this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
341 points (98.6% liked)

News

23296 readers
928 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The conservative justice was not present for oral arguments on Monday, but the court did not provide a reason why.

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was not present at the court for oral arguments on Monday, with the court giving no reason for his absence.

Chief Justice John Roberts said in court that Thomas “is not on the bench today” but would "participate fully" in the two cases being argued based on the briefs and transcripts.

A court spokeswoman had no further information.

Thomas, 75, is the eldest of the nine justices. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Soulg@sh.itjust.works 13 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Again? When did they give it to them the first time?

[–] DrunkEngineer@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Again? When did they give it to them the first time?

When they confirmed Clarence Thomas in 1991.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

When they didn't avoid the situation that allowed turtleman to obstruct Obama's nomination for almost a year by not beinging it before the Senate in a blatant abuse of power.

Then they didn't keep another Republican nominee from being rammed through in the last few months before Biden took office.

Since then they have not addressed the underlying issue of whether congress is obligated to consider nominees. They also won't get rid of the filibuster, which would take a simple majority to remove.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

When they didn't avoid the situation that allowed turtleman to obstruct Obama's nomination for almost a year by not beinging it before the Senate in a blatant abuse of power.

Avoid it how? What specifically would you have liked them to do?

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Was that just a mass hallucination?

[–] PapaStevesy@midwest.social 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

2016, when Scalia died? The Republicans were like, "you can't fill a supreme court position in an election year" and the Democrats said "oh, okay" and let Trump get it. Then they let Trump fill another seat in an election year(!) and the Democrats just said, "oh, okay" again.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

There really wasnt much that Democrats could do. Mitch controlled the agenda in the Senate at the time (and his friend Lindsey controlled the agenda in the Judiciary Committee). Every prior nominee, even the ones who were controversial, still got hearings and a vote, even if that vote failed. (The one exception might have been the absolute moron that GWB nominated, who was so clueless she failed the written questions* that the committee gave her, but I think she backed out after that so it never got a chance to progress).

The problem with Garland is that he was the compromise candidate. If Mitch let his nomination go to a vote, it would have passed. So he simply ignored it. The only person who might have been able to get around it was Graham, if he had progressed the nomination out of committee, but he didn't.

The Senate doesn't have any avenues to force a vote if the Leadership doesn't want that vote to happen.

Edit: found it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers_Supreme_Court_nomination

In mid-October, the Senate Judiciary Committee requested Miers resubmit her judicial questionnaire after members complained her answers were "inadequate," "insufficient," and "insulting."

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There really wasnt much that Democrats could do.

There was, they just chose not to use an anti-democratic loophole to do it. They took the high road by not using a recess appointment. Sure, that appointment would have only been temporary but it would have allowed some votes to get passed the 4/4 split at the time. It also would have been less of a campaign talking point for Trump to be able to appoint someone immediately (the temporary appointment would have been until 2018 I think??).

I don't know if they could have filibustered the vote on Trump's final pick during the election year. I'm not completely caught up on those rules.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

You need a recess in order to make a recess appointment, and both houses of Congress often keep a few legislators around the Capitol just to pound the gavel so the Senate never actually goes into recess.

And in regards to judicial appointments, Harry Reid killed its use for judicial appointments when the Republicans in the minority during Obama's time in office filibustered everything. Reid kept it in place for SC justices, though. Mitch removed it for SC justices, too, when Democrats started making noise about filibustering Gorsuch.

And that's the weird thing about the Fillibuster. It institutes a 60 vote threshold to get most things done, but it was always just a Senate rule and Senate rules are set by a simple majority. It can go away tomorrow if 51 Senators agree to get rid of it.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

It can go away tomorrow if 51 Senators agree to get rid of it.

I don't trust dems to not fuck this up. I can see them again trying to take the "high road"

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The problem with Garland is that he was the compromise candidate.

And for getting fucked over by the Republicans, the Democrats decided to make this Republican the most ineffectual AG in fucking history, so desperate to avoid looking like he's making decisions for political reasons that he's practically blasting it from the rooftops that he was avoiding prosecuting Trump for political reasons.

This is literally proof in the pudding that Democrats are fucking weak willed pussies who keep giving into the same psycho fascist fucks who keep ostensibly fucking over the Democrats. The inability of the Democrats to choose their own fucking AG and not give Garland this fucking consolation prize is part and parcel to why our Democracy is falling apart and Trump has a chance to be elected again.

Garland waited TWO YEARS before starting an investigation into Trump.

[–] PapaStevesy@midwest.social -2 points 7 months ago

There really wasn't much that Democrats could do.

We'll never know if that's true, they didn't try anything.