1162
submitted 1 month ago by Pips@lemmy.sdf.org to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 186 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This article is from July. Johnson has not allowed this near the floor and never will because hes a corrupt sack of fucked up rotten eggplants; even if he does, it will obviously fail on party line votes. Non story.

[-] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 110 points 1 month ago

It's a good reminder before a big election that one side is actively attempting to govern, while the other side is blocking any and all actions so as to curry more favor with their billionaire backers.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

Johnson has not allowed this near the floor and never will because hes a corrupt sack of fucked up rotten eggplants

There's a very good chance that Democrats retake the House after November. Any idea whether Hakkem Jefferies will allow this proposal to advance?

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 14 points 1 month ago

Knowing how absolutely fucking stupid our politicians are id imagine IF we win we'll suddenly hear a whole bunch about needing to heal and show solidarity or some such bullshit that will just equate to "we aren't going to do anything about Republican corruption."

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

I see you also lived through the 2009 congressional cycle.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 8 points 1 month ago

Indeed lol we're very good about being extra nice to our would be oppressors...

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

I’m waiting to read that since they didn’t have a code of conduct, how could they have known?

How could any suspect that accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in ~~bribes~~ gifts would present a conflict of interest?

[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago

Jeffries would have everything to gain by forcing the issue, and i would frankly expect him to. But unless a miracle happens in the Senate post-election, an actual conviction will of course not happen as Republicans will never sign on to get the 2/3rds majority there.

[-] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

If the Democrats can keep their Senate majority then they can have an actual trial for these impeachments, something that didn't happen for the Trump impeachments (since the Republicans had Senate control then.) There probably still won't be enough votes for the removal to actually happen, but it'll let the Democrats really rub the Republicans' noses in the corruption going on in the Supreme Court and make their vote to protect Thomas and Alito more damaging in the next election.

At any rate, Thomas and Alito are currently the two oldest justices on the court, and if Harris gets two terms then there's a good chance that one or both of them will be dead by the next time there's a GOP President. That, combined with some strategic retirements on behalf of some of the older Democratic appointees has a good chance of unfucking the court for a while.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dugmeup@lemmy.world 182 points 1 month ago

Good. It is a start..Won't get anywhere but it is a start of a conversation

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Why wouldn't it get anywhere?

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 59 points 1 month ago

In order to advance the measure, the Speaker of the House would have to allow it. He is an ally of the two. Then, once advanced, the House would have to vote to impeach, and the House is currently controlled by the gop, and they too are unlikely to impeach their allies.

So the chances of it getting anywhere are near-zero, for this year anyway. Next year could potentially be different.

[-] kinsnik@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago

honestly, even if the house is turned in november and they vote to impeach them, the next step is trial at the senate. it requires 2/3 of the votes, so they won't get convicted and removed

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

Yeah, fair point. A Senate trial would still be useful to publicly air all of the evidence though.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Thanks. I wonder why AOC is doing this now instead of waiting until after the elections when the House may (may) flip.

[-] Fuzzy_Dunlop@lemm.ee 30 points 1 month ago

So that everyone running for a House seat can get their position on record before the election, I suppose

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago

Politics. It's important that we keep this in the news cycle, so people remember why its important to work together to try to get these people thrown out. It also forces the gop to block the measures, which could potentially make them look like they are condoning corruption. Which they are.

Symbolism basically.

[-] Artyom@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

Kinda makes it sound like these judges are members of the party and can't be objective and therefore can't be judges then.

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 11 points 1 month ago

Republicans control the House and even if they didn't, there is nothing close to a majority vote of the House that want to impeach members of SCOTUS.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CatsGoMOW@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Why would it get anywhere?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

Because this article is from Wed 10 Jul 2024

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Subverb@lemmy.world 98 points 1 month ago

This election is so seriously fucked up that Dick Chaney and AOC are voting for the same candidate.

Weird timeline we're in.

[-] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 month ago

No, who are you calling a weird timeline? this timeline is extremely solid. It's a very solid timeline. When we're talking these kinds of numbers, then we tax countries when they ship stuff here, and they will not like it, but we can see how solid the timeline is...

I feel like I should have left out all punctuation in that paragraph.

[-] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago
[-] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago

Whoa there, let's keep it PG for the children.

-J.D. Vance

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

And also Added a bunch of random Capitalized Words for NO REASON.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 80 points 1 month ago

At least there's something. Agreed with sibling comment that nothing will come of it. But at least something is happening. The corruption is astronomical and a thumb in all of our eyes.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 33 points 1 month ago

Literally 0% chance to change for good if all that happens is bearing witness to corruption and wrongdoing.

This is doing something. It’s hitting on the root of so many problems which have arisen in the US since the corporate takeover of government began in 1978 in partnership with the Supreme Court. I applaud AOC for this!

[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 77 points 1 month ago
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 53 points 1 month ago

“Justice Thomas and Alito’s repeated failure over decades to disclose that they received millions of dollars in gifts from individuals with business before the court is explicitly against the law. And their refusal to recuse from the specific matters and cases before the court in which their benefactors and spouses are implicated represents nothing less than a constitutional crisis,” Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York, said in a statement.

Moderate Dems don't want to actually fix the SC.

They love complaining about it. And saying that's why they can't fix anything.

But they refuse to even bring up that we can fix it by impeaching the problematic ones or just expanding the court.

People say "if we do it, trump will do it" which is just insane to me because why the fuck would any republican not do something unless a Dem does it first?

[-] 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 67 points 1 month ago

This is literally AOC trying to impeach them, which isn't going to be successful in a republican controlled house anyway. It's more just for principle and show.

Court packing isn't really an option right now for the same reason...if dems get firm control of the house and senate then it would be possible. For those who don't know Manchin and Sinema are two "democratic" senators who won't abolish filibuster or expand the supreme court so the current 51 - 49 democrat control of the senate isn't real control either.

load more comments (18 replies)
[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 21 points 1 month ago

So annoying that Democrats propose something, the Republican majority opposes and entirely quashes it, and the "take" is that we should blame Democrats for not getting it done.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

See also, filibuster and gerrymandering.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
1162 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3633 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

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