512
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 24 Sep 2023
512 points (98.3% liked)
politics
18870 readers
5526 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
NO SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SHOULD BE HOSTIG OR SPEAKING AT ANY FUNDRAISER PERIOD. by doing so should call for immediate removal from their position.
But guess they can as corrupt as they like and nothing can be done to them.
This mother fucker is stripping our rights away and in October going see a case that going strip us of our ability to fight against financially Institutions. Which by they if they vote to strip it will also destroy social security and medicare.
Things can be done about it, but one party will never vote against one of their own
And the other party will fret and hand-wring while passing non-binding resolutions and writing sternly worded letters.
We've had right wing congresspeople openly call for revolution and allude to violence. We have no voices from the left with the balls or the platform to say what needs to be done with Thomas and his ilk.
He's corrupt to the core, string him up along with his billionaire owner and review every case he's decided.
good cop bad cop.
no. i do not mean both sides are the same. one side wants the status quo to remain but isn't taking seriously the fact that their bad cop partner is going to take them both down. maybe because they're all as fucking old as possible.
i am not sure i'm comfortable with expressing a desire to string anyone up but i agree that when WEAREALLDOMESTICTERRORISTS isn't a statement that grinds this whole shitshow to a halt and we examine wtf is going on in the US ... then wtf are people doing?
I don't think it's good cop/bad cop. It's all bad cop. They forgot why they became cops. To help people. And they help no one.
of course GC/BC is a metaphor. ACAB. and they aren't elected to help us but to represent us. they fail, but like i said, one side is rushing to put everything to an end and the other is at least making a poor showing of keeping up the pretense.
Well, they shouldn’t be getting paid for it (or accept “accommodations”)
But I wouldn’t mind if they flacked for something relatively inoffensive at fundraisers.
Cancer research? Subsidized childcare in poor neighborhoods? Alma mater scholarship funding?
There's a lot of apolitical fundraising.
Irrelevant. Any one of those organizations can still find themselves needing to defend their position in court. Just because it's not a political issue doesn't change the presence of bias.
So could any restaurant chain. Are they not allowed to eat out? Or shop at stores? Or have a favorite sports team?
There's a point where it becomes unreasonable to ask them to stay neutral and detached. Especially as they can always recuse themselves.
Edit:typo
Edit 2: there's also a major difference between political decisions and any other matter that comes before the court. The Supreme Court is tasked with overseeing a number of government cases. That's a primary responsibility. They need to be apolitical in order to handle that aspect of their work--or they would need to recuse themselves constantly.
But they are still people. They can still have preferences. They can still do good in the world beyond their jobs.
Recusing from the rare overlap of a particular cause is reasonable. Recusing for political bias is not.
Apolitical fundraising is fine.
Edit 3: I'd appreciate hearing an actual argument here instead of just down voting. Without that it seems like people just don't like a different point of view
Cool. This story is about a Supreme Court Justice though. It's okay to keep focused on the issue.