1358
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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 possible
The 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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
They have to expand and term limit SCOTUS. Dilute his power, incentivize good behavior and force him out eventually
load more comments
(1 replies)
We've known this dude was a piece of shit since the Anita Hill trial in the 90's. This motherfucker has been corrupt since the start, he doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself, just like every other rich fuck in this country. So hes not the exception here by any means, he just didn't really make much of an effort to hide it.
He doesn't care, and none of the elite/handlers do, because it took 25 years for the blatant corruption to be exposed and make national headlines.
I could understand if it took a few years, but 20+ reinforces what most of us already know; journalism is a captured industry, and most "news" exists as a for-profit tool to manufacture consent.
Keep us all angry and afraid fighting with each other while the plutocracy consolidates more resources and power.
And since his wife was active in the plot to overthrow the government, it's a safe bet he was in the know as well.
I'm really hoping she's the unnamed "political advisor" that the special counsel is looking at to possibly charge.
So many good possibilities. I'd be happy with Trump's wife or any of his kids too.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I don’t understand how this isn’t a criminal matter. If nothing else, it violates the Ethics in Government Act. Is there no law against soliciting and accepting bribes?
BRIBES yes, but gifts cause he's a super special boy? Not at all.
But like really you can't fix busted to hell, the system is corrupt to the top and taking out one mouthpiece won't change that
The Supreme Court is the only arm of the federal judiciary that is not bound by a code of ethics.
I read that in the article and learned something new.
Apparently they are above the law.
I don’t understand how this isn’t a criminal matter. If nothing else, it violates the Ethics in Government Act. Is there no law against soliciting and accepting bribes?
This was discussed yesterday on one of the talking heads shows. The problem is that there's little to nothing in the act regarding enforcement or punishment. So basically, it comes down to this:
EIGA: Don't accept bribes. Bribes are bad.
Thomas: Nah, I'll take them anyway. What are you going to do about it.
EIGA: .....
Even if he were to be found guilty of a crime, it would be up to Congress to enforce the Constitutional provision about being in good standing. Which puts us right back to where we are now: If congress were willing to do that, they'd already be doing it and we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
He should not be allowed to resign.
He should be censured, impeached, stripped of title and power, then replaced....and ultimately charged and tried.
Fuck corrupt politicians, in the ass, with a cactus
Yeah, and corrupt judges
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'd prefer to fuck them with a dildo laden with fishing hooks, but to each their own.
load more comments
(1 replies)
As if this piece of shit would ever resign. He has immense power. He loves it. He'll never give it up. And he revels in our inability to do fuck-all about it.
Is there any corner of American politics and business that isn't corrupt?
We don't use that word. Corruption and bribery sounds icky.
Try lobbying instead.
Well, there's Bernie Sanders and...
Well, there's Bernie Sanders.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Nope, all working as designed.
At least lock up his sedition wife.
There really does need to be additional checks on Supreme Court Justices, because Congress clearly isn't doing its job. Both the Executive and the Legislative branches are directly answerable to voters, yet the Judicial branch is strangely absent from that ongoing check on their power. I get that we don't want Supreme Court Justices having to campaign for their position, but at the same time, voters should have some direct say in who gets to stay. We clearly had at least two unqualified justices added to the Court under Trump that should not be there.
In the history of the Supreme Court, only one Judge has actually been impeached, but wasn't removed. Another ended up resigning after impeachment was threatened, but that's likely when people actually had a sense of shame and resigned when they were caught doing something wrong. We're at a point now though where one part will simply deny reality and/or any wrong-doing, claim it's just the other side being political, and ignore it.
So calling for him to resign is just sort of a nice-to-say thing I guess, at least it's on record that somebody said it, but it will ultimately go nowhere.
My desired state is that every governmental position at the senior level is subject to voter recall regardless of whether they are appointed or elected. All of them. I would still expect a high bar to be met to trigger that recall threshold, but the people should ALWAYS be the final say on those in power over them.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Fuck this guy.
If it's all above board why didn't he declare it all when the first gift was revealed?
Motherfucker doesn’t care. Fuck that guy and his wife. Fuck
Traitors, both he and his wife.
I’ve given up on being bothered by this disaster of a political system. Now, it’s time to just sit back and laugh at all the futile attempts to reign in the corruption and criminal acts of this absolutely repugnant political party.
Are those judges above the law? What a weird system.
No, but about half of the Senate isn't going to hold him accountable.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
1358 points (98.8% liked)
politics
19246 readers
3603 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