646
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 31 Aug 2023
646 points (97.9% liked)
politics
18601 readers
3888 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.
- 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.
- 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/04/24/supreme-court-did-review-case-involving-harlan-crow-contradicting-clarence-thomass-claim/?sh=6218ac166c74
Harlan Crow, the owner of Justice Thomas, has had cases before the court that Thomas failed to recuse himself from even after accepting these extraordinarily lavish gifts from Crow and after he denied ever sitting for a case Crow was involved in. The criminal Thomas defended himself by saying that it wasn't Crow's company on the case, it was a company owned by Crow's company. This is after he denied receiving gifts from Crow at all, but eventually changed his stance on that and admitted to being bathed in money by the person he is meant to regulate impartially.
Dissolve the court. Arrest Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Alito. Investigate every other sitting justice and if they so much as took a piece of chewing gum from someone who had business before the court arrest them too. You want your word to be law and the only oversight to be literal Death? Then you have to be fucking flawless.
I don’t know if dissolving the court is the right answer, but there are a lot of “traditions” or “gentlemen’s agreements” associated with high level government positions that need be to discussed and codified as law, to prevent abuse.
A lot of the things Trump was doing are not prosecutable because there are no specific laws for the ass-hattery he was parading about doing. Fortunately, he was so prolific in his unrivaled disrespect for the country and the position that he did actually break a bunch of laws. We will see what sticks.
It should not be this difficult to hold members of the government accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, nothing changes when the people voting bills into laws are the ones benefitting from there not being a law. Hell, even when there are laws (like on congressional insider-trading), you have to find someone with the integrity to investigate and prosecute.
The Senate will probably never have 66 votes to impeach him before he dies of old age, but there is no reason he cannot be prosecuted and jailed for bribery and corruption. There are actual laws against that.
When the majority of the members are provably corrupt, how do you just say "Okay but from now on don't be corrupt anymore or there will actually be consequences." I'm not saying eliminate the concept of a supreme court, but this one needs to be redone from scratch