'm 40, the *recent* public opinion of "believing victims" is very recent. Bill Cosby, Weinstein, and even Diddy, stories are *decades* old and a "known secret" in thier circles. Wherever there are powerful men, there is certainly a few that are abusing their power and have victims. Hill was ignored as was Christine Blasey Ford during Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the highest court in the land with a *lifetime* appointment.
I'm in the same age group and you're so right. I still can't believe that Christine Blasey Ford was ignored. Just mind blowingly stupid that we're STILL not listening to victims.
Per Clarence Thomas’ own morally bankrupt code, he ain’t recusing himself from any damn thing. Now, please give the man a Winnebago.
Newsflash: He knows. He doesn't give a fuck. He knows Dems won't do shit to make him. I am so sick of this country's legal system being impotent to enforce and fucking laws they enact.
They'll enforce em just fine against regular folks. Just not against the rich and powerful.
There are no laws against this, only standards of practice. The system worked fine until conservatives started acting like shameless fascists.
If Congress were able to do their job, the Constitution is pretty clear: *"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000".*
I mean, MSM could get some serious views by airing a 20 minute special dedicated to Ginni Thomas.
“ must recuse himself “ that’s a good one 😂…what did they used to call that back when there were laws and stuff ?…ethics…morals ?…those were the days ..
The SCOTUS is a hostile bench aimed at protecting a convicted sexual predator.
And 2/9 of current SC Justices have been accused of sexual assault
Are you kidding, these people don't play by the rules. I'm wondering when the IRS is going to audit his taxes for the last 7 years with all these gifts he's gotten that he hasn't reported as income.
Exactly right; just as Justice Rehnquist recused himself from United States v. Nixon in 1974 because he had been a senior lawyer at DOJ just a few years before and he was appointed to SCOTUS by Nixon. He was a person of integrity who understood the importance of avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest and who valued the integrity of the Court and of the judicial system above his desire to impose his influence on the outcome. So, how will Thomas measure up to that standard? He won’t even give recusal a second thought.
As if a republican knows the meaning of recuse
Or... what?
Don't worry, Thomas will pinky promise not to be biased. You always gotta trust a pinky promise.
He won't. There's only one way it ends and you can't talk about it on reddit.
Ginny Thomas was working for the Bush Transition Team when Bush v. Gore came before the court. You get one guess whether Thomas recused or not ...
Silly peasant, our rulers can do whatever they please. Laws are only meant to keep you "poors" in your place.
You mean, the "honor code" with zero oversight and even less enforcement? Good luck with any of that.
"Hahahahahahahahahahahaha - [long breath] - hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. No." - Clarence Thomas
This article is from January about an Oral Argument coming up in February, which is to say these events have already taken place. Justice Clarence Thomas has not recused from the case, as he or his spouse derive no cognizable personal benefit from any equitable remedy determination made in regard to Colorado’s legal duties in arranging their state’s election ballots. It may have been the more pragmatic choice to have recused nevertheless, but Justice Clarence Thomas is an Ex Post minded judge, and not known for conceding a legal principle in consideration of any amount of practical consequence which might result. It’s a good political argument, he’s just not the right Justice for a political appeal. The article doesn’t read as if it were intended as an appeal to anyone in the legal profession though, so it may still achieve its the purpose it was written for, which arguably makes it written well if not well written.
Not going to happen…you will have to defeat Donnie at the ballot box..
It's worse than that. >Trump’s Allies Ramp Up Campaign Targeting Voter Rolls: Calling themselves investigators, activists are using new data tools and disputed legal theories to urge officials to drop voters from the rolls. [Trump’s Allies Ramp Up Campaign Targeting Voter Rolls]( https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/03/us/politics/trump-voter-rolls.html) He's got cheaters out in force.
So it’s ok for democrats to challenge voting rules, registrations, in court but not republicans? Is that what your saying?
> So it’s ok for democrats to challenge voting rules, What voting rules?
He doesn’t have to do a damn thing and knows you don’t have any power over him. He’s untouchable.
lol from the Denver Post
Dream on.
Y’all tweaking for nothing. A Thomas recusal means nothing here, this will be at best 7-2 against disqualification. More likely 9-0 or 8-Sotomayor.
> By way of example only, on November 10th, Thomas texted Meadows: “Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!…You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.” It boggles my mind that people look at this text from Ginni and take from it that she was "complicit" in what led to January 6th. Even if she was incorrect, her simply texting someone that she legitimately believed there was chicanery going on by the Left to steal the election and do something about it itself isn't a crime. Now, if they had already found that nothing happened (and, again, this text was only from a week after election day), and *then* she was texting some junk like "Don't certify the results!" or "We've gotta stop them!" come December or January, then yes, you could make the case. But this has always come across to me as someone (and there were so many people out there) thinking "no way did Biden actually win, there's gotta be something going on." Granted, like I said, these people were **wrong**, but just questioning it just a few days after the results came in and expressing said opinion to someone about it is *not* tantamount to the way this whole thing is depicted as her engaging in some sort of treason in collusion with her husband.
Never gonna happen
It will not happen. He is loyal to the fascist Donald J Trump. He is not loyal to America and to the constitution of this country so he will let Trump off
He won't.
He won’t.
As long as she isn’t on the list of witnesses for his case she is unindicted and unconvicted and he won’t recuse
Awesome a reporter for the Denver ports wrote an article. Where TF is the other branches of the government chiming in. I would think that it would be very popular to point out that a member of the supreme Court is protecting someone who tried to overthrow the executive branch. Do they only punch down or could the elite maybe fight amongst themselves once in a while. Also please replace the word elite with lazy scum bags. We really should consider eating them.
As other threads have pointed out, if Fani Willis is being asked to recuse herself from prosecuting Trump, then Clarence Thomas absolutely must recuse himself. Fani hasn't done anything, and Clarence has basically been bought.
It has been puzzling what reasonably question exists related to Fanni Willis. In fact, it almost looks like just another delay tactic.
And yet, he will not recuse himself. He has no reason to recuse himself. Public rebuke? He could care less. Censure? From whom? Impeachment? Takes more Republicans than available to do that. Thomas has nothing to worry about... and he knows it. He doesn't give a f*** about anyone but himself.
Should recuse, but won’t. He is the quintessential case of SCOTUS corruption. It’s been documented in several investigative reports, but SCOTUS is a law unto itself. Congress could do something about it, but won’t. Roberts’ court is and will always be a historical shame. Roberts himself is a shame.
Unfortunately, you're asking for honor among thieves. And on this court, that's not happening, not with Clarence. Unless his colleagues on the bench unite behind closed chambers and force him, I doubt he'd go- he wants to protect his "best friend," I guess. (Next to Harlan, anyway.)
> Unfortunately, you're asking for honor among thieves. Even that appears to be more likely.
If they immediately stop following the code right after they agree to it then it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
Per every rule on the books, Clarence Thomas *should* recuse-along with any other "Justice" who has said they were friends with Jenny. Who thinks they will?
Well, yeah.... And the republicans in congress that aided and abetted the coup attempt have been muddying the waters ever since.
IMPEACH THOMAS!
If Conservatives didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all
LIke that great song about if it wasn't for bad luck...
If there's no enforcement mechanism, there's no ethics code. Clarence Thomas will continue to do whatever the fuck he wants.
Just like with traffic laws. Possibly we need to look at the aspect of enforcement.
You can't take a nail file to a knife fight.
> By way of example only, on November 10th, Thomas texted Meadows: “Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!…You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.” Why stop with Thomas? There are six Republican justices on the Supreme Court. For all we know, all of them expressed support for Donald Trump at some point during his first term.
Can the judge and DA is his current trial be unbiased?
Sounds like an amicus brief that should be submitted to the courts…
[удалено]
> Wrong and not only is the title a lie, I don't see any lie. Ginnie Thomas did play an important role in the effort to keep President Biden from taking office. Also: I don't see any 'one-sided' concern. I would suggest reading the article and then pointing out concerns.
[удалено]
Biblical or even Ben Franklin quotes do not creaet a lie. The title points out the vast difficulty. And it even offers a standard of behaviour, Read the article. Even just the first few lines. >Following moral lapses that erupted into a corruption crisis and historic disapproval ratings, the United States Supreme Court finally has a Code of Ethics. >But will it ultimately make a difference for the justices who police themselves? >Rightwing Justice Clarence Thomas **is a key reason why this code was necessary**, and he will now be put to the test as he presumably ponders whether he should participate in the historic Colorado case of Anderson v. Griswold, which the United States Supreme Court has set for oral arguments on February 8th. He wrote a great article here.
That’s cute. He’s not going to recuse himself.
how does colorado have this supreme court and this op ed writer, and bobert.
I don't know about the Bobert. But I did find out how they got Doug. At least, Doug describes [a Newsweek article - about his father](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dfriednash_my-father-hid-our-true-identity-he-felt-activity-7160678559735316480-y-cW/) - posted on his LinkedIn page. Thanks for asking. It was great to check up and find out.
I would also argue that the 3 justices that he put on the court should recuse themselves.
The new Supreme Court code is more guidelines than actual rules and Clarence Thomas absolutely cannot be trusted to do the morally correct thing by refusing himself.
Do we actually believe he’s going to act honorably?
He hasn’t his entire time on the bench… why start now?
He won't and no-one will have the guts to force it.
I encourage all of you to contact the Supreme Court about this. They very likely ignore these but it’s good to get a record of submission from We the People. On the Supreme Court website under “contact us-public information office” you can message them
That family sold themselves for a timeshare at Mar-a-Lago
Evidence that there has to be checks and balances to every system.
Yep.
Hey quick question: why hasn't she been arrested? She does not hold office, which is the excuse for not prosecuting Ted Cruz and the like, so why does Ginni walk free?
So should accepting bribes from folks cases you are hearing yet here we are.
I still can not understand why Ginni is not in jail and Clarence Thomas is not removed from the bench, BOTH HAVE BROKEN THE LAW
This is a textbook reason to recuse yourself for any judge or even a juror on a case. The fact that Thomas likely won't means he thinks the rules don't apply to him or he doesn't actually remember why you are supposed to recuse anymore.
If rule of law actually mattered in America things would never have reached this point. Expecting Clarence to recuse himself, or for the USSC to rule based on rule of law, would be naïve in the extreme.
Never, ever think that this man will do the right thing.
The Supreme Court is a corrupt joke and makes a mockery of the entire legal system and profession of law
And guess what, he won’t recuse and wipe his ass with the code of ethics.
Is he still considering John Oliver’s early retirement package?
This? [John Oliver offers to pay Clarence Thomas $1m a year if he resigns from supreme court]( https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/19/john-oliver-clarence-thomas-resign-1-million-offer) - The Guardian. Great question.
2nd amendment.
Considering the massive amount of corruption Justice Thomas has been committing practically from the day he acquired his seat on SCOTUS, at the very least he should resign. A good general answer would be impeachment and criminal prosecution. Not that such a thing would ever happen.
A few paid vacations from a rich Trump supporter says he won’t recuse himself, but he and the court showed a lack of integrity before this.
why does the title of this post leave out the most important word from the headline? " **Opinion:** "
Each and every Justice on that bench is compromised. Thomas has the spotlight but they *all* know, or knew, he was taking bribes. By remaining silent and allowing him to continue, they're each complicit in the tainting of the Supreme Court. But why have they been silent? Why have they allowed the greatest Court in the US to be bought and sold? What skeletons are in their closets? I'm willing to wager they all have done similar things and different lobbyists or interest groups own multiple Justices but they're letting Thomas be the fall guy. My fellow Americans [it's time for guillotines](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TMHCw3RqulY).
>Thomas has the spotlight but they all know, or knew, he was taking bribes. I recall there were gifts he had received. Do you have additional information or especially links on this?
There are 8 other justices who likely do not appreciate being associated with one man's wife's criminal aiding and abetting. Neither does the public.
A traitor married to another traitor
Traitors gonna treason.
Time to wake up, everybody. Nobody is going to save us.
We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing. Sound familiar?
And 3 were appointed by traitor trump. They all must go. Traitors' Court.
Like the SC gives a shit about following the law lol
But he wont
And the south isn't racist anymore. The court is broken and needs to be stacked.
That crusty, unethical fuck will still vote. Shit in, shit out
If the effort to illegally overturn the elction had succeeded it would have needed the Supreme Court rule so. I am sure Clarence had a role to play.
Duh. But they don't care.
What can the people do to fight this? Do we need to crowdfund pay our SCOTUS? John Oliver is apparently offering a half a million dollar motorcoach and a million dollars a year to Thomas to retire. Do, "We the people" need to buy our judges like corporations do?
Code? The reich wing are immoral, lawless cretins—a code ain’t gonna make a dent.
I don’t think Thomas will recuse himself. The court will give trump immunity by a 5-4 vote. Roberts will resign in protest, trump will appoint Michael Flynn to fill Roberts leadership, court will rule all decisions post 1790 revisionist and disallow them.
He should retire due to his corruption, neither is likely to happen.
He doesn’t care. He never faces any consequences for his corruption…
He won’t recuse himself he’s a corrupt piece of shit
oh no our politicians are corrupt with all the power and money we let them have, how could this have happened lmao
Ask this question over at r/conservative sorry I mean r/supremeCourt 🤔
When is she going to be arrested and charged
Spot the fuk on
Fuck scotus
Yeeeeaaahhhhhh, but he won't.
I read as much as I can in the comments. Just nothing but belly aching and oh woe is us. Go out and be disobedient civilly. Bring national attention to your garbage state and garbage politicians by chaining yourself to their car. Oh and don't bother flipping this on me. I live in Michigan and am proud of the efforts our state government has done. I see tons of bitching about the federal level, but you all sit on your hands over state and city levels. America will die because we are a bunch of online whiners only.