Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
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
Garland will never do it. It would look political. And as everyone knows, not looking political is more important to Gutless Garland than saving democracy
It'd be faster to just execute him...Biden, I'm looking at you. What, with all your newly appointed powers - thanks SCOTUS!
I hate to say it, but Seal Team Sixing SCOTUS justices until the survivors reconsider their decision is pretty much the only way to undo the United States' recent transformation into a monarchy.
Eh, I would just seal team the six and appoint people who aren’t lunatics right away. I would have done it on day one of having the power
Faster than molasses this time, OK General Garland?
Unless there are 17 senators willing to cross party lines to actually remove him from office, any investigation will be an elaborate waste of time. His corruption is already documented. Either you have the votes to remove or you don't.
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for getting rid of both Thomas and Alito. But I'm not in favor of wasting yet more taxpayer money holding hearings to "investigate" something we already know already and that has a zero percent chance of leading to removal from the bench, or even any meaningful change.
If Thomas didn't pay his taxes, he can be convicted and punished as the law stipulates. He just doesn't lose his job without impeachment. Impeachment is political.
Even if the Senate voted unanimously to remove him, the Supreme Court would just rule it unconstitutional.
The only thing dumber than Obama naming Garland as SC to prove a point. Was Biden actually fucking appointing him to this position...
We're fighting literally fascists with people actually doing "both sides" bullshit where they pretend the right is rational and should be treated fairly
That's not how you fight fascism, that's how you lose to it. By pretending that they're arguing in good faith.
I'm tired of the only option against the interlorant being tolerance.
We need our government to take this shit seriously, it's not exactly new problems
Why are we bothering to pretend that Garland is gonna do something effective?
His DOJ just let Boeing off the hook.
Nothing will come of this.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Washington — A pair of Senate Democrats have asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to look into whether Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas violated any federal tax or ethics laws when he accepted travel and lodging from wealthy benefactors.
Senate Democrats have been investigating ethics practices at the Supreme Court in the wake of news articles detailing travel Thomas accepted from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, which he did not disclose on his financial reports.
The conservative justice has maintained that he did not believe he was required to report the trips under rules regarding personal hospitality, but pledged to comply with new disclosure guidelines from the Judicial Conference issued last March.
Thomas formally reported two trips he took with Crow in July 2019 — to Bali, Indonesia, and a private club in Monte Rio, California — on his latest financial disclosure filed in May.
The justice's lawyer told Wyden and Whitehouse in a letter in January that the Thomas and his wife "made all payments to Mr. Welters on a regular basis until the terms of the agreement were satisfied in full.
Sen. Dick Durbin, the panel's chairman, attempted last month to unanimously pass legislation that would require the Supreme Court to adopt binding ethics rules, but it was blocked by Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican.
The original article contains 836 words, the summary contains 222 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!