398

A New York Times investigation revealed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was brought access to the wealthy through relationships he built with members of the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans.

all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] literallyacat@lemmy.ml 45 points 1 year ago

And nothing will continue to happen since for some reason the Supreme Court is running rampantly unchecked.

[-] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

It's like the founders figured that because they have lifetime appointments, they'd be free from corruption and political influence.

But lifetime appointments just means there's so much more time for companies and rich people to influence the justices actions with repeated donations.

[-] axtualdave@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Not some reason. Republicans control the House and are a single accident away from control of the Senate.

They are complicit.

[-] RatMaster@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

The majority of them are in on it, so of course there won't be anything done. The amount of corruption is through the roof after being left unchecked for so long.

[-] Izzent@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

I have to ask, is anyone surprised?

[-] robbotlove@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

the real question is 'will anyone do anything about it?'

[-] Encode1307@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

The real question is will Republicans do anything about it. Dems would impeach in a second, but there's no way Republicans will turn against him. He could shoot someone on 5th Ave and they'd defend him.

[-] sudo@lemmy.fmhy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

The real question is will Republicans do anything about it.

Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaahahajaha lololol0101010!!!

Or were you serious? In which case, refer to the above line a few more times.

They're all busy trying to figure out how to get their own piece, fucking scumbags. Even if any of them did have a shred of integrity, they wouldn't dare go against the cult.

[-] Encode1307@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

I'm mostly objecting to the false equivalence of "will ANYONE do anything about it". Obviously they won't!

[-] DougHolland@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

There's no real question, though.

[-] _max@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

Absolutely not.

This whole self-reporting thing doesn’t seem to be working out so well, tbh.

Also doesn’t help when you have bad-faith actors, like Thomas.

[-] thejml@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

It’s almost like we need checks and balances.

Which of course only matters when they’re not all in on it.

[-] Gingerlegs@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Get out, asshole

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Now there's someone who could stand to be first through the door at a Michigan GOP meeting

[-] A_Filthy_Weeaboo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's so creepy

this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
398 points (99.3% liked)

politics

18839 readers
3457 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS