500

Clarence Thomas Secretly Participated in Koch Network Donor Events (www.propublica.org)

submitted 1 year ago by tintory@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 44 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 65 points 1 year ago

Imagine the outcry if instead this was a liberal justice at a Soros donor event. You'd have so many antisemitic dog whistles that it would attract every canine in the tristate area.

I really don't understand how anyone who likes logical consistency can tolerate Republicans. The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

[-] relevants@feddit.de 33 points 1 year ago

anyone who likes logical consistency

That's the neat part, they don't.

[-] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago

... An "in group" that is protected by laws but not bound by them and an "out group" that is bound by the laws but not protected by them.

This is a (paraphrased) description of the conservative world-view that I saw the other day (sorry I don't remember who to attribute) here on Lemmy. Anyway it sure seems to track with their hypocrisy.

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.one 7 points 1 year ago

Wilhoit's Law

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect

Francis M. Wilhoit

[-] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago

Thank you for your service

[-] ericisshort@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Can anyone explain what “to wit” means in this instance?

[-] Octavio@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It’s the same as saying “namely”, or “that is to say”. In this instance it means, “and that one proposition is..”

[-] ericisshort@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Thank you kindly

[-] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The missing bit of context to make it logically consistent is that they think we all live in a hierarchy (social, class, gender, race etc) in which the rules apply differently to folks lower in it than they do to folks above them.

If you accept that as your premise, everything about their behavior is logically consistent- except for the part about inventing a magical hierarchy that only exists in their agreement that it does, in which they are your superiors and it is their right to tell you what to do but never vice-versa.

If you look at it in this light, when they howl at democrats for breaking rules they don't think apply to republicans, they aren't invoking anything like a set of shared rules applying to everyone, they're invoking the hierarchy and they think they're putting people in their rightful places (never mind that it's colossally arrogant and entitled to assume you're here to rule over your inferiors when there's no agreement that anyone here is anyone's superior)

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

There always has to be a bigger fish

I recommend the youtube series "The Alt-Right Playbook"

It suddenly makes Conservative Ideology make sense, not in that it's a good ideology mind you, but it makes it easy to understand why they are the way they are... What goes through their heads...

They see the world very differently from the rest of us.

I hate having to resort to "Us/Them", but they made the game that way, not us..... Yes I'm aware of the irony of that statement.

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

To add to this, the GOP are the smart ones who know how to acquire power. The capability to gain the office is what qualifies them for it.

Do you want the smart people to lead, or do you want the ones who wring their hands about the rules?

My response to this would be the Douglas Adams idea, anyone who wants to lead that badly should in no way be allowed to do so.

[-] Danc4498@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

As long as I’ve paid attention to politics, republicans have been massive hypocrites and have not give a damn when called out.

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's why "They go low, we go high" has always been a joke and I was shocked when Obama was serious and not just "saying that"... That's the kind of naivety that we don't need in a battle against Right Wing Fascists

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Same really

[-] evatronic@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

It's because in the heavily divided Senate, there is no way he would be removed, and failing to remove him after impeachment would be taken as tacit approval of his corruption.

Democrats are just not touching that with a ten foot pole.

[-] violetraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

All someone has to do if there's any backlash is to say "both sides" and people will immediately dismiss it.

[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago

Big fucking surprise. The SC is illegitimate and hopelessly corrupt.

[-] matchphoenix@feddit.uk 11 points 1 year ago

“I am the Senate”

-Justice Sheev Alito

[-] Uniquitous@lemmy.one 11 points 1 year ago

I was just reading an article yesterday that basically said, the more this court reveals itself to be a partisan tool, the more likely it is that its rulings will be disregarded. After all, the court has no enforcement power. All it can do is render its opinion.

[-] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago

Which will be another nail in the coffin of our Republic.

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

At this point, that would be a good thing... Poor fellow's been rotting for awhile.

[-] Uniquitous@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

I don't think it will so much be the death of the republic as it will be an evolution. Circumstances change. People and institutions adapt.

[-] TheJims@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

He needs to permanently recuse himself from every case ever. This guy is a fucking mockery of the American Justice System.

[-] lobut@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

He won't because he knows he's hurting the libs. Man this is extremely depressing.

[-] ericisshort@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Surprise appearance from Ken Burns

[-] swiffswaffplop@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Ken Burns: Corruption. It’s a 12 part series that’s 150 hrs long.

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

David Koch funds a lot of PBS shows so I guess it makes sense he’d have to schmooze but you’d also think Ken Burns, of all the world’s documentarians, would be able to find funding without much effort.

[-] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

That’s no secret, he’s a member of that whole party. I’d be actually surprised if someone proved he didn’t.

[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

At some point the shit mountain has to get so big impeaching him is the only option. Right?

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I stopped waiting for King Louie to "Say the thing" that gets his head lopped off...

For the record I'm speaking in metaphor, this is in no way a threat or call to arms.

[-] TheJims@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

There will never be legitimacy with him on the bench.

[-] IamRoot@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

It is time for the executive and legislative branches to act. They can remove him.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Team Red controls the house, and the house would have to be the body to start impeachment hearings. Why would Team Red remove a judge who is being bribed by Ream Red backers and decides cases in favor of Team Red?

The US "checks and balances" system was never designed to deal with this kind of problem.

[-] IamRoot@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

The executive and legislative branches can act.

The House has a narrow margin and the rules of the house are subject to change. The “Speaker” is weak and that can be used a leverage.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

The executive can't do anything. Half the legislative branch is controlled by Team Red. Team Red would have to be willing to hand a loss to Team Red for there to be any accountability. A weak leader is going to be much less willing than a strong leader to hand a loss to Team Red because it would be the end of his leadership, so without an election handing over control of 2/3 of the government to Team Blue, there can be no accountability.

And, even then, with the majorities required for impeachment and removal, you'd have to convince a significant fraction of Team Red to defect and take a loss, when they can avoid a loss by just holding the line.

The US system's checks and balances are broken and unable to deal with this scenario.

[-] IamRoot@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Ok.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 0 points 1 year ago

Yes, it was.

That's why they made it easy to pack the court.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Not setting a limit on the number of Supreme Court judges was an oversight, not a clever trick they came up with to allow the executive to collude with the senate to put an unlimited number of judges on the Supreme Court.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 1 year ago

No, it wasn't. They were not stupid, and this is really gonna blow your mind:

They can also reduce the number of judges instead of just letting it baloon infinitely.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, but you can't remove a judge except by impeachment. So, if you said the supreme court was now 3 judges you'd effectively be getting rid of judges without using impeachment. Whether that's legal or not would probably be decided in court, which would get challenged all the way up to... the supreme court.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 1 year ago

The law is clear, a Justice can only be removed through impeachment. If Congress were to reduce the total number of seats as has happened a few times historically there simply would not be a new Justice appointed after one passes or resigns.

this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023

500 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19107 readers

2828 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

• 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