politics
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
view the rest of the comments
This is a classic of one of my posts, but I don't think political is the right word. Corrupt is more like it;
Friendly reminder, 5 out of 9 SCOTUS seem to have taken bribes:
I mean it's kinda the same thing at this point, don't you think?
You'll find very few Republicans condemning any of the corruption happening in the White House or doing anything to curtail it. They're all complicit, because tribalism trumps service.
Platner was simply accused of sexual assault and he was gone instantly. Trump gets caught admitting to it on tape and it only makes him more popular.
Also, I'm pretty big on oaths, so I cannot understand how you can take an oath to tell the truth during your confirmation hearings, and then lie during those same hearings. It feels like it should be automatically disqualifying from confirmation, and if it's discovered later, then it feels like it's fraud and they should be removed from their positions.
I think all but one of the conservative justices swore during their confirmation hearings that they would consider Roe v. Wade as precedent, or made other similar statements. If they truly viewed it as "precedent", then they would never vote to overturn it. So, several conservative justices lied under oath in order to be confirmed. They got their job under false pretenses.
George Santos was expelled from the House for lying about much less important issues, and not under oath.
If any of us lie during a job interview about something important, and it's discovered later, you can bet we'd be fired before we knew what hit us, and we don't swear a solemn oath when doing job interviews.
I feel like the moment a justice votes contrary to what they swore to, either during their confirmation hearings, or even as part of their oath of office, it's absolute proof that they were lying under oath and that they got their job under fraudulent pretenses. That should immediately invalidate their position, only to be reinstated if they can prove in court that their actions don't constitute a lie.
You cannot give any trust to a person who swears a solemn oath and then breaks that oath (with the exception of a wedding oath, which is an insane oath that cannot be held at face value, imo). I wouldn't trust an oath breaker to walk my dog if I had a dog.
If you automatically remove someone who lied on a confirmation, they can just ask insane or badly worded questions to catch someone in an innocuous lie and disqualify them
If you think that would work, then you could convict anybody of perjury in the same way. And again, I did say that it could be reviewed by the courts, which is the legal path we have to apply common-sense standards to unusual situations.
There seems to be something in common between all 5 of those Justices... but I can't put my finger on it.
That's 6. I was surprised by the number 5, being, as there are, 6 right-wingers on the court.
This one is just a bad look, not corruption.
It's an obedience situation with that one:
During her confirmation I recall reading a number of reports that -- to put it politely -- indicate her husband has a great deal to do with her work; iow, that describe her as a "handmaiden" that is completely obedient to her husband, something she had said herself before her nomination. In the confirmation hearings she was questioned about this directly and forced to deny that her husband would be an influence if she were confirmed, but it was superficial at best. Outside the hearings, other reporting that took a much closer look at the husband revealed all kinds of sketchy links and obligations.
Which is to say that in her case the corruption is not primarily about money, it's a weirdly toxic faith, and the actor/beneficiary is not herself, but her husband and his ties. Think Leonard Leo. It was strange and dark and labyrinthine and I'd have to look it all up again to describe it in any detail, but man that is some shady shit going on just behind her.
Excellent comment up top, btw. Well sourced, much appreciated.
Thanks, I'll look at this side of things too and add her to the list.
i'm lazy at the moment but there's a group that tracked the "totally not bribery" disclosures from the court and Barrett is no innocent
Oh wow, I'll look into that and update the classic if I find anything. Thanks.
iirc, they found 3-4 figures total in gifts each to the 3 liberal justices and 5-7 figures total in gifts each to the 6 trump justices