66
And we should all listen to the SCOTUS justice who committed perjury to be confirmed.
Why are you making this political?
That's as stupid as saying the Senate is an institution of law, not politics.
It's both, you disingenuous dumbfuck.
If it's not an institution of politics, then stop inserting your politics into it, you tool.
In a democratic society everything is political. What beer you drank at lunch is a political question. The Supreme Court is and has always been a political institution whether we or they claim it is or isn't.
He also said that when he joined the court, he was surprised by the amount of time the justices spent together. He said he estimated they probably eat lunch together about 65 times a year, adding, “And the rule at lunch is you can’t talk about work.”
“It’s a good rule,” he continued. “It builds relationships and friendships and then when we have tough cases — and we only really have tough cases — you have a reservoir of good will toward each of the other people.”
And yet there are a striking number of high profile cases decided on a party line 6/3 vote. They can tout the supposed impartiality of the court all they like, but the numbers show otherwise.
Toss in the refusal to have a hearing on Garland with nearly a year left of Obama's term, then rushing Kavanaugh in, and of course changing tune when RBG died at the end of Trump's term to claim it was important to seat someone right away where both politcally motivated. Had none of the above nonsense happened the slant of the court would be much different now.
How many of those 65 lunches are on a private yacht belonging to one of the justices' donors?
Thos lunches are off the books.
I had a state supreme court justice do me a solid one time. I brought her office staff donuts as a thank you and she refused them to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
These justices taking lavish vacations know exactly what they are doing.
Just remember that nearly the whole court came together in a kumbaya moment to screw unions. 8-1 decision, with Jackson being the sole dissenter.
Never mind the nonsense that he spouts, the very existence of this crying beer baby as a supreme court judge is a mockery of the institution itself.
I guess that’s how you got that job, eh Kav? All that supposed knowledge of law you have that we’re still waiting for proof of. Your politics had nothing to do with it, right? 🙄
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
66 points (94.6% liked)
politics
19102 readers
3526 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