this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
263 points (98.9% liked)

politics

18992 readers
2766 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hypnoton@discuss.online 46 points 3 months ago (2 children)

There are no risks and no downsides to the behavior of the SCOTUS judges, starting but not ending with Clarence Thomas.

Ask yourself, if you did some paperwork and got massive financial rewards and zero risks, zero downsides, would you do it again? Would you do twice as much of it?

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well, they run the risk of catching some high velocity lead poisoning if they keep this shit up too much longer.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not likely. The right is far more likely to assassinate a judge.

There are a lot of armed liberals and progressives. They’re just a lot quieter about it.

[–] finley@lemm.ee 39 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

By that, they mean that everyone will freak out as SCOTUS violates all of the “ethics” that they clearly no longer have while continuing to do absolutely nothing about it.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

There is not currently a peaceful solution to this problem. The public is scared to break the seal on violence, and I'm not sure the left will ever break such a seal.

Anything shy of an overwhelming trifecta in November will be a loss, as we will need that leverage to fix this broken court.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago (2 children)

And you can bet that there's a hell of a lot more we don't know about.

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

kavanaugh with a few 100k for the baseball ticket stuff, right?

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Does it count if before he became one

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Is it a gratuity?

[–] beejboytyson@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

I'm surprised that it's only 4 mil to sellout a country.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago

Supreme Court ethics remain at center stage

So the stage is completely empty.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Serious question: can we do a kickstarter with the express purpose of outright bribing the Supreme Court justices who are clearly bribable to be, like, not massive antidemocratic fascist assholes? It might work for Thomas, but it also could potentially work for Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Roberts.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, that’s illegal. You have to do the kickstarter after the decision comes out

[–] BmeBenji@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago

They do? I thought we were still caught up ragging on Biden for being born in 1942.