489
“I could recuse myself to help settle down the corruption cases building against me…. Naaaa, I’m a fucking Supreme Court justice, I AM the law”
i feel like there's a good Judge Dredd photoshop waiting to happen here...
If you could offer enough money, you could probably get him to show up to hear cases dressed liked Judge Dredd.
That would be a bribe and Justice Clarence Thomas has proved time and time again that he's never accepted a bribe!
He'll accept a gift, though. If you buy him, like, 300 Judge Dredd costumes and a couple for his mom, then it would just be bad manners not to wear them, right?
maybe just a yacht would do it...
And I'm here to remind you
Of the mess you made when you killed Roe v Wade
It's not fair, don't deny it!
The bribes you bear you say they gave away
You- you... Yacht ta know!
Here you go.
well, at least AI is good for something
I mean, given that Roberts is scared of AI, and I'm not wasting more on Clarence than the four minutes it took to generate this, it seemed appropriate.
Why is he scared of AI, did the Pope say something about it?
Because AI is coming for all of our jobs! Fear, fear for your lives!
~~It's the usual conservative reactionary impetus.~~
load more comments
(9 replies)
we are well beyond anyone in the SC recusing themselves for any reason. these dems are smokin the reefer
I get that they want to be on record pressuring him to recuse himself from the trial but I agree, this seems like a waste of breath.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Urging Clarence Thomas to behave ethically is like urging an oil tycoon to put the lives and health of people over profits.
Neither is ever going to happen unless you force them to.
Is his wife facing charges for being a leader of the movement that led to Jan 6th?
No, she attended a rally before the attack, and has continued to endorse their election lies, but her good friend Liz Cheney stopped Congress from looking at her too closely and regular old prosecutors don't have the courage to hold someone as connected as her to account.
"regular old prosecutors" are overwhelmingly right-wingers.
I swear the finger-wagging will work this time! Come on everyone, behave and follow the rules! /s
Seriously though, when will Dems key into the fact that the right doesn't give a fuck about rules or institution? They've been doing obstructionist politics since Obama. They are obviously not interested in playing fair or governing effectively.
So, at what point do Dems become complicit?...
*I am not saying; don't vote blue. Im saying we have to demand more from those who we elect before it is too late.
Its almost too late.
I'd say when they have an actual majority to push meaningful legislation to address this and don't. I can't think of a time since the first 2 years Obama was in office (and prior to that, they were obstructionists but nowhere near the behavior you see now) this was the case.
So I don't think there has been an opportunity to actually address it with a dem majority. Republicans had the house right up from Obama's third year until Trumps 3rd year, and the Senate has been Republican dominated for about the same.
Do you expect Republicans to pass a law that stops Republicans from being obstructionists?
I don't.
You missed the greater point, in exactly the same way Dems do. I will try to put it a better way:
Your thinking and planning is constrained by rules. Their thinking and planning is not. You play fair, while they cheat. This is a losing strategy.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
"Who put this pubic hair in my Supreme Court?"
How about they stop "urging" the enemy to stop doing something, and instead of being feckless whiners, actually put on their big-boy pants and MAKE THEM!
Often, the only way to make them is to change the law, and that can't be done without the consent of their corrupt allies in the Legislative Branch.
Great sentiment, but how would they do that? House Democrats don't really have any power
load more comments
(1 replies)
The problem is house democrats arent using speech to tell him. Loads and loads of $peech.
I'll take Things That Won't Happen for 200, Alex
"No" -Clarence Thomas
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A group of House Democrats on Thursday called on conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a case involving former President Donald Trump's eligibility to appear on Colorado's Republican primary ballot.
“This time, we must urge you to recuse yourself from any involvement in the case of Anderson v. Griswold, because your impartiality is reasonably questioned by substantial numbers of fair-minded members of the public, who believe you wife Virginia ('Ginni') Thomas’s substantial involvement in the events leading up to the January 6 insurrection, and the financial incentive it presents for your household if President Trump is re-elected, are disqualifying,” the lawmakers wrote.
“It is unthinkable that you could be impartial in deciding whether an event your wife personally organized qualifies as an ‘insurrection’ that would prevent someone from holding the office of President.”
Democratic Reps. Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania, Glenn Ivey of Maryland, Gerald Connolly of Virginia, Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Dan Goldman of New York also signed the letter.
But Thomas continues to face scrutiny for refusing to recuse himself from several other Jan. 6-related cases, including one involving whether Trump has presidential immunity from federal prosecution.
The Supreme Court last month denied special counsel Jack Smith’s request to step in ahead of the normal appeals process.
The original article contains 533 words, the summary contains 220 words. Saved 59%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Narrator: He didn’t.
Could we start a go fund me so we could pay him to vote in favor of democracy?
just give him a new pillow and he'll just fall asleep through it. if you tell him it costs a thousand dollars, he'll happily accept it.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
489 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19072 readers
4584 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.
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS