1353
‘Corrupt as hell’: Clarence Thomas faces fresh calls to resign after more billionaire gifts revealed
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
1353 points (98.8% liked)
politics
19126 readers
2294 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They can call for him to resign all they want. He won't. And he doesn't have to. We have a SCOTUS who is accountable to no one and can get away with anything. They're like the Mullahs of Iran.
I'm not American, so maybe that's a stupid question, but is there really nothing the rest of the government can do about it?
Maybe if congress got its shit together they could impeach him, but that won't happen.
Bingo. Each branch is supposed to act as a check on the power of the other two, but the current Congress would rather use its impeachment power to go after Hunter Biden - excuse me, Joe Biden - for being a Democrat.
By all rights, Thomas should have earned immediate impeachment and removal the moment his frequent acceptance of bribes came to light. But bribery is no scandal for Republicans anymore. For most of their supporters, literally the only crime a Republican can commit is agreeing with a Democrat on anything.
This is Hunter Biden's America, smh
Not as long as Democrats' voters stay home because "both parties are the same" and Republicans ' voters turn out in droves.
Stop electing Republicans and you'll see a lot of problems solved.
I think you really overestimate the "both parties are the same" group/impact. The Dems need to do more to capture and inspire votes. Stop blaming people for not voting for them. You're supposed to earn their vote with good policy. It's not good enough to just be not as shite as the republicans.
I don't think they are under-estimating, or even close. It's like taking a solid b student and grading them next to the kid eating paint chips and torturing small animals and pretending it's the same. Even in modern times, look at economic accomplishments of this admin, legislative accomplishments, etc. Fighting for things like a higher min wage (though it failed.)
Fuck no. Every time in my life we've voted in Republicans it's led to one catastrophe or another. Sure you can make an argument that Dems need to be pushed to the left, but the choices are between:
a) the party who isn't improving your life fast enough
b) the party these days that are literal fascists responsible for multiple financial collapses at this point, millions dead from wars they start, failure to manage a pandemic, extreme wealth concentration, that is looking at our planet on fire and still doesn't meaningfully acknowledge that our policy is causing it. Book bans, loss of bodily autonomy for half of the country, destroying education, ensuring discrimination in law, bringing back child labor.
If you're voting republican in 2023 or not voting democrat, you're a sociopath, billionaire (whoops said the same thing twice), or a fucking moron*. There is no path to a more progressive country that comes through allowing fascists to burn it all down.
* I suppose I could more charitably say "extremely, profoundly ignorant in a way that almost has to be a choice at this point."
You heard it here folks, if you have any principle and vote green then you're scum to this person and a sociopath.
Hope you like gagging on the dick of your corporate lobbied leaders. What a detestable way to interact with and view the rest of the world. I hate the republican party more than most but your brand of condescending neo-liberal piousness comes in close second.
You literally are shitting on everyone who isn't already voting for your party in this comment and wonder why the Dems hemorrhage votes.
How about instead of spitting in the eyes of those more progressive or less informed than yourself you might wanna look at the glass house you're sitting in.
Maybe there's a little more nuance than your beyond idiotic reduction of the situation.
Edit: Oh yeah and fuck right off with that pathetic, "oh good little house elf will appreciate the meagre left wing policy. Change doesn't come overnight, I must love the piecemeal changes and accept that this is just how it is." We'd still have segregation and women wouldn't vote if history was made of spineless people like you.
Lol, I guess I should have led with "extremely, profoundly ignorant in a way that almost has to be a choice at this point” for all of the reading comprehension in this post.
Aside from the fact that I am far more left than the democratic party and your base assumption about me and the point of my post is woefully far off, I would really love some answer to a very basic question:
What has the effect been for left/progressive policy from sitting out elections or voting for third party/independents?
While left/progressives sit over here and go "oh I don't like this candidate because they voted for this policy in '92 that was bad for beluga whales" the right will line up and dutifully vote for a rapist that tried to overthrow democracy as long as they have an R next to their name.
But yeah, vote your principles! Go out there and vote for the green candidate! After all, look at how well that went towards advancing green principles - The party promotes green politics, specifically environmentalism; nonviolence; social justice; participatory democracy; grassroots democracy; anti-war; anti-racism; libertarian socialism and eco-socialism. All that got so much better thanks to the idealists who thought Hillary was a little too corporate or had a little too much resting bitch face.
You talk about misrepresenting views and then you pull this out your arse:
How about Citizens United? How about Glass Steagall? How about the drug war? How about police reform, healthcare, corporate taxes. I could go on and on.
I feel like my analysis is pretty apropo considering how you're not acknowledging the massive blind spot in issues that most of the USA agree on. And fuck off with picking out the worst perspectives picked out from your dissenters.
You don't think I can pick out a list of headlines for the democratic party which has an even worse history than the greens! You don't think you make some concessions to vote for them?
That's the thing for me though, you're so condescending and write off everyone else but those who toe the line for your team. You can't even approach the conversation with the honest position that there's good people who can disagree politically with you. Exuding the fart sniffing ego that has turned so many of the working class away from the democrats.
Okay.
How do you propose Democrats accomplish things while stonewalled by Republicans?
I mean there's a thousand different executive actions Biden could've taken at this point? Maybe a better platform to run on that inspires hope a bit better. Christ, I really don't understand the ball-licking of these neo-liberal politicians like they're gods gift. Are you all out of your minds?
Absolutely anything to inspire better than this limp dicked nonsense. It's a bunch of corporatist twats bowing to company interests at every turn.
I don't think the Dems have the guts to impeach a SCOTUS justice even if they got in power.
Looking at what a fully Democratic state government has done in Michigan already from a single election cycle, I think you're wrong. As soon as Republicans get out of office good things can start to happen.
Congress getting their shit together or hell freezes over - what is more likely?
Ironically, in an attempt to make SCOTUS as non-political as possible, our Constitution sets a very high threshhold for removal of a sitting federal judge. You need 67 out of 100 Senators to vote for removal. Our senate is roughly 50/50 split, give or take a couple of people, divided almost evenly between the two parties. And those parties are so deeply divided that it's all but impossible to get up to the 67 people needed to remove a judge, making the threat of impeachment toothless. Any Republican right now who would side with Democrats to remove a Republican judge would be committing political suicide.
In other words, yes, Clarence Thomas can continue to receive bribes with literal impunity. The only other non-partisan methods of removing him are referral to our Department of Justice for a criminal inquiry. But our current leader of the DOJ is a spineless coward afraid of his own shadow, and even if he were to act, the entire process of investigation, charges, trial, impeachment, and removal would take so long that he'd likely be dead of old age before he was removed.
to make SCOTUS as non-political as possibleThe most ironic thing about this phrase is the fact that judges have to say which party they root for.
There are checks and balances. They only work when the government operates in good faith.
In theory they can do something about it but because in America there's only 2 parties in power, with one parry's identity being "opposing the other party no matter what" rather than serving the people of the country, they'll never reach the consensus necessary to actually remove the judge.
In most countries there's multiple parties in power so negotiation is typically mandatory and a consensus for action can often be found. In the US that's virtually impossible because the 2 parties hate each other and there's no other alternative.
Congress could impeach him in a hot second, if most of them weren't either on his side, or doing the same thing.
They have to expand and term limit SCOTUS. Dilute his power, incentivize good behavior and force him out eventually
You might be underselling Iran. Even the Supreme Leader can theoretically be removed from office, in the same sense that Thomas can theoretically be removed.