For years I bent over backward to give Thomas the benefit of the doubt. I even researched his jurisprudence especially where it concerned civil rights.
Turned out I was wasting my time. Motherfucker was just corrupt.
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
722 points (98.8% liked)
politics
19148 readers
1950 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
For years I bent over backward to give Thomas the benefit of the doubt.
Why though?
We used to try to think that Supreme Court justices took their lifetime appointments and unique place in our democracy seriously. Turns out, they’re corrupt asshole politicians like all the rest. At least on the Republican side.
I even researched his jurisprudence especially where it concerned civil rights.
Because they're not class conscious and made it a race thing. While completely overlooking Anita Hill's story.
I worked for a city government in sewer automation inspections and I wouldn’t take a coffee from contractors because I wanted it crystal clear who I worked for. We can be friendly but if you go off spec then that’s the end of the conversation.
How the fuck this was ever allowed is shocking.
Conservatives have a very… interesting idea of what morality is, which is more than a bit ironic considering they see themselves as extremely moral and "good" people
When your mindset is that everything you do is good and everything everyone else does is bad, it's pretty easy to be a good person.
This is it entirely, good people do good things, and they determine if they're good people by how much they agree with them.
They have the whole thing backwards; normal people determine if someone is good by the morality of their behavior, and they can't comprehend this.
A while back, evolution was under attack, I think it still is ... regardless ... Kenneth Miller talks about the root of these in his take down of intelligent design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU&t=509s
We had a guy from the Navy come to our shop to inspect our product. He wouldn't even let me go grab him a burger from McDonald's.
Was he from the Navy or from the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps? We have had a couple of FDA auditors from the USHSCC and they were former Naval officers working on a second retirement. They were nice enough when you prove you are open but they absolutely will not accept anything but water. Maybe coffee.
LOL, no, he stopped his inspection and went to McD's with me and saved a receipt for his cheeseburger.
I had a job fixing state owned equipment and I was hesitant to take a damn bottle of water offered on a hot day case someone thought it was a bribe.
I hope they can get some reforms through, take some power away from the Republicans who own justices. I don't have a lot of hope, but maybe this time there's cause for some?
There will be no reforms before the election, for sure. The Republicans control the House and will not allow any. They like it this way.
After the election? Well, if Harris wins and we can give the Democrats control of the House and keep the Senate, then maybe? But without 50 seats in the Senate, they won't be able to get anything through unless they do away with the filibuster.
It's what has me iffy on them threatening civil war. On the one hand, I don't want to see people die. On the other hand, if it happens and is swiftly put down, then it won't matter what the states who participated on the losing side say - That's flat out treason, so they would HAVE to capitulate to the terms of the winners with said terms at least including, "Every politician that was for it being removed, banned from politics, thrown in jail, and lots of reform done to prevent these fucks from ever being able to lock up the political process again"
i feel like "reform" isn't strong enough of a word for what needs to be done with the supreme court. "fucking overhaul" sounds closer
It needs "reform" as in it needs to be completely dismantled and re-formed with all new justices.
with term limits. i don't know if i'll ever forgive RBG, no matter how much respect i had
If not term limits, a mandatory retirement age
Mandatory retirement age for all public officials would be nice. Tag it to mean life expectancy, -10 years.
It would incentivize politicians to take care of the population in the long term.
I do especially like the idea of basing it on average life expectancy; if they want to hold on to power, they'll have to try and make people live longer. Biggest bang for their buck will be universal healthcare
Funny, because to me the meaning of reform can be as serious as using the guillotine.
Reform is when minor adjustments and changes are not enough. Reform is a complete overhaul.
YES